Is the miracle of life not enough?

thebaldsoprano

Hi

Firstly, my name is thebaldsoprano and I'm an agnostic. Also an ex Catholic.

Now to my question, is the fact that out of all the extremities of the universe, we manage to find ourselves on this nice planet spinning around the Sun experiencing something as wonderful as life not a miracle enough in itself?

What need is there (if at all) for further miracles such as God sending a messenger to Earth and the like?

I can understand the need to believe in a nice God when going through dark times, but chatting things through with friends seems to be a much better option.

I'd very much appreciate it if people wouldn't use arguments like "the Bible says so, so it must be right", if it works for you, great, but it doesn't do the trick for me. Just after running into similar problems with some atheist fundamentalists on a different forum

Flamed Diving

This person is a troll. Don't waste your time.

Fanny Cradock

Enough for what?

I'm not being ratty. It's just that I have no idea what answer you are seeking from Christians. If there is a God - and when posting on the Christianity forum you must assume that we are talking about a Christian God - then no, it's not enough.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What need is there (if at all) for further miracles such as God sending a messenger to Earth and the like?

When you say 'messenger' I assume you are referring to Jesus.

Yes. There was most certainly a need for Him. Again, without meaning to be harsh, if you don't understand the significance of what He did for us then you better start brushing up on the single most important event in Christianity, dare I say humanity.

thebaldsoprano

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Enough for what?

This is a damn good question. I guess enough to live our lives as best we can, be nice to each other and all that. Sorry, this is vague - nursing dreadful hangover at the moment and I'll happily try and clarify this later if you'd like.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's just that I have no idea what answer you are seeking from Christians.

Just exploring my own views and beliefs and seeing where they fit in relation to others. Not really expecting any answer as such.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If there is a God - and when posting on the Christianity forum you must assume that we are talking about a Christian God - then no, it's not enough.

Fair enough, my knowledge of the Christian God is well rusty at this point, but I'll do my best.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

When you say 'messenger' I assume you are referring to Jesus.

Aye.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes. There was most certainly a need for Him.

I should probably add at this point that I believe people to be basically good natured, and basically sin (I prefer the term 'mistake' ) out of being a little short sighted/hot headed/whatever, but that's all part of being human.

I've yet to come across anyone who's ever acted out of pure malice, hopefully it'll remain that way...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, without meaning to be harsh, if you don't understand the significance of what He did for us then you better start brushing up on the single most important event in Christianity, dare I say humanity.

You've unfortunately got a very good point here. After being brought up a Catholic it'd be nice to have a good understanding of Christianity even if I don't agree with it.

The only part of the Bible I'm even vaguely familiar with is the four Gospels. What I got from reading these is that Jesus was a very cool chap indeed and we'd all do well to try and follow his example. However, there have been other such people around, Mahatma Ghandi also gave us an amazing example to at least try and follow.

I think the lives these type of people led are more than enough in themselves, and, for me, going beyond that would seem unnecessary.

Fanny Cradock

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I should probably add at this point that I believe people to be basically good natured.... I've yet to come across anyone who's ever acted out of pure malice, hopefully it'll remain that way

As do I. However, you only have to look at the news of recent days to see a man like Karadzic who did act out of malice, and did so with a brutal disregard for life. Given that such brutality is hardly a once off event, you wonder if this type of thing is then a clear indictment against man, evidence of his darker nature; a thing Christians would refer to as sin.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

The only part of the Bible I'm even vaguely familiar with is the four Gospels. What I got from reading these is that Jesus was a very cool chap indeed and we'd all do well to try and follow his example. However, there have been other such people around, Mahatma Ghandi also gave us an amazing example to at least try and follow.

It's a good place to start. Probably the best, IMO.

Anyway, the point you make about Ghandi would seem like as good a time as any to mention a quote from C. S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity. But before the quote is pasted, let me explain why it I find it of such relevance to your example. The reason is because of one of the most obvious differences between Jesus and Ghandi: Jesus claimed to be God, Ghandi did not. Given the claims to divinity that Jesus made, it leave people with little in the way of wiggle room when reading his words.

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice.

Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I think the lives these type of people led are more than enough in themselves, and, for me, going beyond that would seem unnecessary.

It's not about whether it seems necessary or not. It might seem unnecessary to evacuate the office when the fire alarm goes off because all the other times it was a drill. The question is whether it is necessary. You'll most likely only get one type of answer from a Christian - Yes.

As Christians we (in large) believe that good deeds are not enough. Why? Well, if God is indeed entirely holy and entirely good, then nothing short of us being exactly the same - perfectly holy and perfectly good - will cut the mustard. The smallest imperfection means we fail the quality control test. And like any reject on a factory floor, there is a loss made in earnings and ultimately a price to pay.

To summarise, if you accept that sin (or evil) is the absolute antithesis to God's goodness (and you may not), it then is not a question of degrees of goodness on our part - like some sort of metaphysical scales that weigh up the good v bad in your life; it is an 'all or nothing' situation. Fortunately, through Jesus, we have someone who paid the price. And though this doesn't mean that Christians embody more holiness or goodness than Joe Heathen, it means that are debts are paid.

I hope this helps in explaining a little of what Christians (in large) believe. If you are at all interested in further reading, you may want to pick up a copy of the book I previously mentioned: Mere Christianity.

thebaldsoprano

You gave me a bit to think about

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As do I. However, you only have to look at the news of recent days to see a man like Karadzic who did act out of malice, and did so with a brutal disregard for life. Given that such brutality is hardly a once off event, you wonder if this type of thing is then a clear indictment against man, evidence of his darker nature; a thing Christians would refer to as sin.

This is a tough one. Going on very little here, since Hitler and Stalin are the only two such figures I know anything about and my knowledge of psychology is redimentary - but I'd argue that they were severely mentally ill.

Their actions were never likely to make them happy - Hitler needed a daily cocktail of psychotropic drugs to keep him going, considered suicide multiple times and in the end followed through with the act.

Stalin lived the last few years of his life in a state of paranoid delusion. He saw conspiracies everywhere and trusted no one.

How the blazes they got followers completely baffles me though. One book on my slightly overly optimistic reading list that may shed some light on the subject is:

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil by Phil Zimbardo.

He's the psychologist who ran the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment and also acted as an expert witness at the Abu Gharib investigations.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a good place to start. Probably the best, IMO.

Yeah, I've heard that before alright. Looks like they're also the easiest to read

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, the point you make about Ghandi would seem like as good a time as any to mention a quote from C. S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity. But before...

Very nicely put. It is black and white though and life is a lot more about shades of gray. If it were the case that we were born into a perfect world with no reason to sin and were told 'keep it up or get out' I could probably accept this - but just thinking about it now, this kind of did happen in the Garden of Eden from the Book of Genesis.

The Bible is something I'll likely never take as an article of faith though.

Re Ghandi, taking a bit of a polemic line here, but he started out like the rest of us with the same problems and issues and I dunno about perfection, but he certainly came as close to it as any human is likely to.

Given that the Christian God is a good and loving God, casting someone like Ghandi out on the factory floor because he chose not to believe in Jesus would seem somewhat harsh indeed. Would this not leave open the possibility that it mightn't be necessary to believe in Jesus and there may be other paths? And maybe even some hope for us agnostics

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I hope this helps in explaining a little of what Christians (in large) believe. If you are at all interested in further reading, you may want to pick up a copy of the book I previously mentioned: Mere Christianity.

It certainly did and I am interested in learning more, up to a point.
Any book by yer man Chesterton is somewhere on my reading list and I know he wrote about Christianity aswell, if you (or anyone else reading) could recommend something it'd be a good chance to kill two birds with the one stone and very much appreciated.

Failing that, I'll happily check out any book by someone who wrote 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' the rest of his books pretty much have to be cool

PDN

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

This is a tough one. Going on very little here, since Hitler and Stalin are the only two such figures I know anything about and my knowledge of psychology is redimentary - but I'd argue that they were severely mentally ill.

Their actions were never likely to make them happy - Hitler needed a daily cocktail of psychotropic drugs to keep him going, considered suicide multiple times and in the end followed through with the act.

Stalin lived the last few years of his life in a state of paranoid delusion. He saw conspiracies everywhere and trusted no one.

How the blazes they got followers completely baffles me though. One book on my slightly overly optimistic reading list that may shed some light on the subject is:

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil by Phil Zimbardo.

He's the psychologist who ran the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment and also acted as an expert witness at the Abu Gharib investigations.

I don't think that you need to go so far as Hitler or Stalin to see evil in action in human nature. So-called 'good' people turn their hands to hurting each other remarkably easily - even as children. One book to add to your reading list without getting into heavy theology would be William Golding's The Lord of the Flies (you may have read it already - it is often required reading for schools in English).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So-called 'good' people turn their hands to hurting each other remarkably easily - even as children. One book to add to your reading list without getting into heavy theology would be William Golding's The Lord of the Flies [...].

One needn't reach for lurid and fictionalized accounts of naughty boys to understand that people can go bad real fast.

On the contrary, reality itself can tell just as a good story, while actually being true as well, and I heartily endorse TBS's recommendation of Philip Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how Good People Turn Evil" which, as he says, recounts exactly what happened during Zimbardo's ground-breaking and infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in which the unhappy power of situation, authority, regulatory capture and much else was explored over six hot days in 1971.

Latchy

There are no atheists in a life boat .

MrPudding

latchyco wrote: »

There are no atheists in a life boat .

How do you know?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

It's because all atheists have an inherent fear of life boats. Just like vampires have an inherent fear of the crucifix.

Now be gone atheist. I cast thee out!

Zombrex

latchyco wrote: »

There are no atheists in a life boat .

Isn't that supposed to be fox holes?

Latchy

MrPudding wrote: »

How do you know?

MrP

they all stayed on board the titanic when it sunk ...didnt they ?

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that supposed to be fox holes?

It could be anywere at any given moement in time when we fear we might suddenly be coming closer to our deaths ,although the atheiest will put his survival down to luck which he is entitled to do so

thebaldsoprano

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's because all atheists have an inherent fear of life boats. Just like vampires have an inherent fear of the crucifix.

Now be gone atheist. I cast thee out!

And agnostics aren't sure if they have an inherent fear of life boats

JoeB-

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As do I. However, you only have to look at the news of recent days to see a man like Karadzic who did act out of malice, and did so with a brutal disregard for life. Given that such brutality is hardly a once off event, you wonder if this type of thing is then a clear indictment against man, evidence of his darker nature; a thing Christians would refer to as sin.

I would view bad people and actions as being evidence that we live in a imperfect world, that we have evolved and it is evidence against a caretaker creator 'perfect' god whose wilful actions resulted in the evil we experience. Before God we are led to believe there was no evil, now there is evil... so from where did it arise?


Your quote from C.S.Lewis, 'Liar, Lunatic or Lord' is interesting. He left out 'mistaken',....

Jesus may have known he wasn't God and Lied...
He may have been the Lord although I wouldn't expect the lord to behave as he did.
He may have thought he was god but wasn't, so a Lunatic. This would be similar to the 100's of people who are probably living in mental instituitions today who think they are God or Napaleon.
Now 'mistaken' is interesting because it is how religious believers could be described.. believers don't like being called 'delusional' although that is the correct word in general to use of people who have a view of the world that is inconsistent with reality or is even self-inconsistent.
So there shouldn't really be a 'mistaken' category at all as all members of it should really be in the lunatic section...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As Christians we (in large) believe that good deeds are not enough. Why? Well, if God is indeed entirely holy and entirely good, then nothing short of us being exactly the same - perfectly holy and perfectly good - will cut the mustard. The smallest imperfection means we fail the quality control test. And like any reject on a factory floor, there is a loss made in earnings and ultimately a price to pay.

Surely if God is so good he can do what I do.. and accept that some badness is inevitable due to our imperfect nature. Good deeds should be enough as requiring people to accept things on dangerous faith is bad.

Cheers
Joe

MrPudding

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Surely if God is so good he can do what I do.. and accept that some badness is inevitable due to our imperfect nature. Good deeds should be enough as requiring people to accept things on dangerous faith is bad.

Cheers
Joe

Yes, but he is also obviously petty, vindictive and a control freak.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

JoeBallantine wrote: »

1) I would view bad people and actions as being evidence that we live in a imperfect world, 2) that we have evolved 3) and it is evidence against a caretaker creator 'perfect' god whose wilful actions resulted in the evil we experience. Before God we are led to believe there was no evil, now there is evil... so from where did it arise?

Points one and two (in bold) I can accept. They say nothing about God's existence either way. Point three (underlined) is merely an opinion, one that I just so happen to disagree with.

As by way of clarification, we are not lead to believe the was no evil before God. We are led to believe the never was a time, a non-time or whatever before God. He has always been and always will be. Unless this was a simple error on your part, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of God. From where did evil arise? I'd say the quick and obvious answer is Satan.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Your quote from C.S.Lewis, 'Liar, Lunatic or Lord' is interesting. He left out 'mistaken',....

So he was simply mistaken when he proclaimed himself Lord and Saviour of all mankind? I'm always mistaking myself for a deity. Just like I mistakenly leave the bins out on a Wednesday when they are actually collected on a Thursday. Easy mistake!

I don't believe such an option is a glaring omission by Lewis. One could possibly level that claim at his Disciples, but not at Jesus. To my mind (and apparently Lewis's also) there are only 3 possibilities why someone would make such a seemingly preposterous claim - he's lying, he's mad or he is correct. However, if you insist on holding on to the possibility of Jesus making a mistake, I feel it could only be included as part of the lunatic option. One simply does not make such mistakes whilst remaining sane.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

So there shouldn't really be a 'mistaken' category at all as all members of it should really be in the lunatic section...

Grand. We agree. But you are being inconsistent. Either there should be a 'mistaken' option (option 4) in the possibilities of the nature of Jesus (and I've already stated why I believe such a notion is not viable) or there shouldn't. If you want to fiddle around with Lewis's ideas and apply them to his followers then by all means include or don't include the 'mistaken' category. But you must realise that you then move beyond what Lewis was originally talking about.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

...believers don't like being called 'delusional' although that is the correct word in general to use of people who have a view of the world that is inconsistent with reality or is even self-inconsistent.

And what type of reality are you speaking of? I would assume you are referring to our perception of reality. Would you not agree that our understanding of how the universe operates, i.e. our accepted reality, is understood to be subject to change?

I'd argue that we all plod along in our daily lives under certain beliefs and assumptions (be they ground in strong science or not). But in the strict sense, we should also operate on the assumption that our understanding about the universe is not set in stone. Your rigid view of the universe seems to endorse a viewpoint not entirely dissimilar to those who denied the possibility of a heliocentric universe.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Surely if God is so good he can do what I do.. and accept that some badness is inevitable due to our imperfect nature. Good deeds should be enough as requiring people to accept things on dangerous faith is bad.

Why should good deeds be enough?

Maybe it's a slightly contentious and flawed analogy (I don't seem to have much luck with them). But say there is an outbreak of a contagious illness. Those infected have to be quarantined from those who are aren't. It's no use in arguing that most of your bodily cells are disease free and you deserve to go and mingle with those who are uncontaminated. It's quite black and white. You are either diseased and pose a threat or you are disease free. You obviously see where I am getting at with regards to a being of infinite goodness and evil.

Finally, Joe, I'm afraid that you or I don't get to tell God how it is or how it should be.

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, but he is also obviously petty, vindictive and a control freak.

MrP

Can this attitude MrP. It makes you look rather like a petty vindictive idiot. :mad::mad:

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Can this attitude Joe. It makes you look rather like a petty vindictive idiot. :mad::mad:

It was not Joe....

What would you call an all powerful entity that created imperfect creatures, know in advance they would not be able to be perfect or sinless because of how he built them, and then punishes those creatures for their imperfection?

MrP

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

What would you call an all powerful entity that created imperfect creatures, know in advance they would not be able to be perfect or sinless because of how he built them, and then punishes those creatures for their imperfection?

MrP

MrP

Do you now sign off twice? Or should I refer to you as Mr P, Mr P

Anyway, I think you are more likely to get an answer (assuming you are looking for one) if you ask questions rather than make blanket assumptions. For that matter, assumptions that appear to come close to contravening the charter.

One could argue that we were not created imperfect, rather we chose that path. Nor are we necessarily condemned to punishment. And as for punishment, there are different interpretations. I would lean towards the idea that those who reject God are granted their wish and spend eternity away from God, therefore everything good.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One could argue that we were not created imperfect, rather we chose that path. Nor are we necessarily condemned to punishment

I think that slightly contradicts the dogma of your religion.

A few (Christian) posters have said that no human, apart from Jesus, can live a full life and never sin. It is simply not going to happen.

Why is this? Because humanity was cursed by God as punishment for what Adam did. Adam could, Eve could, Jesus could. We can't.

So does it not therefore stand to reason that all humans are condemned to eventually sin by the act of God?

As MrP, rather crudely points out, this causes issues because it is in fact God who punishes us for sinning, for disobeying him.

So, to punish Adam, God alters our original nature making it impossible to live a life and never sin (no matter how hard we try we all slip at some point), and then proceeds to punish us for doing so.

I appreciate that you probably don't see things exactly in that way, but can you at least understand why it would cause some people to stop and go "Er, wait a minute..."

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And as for punishment, there are different interpretations. I would lean towards the idea that those who reject God are granted their wish and spend eternity away from God, therefore everything good.

Well the Bible describes the punishment for sinning against God as a little more than that, lake of fire and all that.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you now sign off twice? Or should I refer to you as Mr P, Mr P

So good they named me twice or typo? You choose.

Wicknight wrote: »

As MrP, rather crudely points out, this causes issues because it is in fact God who punishes us for sinning, for disobeying him.

Thank you, I think. This is exactly what I meant.

MrP

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One could argue that we were not created imperfect, rather we chose that path. Nor are we necessarily condemned to punishment. And as for punishment, there are different interpretations. I would lean towards the idea that those who reject God are granted their wish and spend eternity away from God, therefore everything good.

While your description of the christian view is elegant, I think it's unnecessarily distant from the reality of christian belief. Which is that you believe that your deity will toss you into a lake of burning sulfur for the thought-crime of not believing he exists.

Do you really believe that this describes a deity worthy of worship?

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Can this attitude MrP. It makes you look rather like a petty vindictive idiot. :mad::mad:

Very unchristian of you to imply I am a petty and vindictive idiot.

MrP

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

Very unchristian of you to imply I am a petty and vindictive idiot.

MrP

So only Christians are unable to call a spade a spade? To make such a statement on a Christian board is pretty idiotic.

And the post itself is vindictive of God.

So I think that I nailed your comment.

So lets see, God creates man with freedom of choice. Pretty loving if you ask me.

Man screws it up. God humbles Himself and becomes man and suffers terribly for the sole purpose of giving you and me the opportunity for salvation. Pretty loving if you ask me.

You make th echoice to deny Him, you make the choice to suffer the consequences of denying Him, and then you turn around and blame Him?
That is also pretty idiotic.

Then you call His character into question: that is vindictive.

If God was acontrol freak He would have created us so that we would have to follow Him and do all He says. So your conclusion about God is wrong there as well.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

Very unchristian of you to imply I am a petty and vindictive idiot.

MrP

I wouldn't call you an idiot, but I would call you a troll. Your post about God being petty, vindictive & a control freak is a clear attempt to inflame the natives and as such is against the charter.

By some quirk of boards.ie protocol I am not able to issue a warning or infraction to another moderator. However I can ban them.

Mods get the same treatment on this board as anyone else. So consider this as a friendly warning.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

By some quirk of boards.ie protocol I am not able to issue a warning or infraction to another moderator. However I can ban them. Mods get the same treatment on this board as anyone else. So consider this as a friendly warning.

Mr, P you can indeed be infracted. Your comment goes against point 7 of the Christianity Charter and is not the first time that this type of comment from you has come to my attention. HMod status is no exemption from these rules. In fact since you do hold this position I expect you to act with far more decorum. The next comment like this from you will result in a ban. Please word your comments more appropriately in future.
Asia

RuggieBear

calling someone an idiot also goes against point 7 of the Christianity charter.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So lets see, God creates man with freedom of choice. Pretty loving if you ask me.

Agreed.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Man screws it up. God humbles Himself and becomes man and suffers terribly for the sole purpose of giving you and me the opportunity for salvation. Pretty loving if you ask me.

This is the bit where I do have a problem, and I will try very hard to word this in a non inflammatory way.

God made us, completely. When he did this he knew everything we would ever do, all of us. He knew, right at the beginning that we would sin, that we were predisposed to have a sinful nature. He knew this because he exists outside of time and he created us. And armed with this knowledge he went ahead, when presumably he could have paused and thought to himself "hold on a sec, this might not work......" and fixed the flaw. But he did not. And that is fine too. That is the behaviour of someone that is will to give someone what they need to forge their own way in life and make there own decisions, I have no problem with that.

But then we are told this sinful nature, which we can do nothing about, is offensive to him and he punished us for it. This is my problem, why does he get annoyed over actions we take which he effectively hardwired into us and could have prevented if it offended him so much.

That would be like me putting sweets in front of my young daughter and then getting annoyed if she ate them, actually no, not quite. It would be like me somehow raising my child to have an absolute inability to resist eating sweets, an inability entirely of my creation, and then I get annoyed when she eats sweets I put in front of her. If I did that what would you call it?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You make th echoice to deny Him, you make the choice to suffer the consequences of denying Him, and then you turn around and blame Him?
That is also pretty idiotic.

I am not denying anything, but we should not go down that line of discussion as it could be taken as a breach of the charter as well. I have seen poster in the past, myself included, being told off for saying what someone believes is idiotic. Obviously as you are a christian and I am an atheist you can probably get away with calling me an idiot, but that does not make it right.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then you call His character into question: that is vindictive.

If God was acontrol freak He would have created us so that we would have to follow Him and do all He says. So your conclusion about God is wrong there as well.

Not the language I should have used on this forum, you are absolutely right, and for that I apologise.

MrP

Asiaprod

RuggieBear wrote: »

calling someone an idiot also goes against point 7 of the Christianity charter.

The other party has also been informed of this. Thank you for pointing it out.

Asiaprod

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not denying anything, but we should not go down that line of discussion as it could be taken as a breach of the charter as well. I have seen poster in the past, myself included, being told off for saying what someone believes is idiotic. Obviously as you are a christian and I am an atheist you can probably get away with calling me an idiot, but that does not make it right.

Brian did not get away with it and has also be warned not to call some one an idiot. No one is allowed call anyone an idiot here

Not the language I should have used on this forum, you are absolutely right, and for that I apologise.MrP

And I appreciate this a lot, thank you.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So lets see, God creates man with freedom of choice. Pretty loving if you ask me.

Man screws it up. God humbles Himself and becomes man and suffers terribly for the sole purpose of giving you and me the opportunity for salvation. Pretty loving if you ask me.

Well firstly "Man" didn't screw up, a man screwed up. God then screwed up by cursing all of man kind for what this single man did, condemning all of man kind to live lives where the temptation to sin is so strong they can't help but sin, thus condemning themselves to hell.

This is something he appeared to regret and try and rectify with Jesus.

One would think that if God wanted people to follow him and not sin he would have made it possible for people to follow him and not sin, as it was possible for Adam, Eve and Jesus.

Instead he cursed man kind and made it impossible for them not to sin, and then proceeded to punish them when they did. He gave some people a rather complicated and convoluted way to avoid the punishment but not, and this is the important bit, avoid the sin.

Why condemn people to a nature of sin and then give them a way to escape punishment for these sins?

Why not just give them a way to avoid sinning in the first place?

At the moment everyone sins, and some can escape punishment for that. But that still leaves everyone sinning. Surely a better solution would have been that people can escape sin itself, then they both escape punishment for the sins and they don't commit the sins in the first place.

Now you will probably say you don't know but we shouldn't be so arrogant to second guess God. But the point is that there is no explanation for this, so saying that Mr P is wrong about God being vindictive is a flawed argument. Mr. P might be wrong, God might have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, but equally Mr. P might be correct. You can no more say he is wrong than he can say he is correct. You can believe he is, but that isn't the same thing.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If God was acontrol freak He would have created us so that we would have to follow Him and do all He says. So your conclusion about God is wrong there as well.

I think you are missing the point about where the control comes into it. You are correct that we possess free will, strange if God wanted to control us.

But you ignore the details above. God condemned people to sin and then gave them a way to escape punishment for that. That puts people in a box, similar to the way criminals will manipulate someone into being indebted to them in some way.

That is where Mr. P's point about control comes in. Why do we, as a species, have to be condemned to sin? Yes we can escape the punishment for this by submitting to God, but God has chosen that we cannot escape the life of sin itself. What purpose does that serve except to control us?

Now this post may seem rather extreme, equating your god with criminals and lone sharks, but I hope you appreciate that these are legitimate questions over the nature of your religion. I understand that you see your god only as loving kind and giving, but you must appreciate that it is possible and rather easy, to see the message of your religion in quite a different light. I hope you seriously consider the points rather than simply dismissing.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Now this post may seem rather extreme, equating your god with criminals and lone sharks, but I hope you appreciate that these are legitimate questions over the nature of your religion. I understand that you see your god only as loving kind and giving, but you must appreciate that it is possible and rather easy, to see the message of your religion in quite a different light. I hope you seriously consider the points rather than simply dismissing.

Nice post, again summing up my thoughts better than I could myself, though I do think my last post was an improvement on my part.

MrP

thebaldsoprano

Finally found a church that'll accept me



http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/photos004.html

santing

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Finally found a church that'll accept me
http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/photos/church099.jpg

That's sad ... I get an "Image not available" error for your Church.

thebaldsoprano

santing wrote: »

That's sad ... I get an "Image not available" error for your Church.

You have to believe!

Yeah, seems to be available/unavailable somewhat randomly, hopefully it'll be available when you check back, it's pretty cool.

JoeB-

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Points one and two (in bold) I can accept. They say nothing about God's existence either way. Point three (underlined) is merely an opinion, one that I just so happen to disagree with.

As by way of clarification, we are not lead to believe the was no evil before God. We are led to believe the never was a time, a non-time or whatever before God. He has always been and always will be. Unless this was a simple error on your part, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of God. From where did evil arise? I'd say the quick and obvious answer is Satan.

These points have been raised before. I was talking about evil before god's creations, we are, I'd imagine, led to believe there was no evil co-existing with God before he created anything...

Christians are not led to believe there was no time before Gods creations. PDN I believe (apologies if not PDN) introduced a translation from Genesis of 'before time began'. RobinDH clarified the translation to be 'before times unending'... this latter translation has no implication of time beginning..


But we must always use the language of time in any case, to describe ordered events.. i.e one thing happens before another...

If there is no flow of time then everything happens concurrently... if you think carefully about this it prevents change.. in that if there were two different conditions one must necessarily have been first.. they cannot be concurrent.

On the problem of evil, God created Satan with full foreknowledge of what would happen.. so the best that can be said of this is that God created the devil to act as his agent or proxy in introducing evil into the world.

You may argue (although I haven't seen it) that either of two things is the case.

1- Satan may not have become evil... and so God took a chance. This fails because God knew that Satan would fall, there never was a chance that it wouldn't happen... (also we currently live in an evil world, possibilities don't matter, this IS the result that came to pass... and God knew about it, had the power to prevent it and yet he didn't, ergo, he is responsible (Being omnipotent carries enormous responsibility))


2- Evil is transient... in the big plan it all turns out ok. This is flawed in that transient evil is still evil, concious creatures have suffered and experienced pain... it doesn't matter if 'it all turns out ok', an omnipotent god could have done better and achieved his ends with no pain or suffering.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So he was simply mistaken when he proclaimed himself Lord and Saviour of all mankind? I'm always mistaking myself for a deity. Just like I mistakenly leave the bins out on a Wednesday when they are actually collected on a Thursday. Easy mistake!

What about the people who believe they are Gods today?. Are they Gods because they say they are? or are they mistaken?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe such an option is a glaring omission by Lewis. One could possibly level that claim at his Disciples, but not at Jesus. To my mind (and apparently Lewis's also) there are only 3 possibilities why someone would make such a seemingly preposterous claim - he's lying, he's mad or he is correct. However, if you insist on holding on to the possibility of Jesus making a mistake, I feel it could only be included as part of the lunatic option. One simply does not make such mistakes whilst remaining sane.

lol, Consider the implications of your statement, paraphrased as... people who make seemingly preposterous claims are either absolutely correct or they are lunatics.

Now consider ten major religions and their adherents... they are mutally exclusive and so nine if not ten groups of adherents are insane for believing crazy claims... (the claims must be false and thus 'preposterous' in nine out of ten cases)

So the majority of religious believers should be considered insane and not merely described as mistaken (but with their heart in the right place)

That's the implication of not allowing a 'mistaken' category. (The third option of course was 'Liar', so they could all be knowingly lying.)

Cheers

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

What about the people who believe they are Gods today?. Are they Gods because they say they are? or are they mistaken?

The whole point of Lewis' trilemma is that it is unreasonable to say that Jesus was just a 'good moral teacher'. If he was mistaken on something as preposterous as claiming to be God then he was a lunatic for certain. Therefore "mistaken" is not an option (Dawkins can't get this point - but most of us do).

Anyone who believes themselves to be gods today are, IMNSHO, fruitcakes.

lol, Consider the implications of your statement, paraphrased as... people who make seemingly preposterous claims are either absolutely correct or they are lunatics.

Now consider ten major religions and their adherents... they are mutally exclusive and so nine if not ten groups of adherents are insane for believing crazy claims... (the claims must be false and thus 'preposterous' in nine out of ten cases)

So the majority of religious believers should be considered insane and not merely described as mistaken (but with their heart in the right place)

That's the implication of not allowing a 'mistaken' category. (The third option of course was 'Liar', so they could all be knowingly lying.)

Congratulations Joe, you've just taken a flying leap of logic of truly Beamonesque proportions! In fact, if the Logic Jump were an Olympic sport then we could send you to Beijing and Ireland would have their first athletics gold medal for many a long year.

It does not follow that those who believe others' claims of deity have to be insane to have such belief, or indeed that they have to be lying. They can indeed simply be mistaken.

To sum up Fanny's and Lewis' position (which I think is a reasonable one).

For a 1st Century Jew to claim to be God, while living in a fiercely monotheistic culture, would require either one of three things.
a) Brass-necked dishonesty.
b) Mental derangement.
c) For him actually to be God.

However, for followers to believe such claims, it would simply be necessary for others to be convinced by the words and actions of the one claiming divine status. This could be based on fulfilled prophecies, miracles etc. Such belief could also be based on deliberate deception (as in the case of the cult-leader Jim Jones). Or, indeed, it could be based on man's frequent failure to think clearly or rationally which, as your own post demonstrates, is depressingly common.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not denying anything, but we should not go down that line of discussion as it could be taken as a breach of the charter as well. I have seen poster in the past, myself included, being told off for saying what someone believes is idiotic. Obviously as you are a christian and I am an atheist you can probably get away with calling me an idiot, but that does not make it right.

If somone's reasoning or line of argument is poorly thought out then I think posters should be free to expose it as such and to do so robustly. Calling it 'idiotic' is probably a step too far, and Brian was given a warning for doing so.

If you do want to expose someone's silly reasoning or lack of logic then take a leaf out of Oscar Wilde's book and do it in a civilised way. That is usually more effective anyway.

As you well know, Mr P, your warning in the past was not for expressing disagreement with a particular poster's argument - it was for making a blanket condemnation of all those who hold a particular set of beliefs as being lacking in critical thinking skills. I think you are very capable of seeing the difference.

Fanny Cradock

Thanks, PDN. I really though my point (and that of Lewis) was crystal clear.

Joe, if you re-read my post you will find that I stated that the mistaken option could be applied to believers. However, I then went on to stated that it couldn't be applied it to Jesus. I don't know why you are not getting the difference between the two.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If he was mistaken on something as preposterous as claiming to be God then he was a lunatic for certain.

That wasn't really Dawkins' point, but it is rather silly to be so dismissive. Remember the time Jesus was living in, a culture almost devoid of the more critical analysis of the Greeks or even Roman cultures.

Jesus could have easily believed he was some religious or mystic figure (even the son of God) without being "mental derangement"

robindch

PDN wrote: »

For a 1st Century Jew to claim to be God, while living in a fiercely monotheistic culture, would require either one of three things.
a) Brass-necked dishonesty.
b) Mental derangement.
c) For him actually to be God.

I think it's reasonable clear that Lewis' alliterative "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" trilemma is carefully crafted to repulse the average believe who probably won't realize that exactly the same point can be applied equally well to every competing prophet in every competing religion. Hence, the trilemma is in fact, little more than a shifty rhetorical trick.

PDN wrote: »

However, for followers to believe such claims, it would simply be necessary for others to be convinced by the words and actions of the one claiming divine status. This could be based on fulfilled prophecies, miracles etc.

I mentioned in another thread that the Indian guru Sai Baba has fulfilled prophecies, carried out miracles and much, much more besides, and has amply convinced others of his divine status in a world which is far more sceptical and educated than the one that Jesus inhabited.

But I assume that you're unlikely to convert to believing in the divinity of Sai Baba? Why not? The evidence is there.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I think it's reasonable clear that Lewis' alliterative "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" trilemma is carefully crafted to repulse the average believe who probably won't realize that exactly the same point can be applied equally well to every competing prophet in every competing religion.

No, you are incorrect there. It can only be applied to every competing prophet who claimed to be God. Indeed I think it should be applied to all such prophets. Anyone who claims to be God is not just a 'good moral teacher'. They are either a nut, a deceiver, or are what they claim to be - God.

BTW, I may be wrong on this but I don't think Lewis provided the alliteration. If I remember correctly that would have been Josh McDowell.

Hence, the trilemma is in fact, little more than a shifty rhetorical trick.

If it were being used as a proof of Christ's divinity then maybe so - but that was not the point Lewis was making. He was exposing the silliness of seeing Jesus as merely a good moral teacher.

I mentioned in another thread that the Indian guru Sai Baba has fulfilled prophecies, carried out miracles and much, much more besides, and has amply convinced others of his divine status in a world which is far more sceptical and educated than the one that Jesus inhabited.

But I assume that you're unlikely to convert to believing in the divinity of Sai Baba? Why not? The evidence is there.

I'm quite happy to apply Lewis' trilemma to Sai Baba. I am unsure whether he is a liar, a lunatic, or possibly both. However, I do not subscribe to him being a 'good moral teacher' - so the trilemma works well there.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I may be wrong on this but I don't think Lewis provided the alliteration. If I remember correctly that would have been Josh McDowell.

It was actually the Apostle Paul who first put forth this view, he said "..if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Cor 15:14. What can only vindicate Christ as being who He claimed to be, is the resurrection from the dead. It all goes back to this. If this did not happen as a fact of history then Jesus was a liar, and not worthy of inclusion in the list alongside other respected founders of religion, but if it did happen, then He is the Lord of Glory, to be bowed before even by these other respected founders of religion. That was the point Lewis was making. You can't just put Jesus on the same shelf as other 'respected' founders of religion. You can't call Him good and wise and not accept Him as supernatural, because the same source that makes people call Him good and wise also have Him making ridiculous claims about Himself that no mortal man has a right to make. "Before Abraham I was", "I beheld Satan cast out", “All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me" and on I could go. No mortal man can make claims like this about himself and still be considered a good and wise teacher. They can be good if they truly believe these things about themselves like honest megalomaniacs but, they are nuts and as such are not wise because they do not know that these claims are not true. Or they could be wise, or wise enough to know that these claims are not true but they want people to believe these claims they are making which would make them crooks and liars and therefore not good. They can’t be both good and wise without also being supernatural, and yet that is precisely how the world essentially views the Jesus of the New testament, ‘A good and wise teacher’ but not supernatural, even some atheists will hold this view of Jesus in the natural. You've got to settle the resurrection issue, as that is what vindicates His claims. If He rose, then He was who He claimed to be, but if He didn’t rise, then he was a fraud. Simple! This is where the principle of the Occam’s razor runs into trouble. Because the most unlikely of outcomes from a naturalistic point of view with regard to the aforementioned events is what actually happened. Because no matter how far back you scrape in ancient texts with relation to the Jesus of the New Testament you will never encounter a purely naturalistic and non supernatural Jesus. He is there from the outset. That is why Lewis viewed Him as the 'Starling Alternate'. You must accept Him for what He claims Himself to be, or view Him as someone in the order of a man who thinks he's a pouched egg. Crazy!!!

BrianCalgary

This is my first time online since the incident and I offer my apologies for calling Mr P and idiot.

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

But then we are told this sinful nature, which we can do nothing about, is offensive to him and he punished us for it. This is my problem, why does he get annoyed over actions we take which he effectively hardwired into us and could have prevented if it offended him so much.

God knows and understnds fully that we will sin, because without that capability we can not have true love.

God gives us the opportunity to reconcile for our sins by accepting the sacrifice He made for us.

We dont have to do anything in order to get this gift. It's free.

That is loving and presents a true love and not a prewired sheep like following.

MrPudding wrote: »

That would be like me putting sweets in front of my young daughter and then getting annoyed if she ate them, actually no, not quite. It would be like me somehow raising my child to have an absolute inability to resist eating sweets, an inability entirely of my creation, and then I get annoyed when she eats sweets I put in front of her. If I did that what would you call it?

I'll ask for a clarification, what are you comparing the sweets with?

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

This is my first time online since the incident and I offer my apologies for calling Mr P and idiot.

Don't worry about it. As was pointed out it was well deserved.

MrP

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God knows and understnds fully that we will sin, because without that capability we can not have true love.

Riiight. I am sure this is blindingly obvious, but I can't quite see it, long day today, why do we have to be able to sin in order to find true love?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God gives us the opportunity to reconcile for our sins by accepting the sacrifice He made for us.

Yes, I have heard this before, but why? Why make us in such a way that he has to get a virgin pregnant by the power of the holy spirit so his son could be born so he could get nailed to a tree? Why not do away with the sin right from the beginning?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We dont have to do anything in order to get this gift. It's free.

It is not free.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That is loving and presents a true love and not a prewired sheep like following.

OK, not sheep like following. Got it.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'll ask for a clarification, what are you comparing the sweets with?

It is not so much the sweets but the act of eating them. In my poor example I imagined a scenario where I conditioned my child into really liking sweets, not too hard to do. I then, after creating the desire in her to eat sweet, place some in front of her. If she eats them should I get annoyed? Of course not. I created the desire she has for sweets. I then placed them in front of her and she ate them. Why should I be annoyed. God created our sinful nature, why should he be annoyed when we are sinful?

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Why not do away with the sin right from the beginning?

Why introduce sin at all?

Humanity was punished by God for something Adam did. Why punish all of humanity and then go to great lengths to wipe this punishment clean.

Christians focus on the way humans can avoid the punishment for their sinful nature. They largely ignore why we are condemned to a sinful nature in the first place. It is one of these "don't question God" issues.

Adam didn't have one. He had free will, and choose to sin, but we are all supposed to be born with a sinful nature and are condemned to submit to this nature at some point in our lives. We can't help but sin at some point. Since Adam Jesus is the only human who was capable of leading a life and not sinning.

Why would God set things up like this and then throw the old fire and brimstone at those who do sin, since they are condemned to sin by God in the first place. What purpose does that serve?

Why introduce a very convoluted way to allow humans to avoid the punishment for sin, why not simply not condemn humans to sin in the first place if sin is such an insult to God. Why not keep humanity like Adam, capable of leading an existence free of sin.

It really makes little sense.

thebaldsoprano

MrPudding wrote: »

Riiight. I am sure this is blindingly obvious, but I can't quite see it, long day today, why do we have to be able to sin in order to find true love?

Not a Christian, or even a theist, but the answer might be along the lines of the following:

Sin is an offence against God.
God forgives us for our sins.

If we were perfect and never offended God, IMO that wouldn't really be love.

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

It is not so much the sweets but the act of eating them. In my poor example I imagined a scenario where I conditioned my child into really liking sweets, not too hard to do. I then, after creating the desire in her to eat sweet, place some in front of her. If she eats them should I get annoyed? Of course not. I created the desire she has for sweets. I then placed them in front of her and she ate them. Why should I be annoyed. God created our sinful nature, why should he be annoyed when we are sinful?

MrP

You could take the sweet example further. In a more real life example, you have a daughter, you buy sweets for her, for after dinner. She sees you putting them in the press, but you tell her "don't go near them until after dinner". Seems fair. She eats them before dinner. Two possible outcomes might be one she says "sorry daddy, I ate the sweets... please don't give out to me", the other might be "f**k you old man, you bought them, what'd you expect me to do?". Which response would lead you to forgive her quicker?