Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?

1…456810

Comments

  • #352
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    I think it's unfair to say Ehrman allows his prejudice to inform his conclusions. His conclusions are usually based on what we can know based on evidence.

    A good example of this is his (and others) placing Mark after the sacking of Jerusalem due to 1) that's when the eariest known copies of Mark are found and 2) specific details of the sacking authors before this time shouldn't have known.

    There's many Christians who put Mark before the sacking because Jesus in it 'prophesies' this event happening so Mark, to them, has to have been written before it and that we don't find any physical copies before this time just means they're lost to time.

    Who is prejudiced here? Ehrman or the theologians making the case for a pre-66AD Mark?


  • #353
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    As to the OP; I used to worry about what I would later come to know as 'theodicy' as a teen but once I stopped believing the problem disappeared in a puff of smoke.

    Case in point; why does God allow natural disasters like earthquakes happen?

    The theological answer is some meandering nonsense about 'original sin'.

    The naturalist answer is earthquakes are a common occurrence due to tectonic plates colliding. The vast majority happen under sea. And that they only become disastrous when we humans choose to live on fault lines, quite knowingly in these times (compared to biblical times) and if you fear earthquakes you'd be better off simply living away from fault lines, or like Turkey trying to create underground buffer zones based on science, than praying to a god, sacrificing virgins, or performing any other non-intervening ritual.


  • #354
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    I think it's unfair to say Ehrman allows his prejudice to inform his conclusions. His conclusions are usually based on what we can know based on evidence...Who is prejudiced here? Ehrman or the theologians making the case for a pre-66AD Mark?

    Both surely? With the critical question being whether or not Jesus could in fact have predicted the destruction of the temple accurately. The textual evidence you mention here is insufficient in itself to prove or disprove either conclusion, and in fact fits both.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    The theological answer is some meandering nonsense about 'original sin'.

    Not prejudiced at all :rolleyes:

    I don't know of any Christians who deny the naturalistic explanation of earthquakes and such; we simply affirm that these things also have a cosmic / theological significance. The last part of your post appears to confuse Christianity with pagan religion, as nowhere are we called to try and bribe God so that bad things won't happen to us.


  • #355
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You continually reply to my posts with a theme similar to this. That I don't understand the bible, that I need to read it correctly. What gives you the idea that your interpretation of the text is correct?

    It is obvious that you're criticising something different to what I believe when I read your posts. I've explained why at length. It is because you're stuck on the wrong side of the cross. It is very simple. When you understand that we cannot justify ourselves by our works because of our sin, and when you understand we need a Saviour, you will understand that Christianity is amazing news.

    Until then, there is no understanding to be had.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    If god has one major failing, it is his inability to provide a text that was not open to such widespread interpretation. Interpretation that has lead to countless branches within the chistian community such that there is no single accepted version of the 'Truth' as you like to claim it.

    I think the references I've referred to in my last post are pretty clear. Particularly Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

    The reason why I prompted you to see that you aren't criticising Biblical Christianity is one to produce a humble response that would make you see that you could be wrong, and two to prompt genuine investigation into who Jesus was and why He came as opposed to seeking reasons not to believe.

    I've answered pretty much all of the other objections in my previous post. Understanding the nature of our sin is a prerequisite to understanding the amazing gift of God's mercy and grace.

    Producing strawmen as to why you feel God is responsible for things He's obviously not responsible for is irrelevant.

    Actually this one is also interesting:
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Except he wasn't a saviour, at least not in this life. So suffering continues. Famine, desease, natural disasters, fear, hate, rape, torture, dementia, cancer, Covid etc etc. These are all parts of God's plan for us in this life.

    This shows firstly, that you misunderstand why Jesus came (to save us from sin), and that you misunderstand what Jesus said about what would happen before He returns. The Bible is also pretty clear on this.
    Mark 13:5-8 wrote:
    And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.

    This is why I encourage you to simply read with the humble acknowledgement that you may not understand what Christianity actually is rather than critiquing what you clearly don't understand.


  • #356
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    Both surely? With the critical question being whether or not Jesus could in fact have predicted the destruction of the temple accurately. The textual evidence you mention here is insufficient in itself to prove or disprove either conclusion, and in fact fits both.

    .

    Ehrman doesn't comment on whether Jesus did or could've predicted the destruction of the temple. He just doesn't use the prediction to date Mark before the time it appears in history.

    So no. Ehrman is not being prejudiced and I'm sure if an earlier Mark was found he'd be the first to acknowledge it.
    ChrisJ84 wrote: »

    I don't know of any Christians who deny the naturalistic explanation of earthquakes and such; we simply affirm that these things also have a cosmic / theological significance. The last part of your post appears to confuse Christianity with pagan religion, as nowhere are we called to try and bribe God so that bad things won't happen to us.


    I never said Christians deny naturalistic explanations, just that they go above and beyond naturalistic explanations with superfluous stuff.

    And no, I'm not confusing Christianity with anything, the end of my post was more about religious beliefs in general, which is why I said "god" not "God". I'm not confined to the binary idea, as per Pascal's Wager (and the major flaw with it), that it's Christianity or nothing. Theodicy is a problem for all religions.


  • #357
    LineConsole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭LineConsole


    God is love, we were created in his image. We were given free Will, we chose, and continue to choose to say we don’t need God, to turn our backs on him. To let our hearts be hardened against our fellow man. We chose lies, fear, greed and evil over truth, love, hope and Charity. We justify it to ourselves and convince ourselves that we know better. This has been encouraged by Satan and his demons who want nothing more that to see humans lose their faith, lose their hope and be cut off from Life.

    Think of Gods energies as a divine light, the essence of life (Gods name is translated as I Am that I Am, ie the self existent one.) Evil is like a black void in that light, the opposite of life, death. (The wages of sin are death.)

    The world saw no sickness and death until man corrupted it. We introduced the hate, fear and death into creation. The absence of God allows for those things, and that’s a choice we make.

    We turn our backs on the true life that was offered and suffer the consequences, then blame God for those consequences. A branch cut from the vine withers and dies if we cut ourselves off from the true Light, God then that is our doing.

    It got so bad that God hit the reset button on humanity with the flood. It was people like Abraham and Noah who’s goodness has led us back to God, and God loves us so much that he gave his only begotten Son. Himself becoming incarnate to this corrupt fallen world and suffering the consequences of our sin. He defeated death by death and anyone who believes in Him will never know true death, but eternal life.

    We chose to leave the family home and spit in our fathers face. The fact that man is still doing this is evident from the posts here alone.


  • #358
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    Ehrman doesn't comment on whether Jesus did or could've predicted the destruction of the temple. He just doesn't use the prediction to date Mark before the time it appears in history.

    So no. Ehrman is not being prejudiced and I'm sure if an earlier Mark was found he'd be the first to acknowledge it.

    Are you not contradicting yourself here? The two pieces of evidence you've given for a later Mark are:

    "1) that's when the eariest known copies of Mark are found and 2) specific details of the sacking authors before this time shouldn't have known."


    #1 doesn't tell us anything about when it was written; and #2 is clearly a theological point, not a historical one.

    I guess it's possible that Jesus predicted the temple destruction as Mark records and that Mark wrote his gospel later than AD 70, but again I'm not sure if we have evidence that points to that conclusion.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    I never said Christians deny naturalistic explanations, just that they go above and beyond naturalistic explanations with superfluous stuff.

    Ok fair enough, but surely it's only superfluous if you assume that the naturalistic explanation is the only necessary / valid one. And so we're back where we started, with our presuppositions!
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    And no, I'm not confusing Christianity with anything, the end of my post was more about religious beliefs in general, which is why I said "gods" not "God". I'm not confined to the binary idea, as per Pascal's Wager (and the major flaw with it), that it's Christianity or nothing. Theodicy is a problem for all religions.

    Again, fair point. Theodicy is a problem for Christianity, I would argue the biggest one. I struggle with it, and so do most Christians I know. And I would never want to give the impression that it can be easily dismissed with a trite theological answer.

    But I don't think that ditching the idea of God solves the problem - if anything it just shifts the problem slightly as there is then no prospect for ultimate justice to be done and wrongs to be righted.


  • #359
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,755 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    It is obvious that you're criticising something different to what I believe when I read your posts. I've explained why at length. It is because you're stuck on the wrong side of the cross. It is very simple. When you understand that we cannot justify ourselves by our works because of our sin, and when you understand we need a Saviour, you will understand that Christianity is amazing news.

    Until then, there is no understanding to be had.



    I think the references I've referred to in my last post are pretty clear. Particularly Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

    The reason why I prompted you to see that you aren't criticising Biblical Christianity is one to produce a humble response that would make you see that you could be wrong, and two to prompt genuine investigation into who Jesus was and why He came as opposed to seeking reasons not to believe.

    I've answered pretty much all of the other objections in my previous post. Understanding the nature of our sin is a prerequisite to understanding the amazing gift of God's mercy and grace.

    Producing strawmen as to why you feel God is responsible for things He's obviously not responsible for is irrelevant.

    Actually this one is also interesting:


    This shows firstly, that you misunderstand why Jesus came (to save us from sin), and that you misunderstand what Jesus said about what would happen before He returns. The Bible is also pretty clear on this.



    This is why I encourage you to simply read with the humble acknowledgement that you may not understand what Christianity actually is rather than critiquing what you clearly don't understand.

    Well, I would humbly submit that I do understand it, it is just that my understanding differs from yours.

    And therein lies the problem. How can god have created this singular text and leave so that people like me, in your view, find it so difficult to understand it?

    I find it odd that your go happily accept that god willingly created us as sinners, willingly allows us to suffer, but that somehow when we die he suddenly, if we have met his threshold, forgive us everything and allow us into heaven.

    What is so important about the act of dying? Bearing in mind that death is only a term that we use to understand the end of this life, we don't really die. But we seem to have to 'die' in order for us to be judged worthy by god.

    My interpretation of the bible is different to yours, yet your answer is to continually post parts of the bible at me. Yet we know that the bible is open to interpretation. It is a second hard story, translated from an ancient language. Yet you seem to think that your interpretation is correct and if people don't agree with you then they simply fail to understand.

    Yet he judges us all to be sinners simply be the dint of us getting life?

    Are you sure that certain people are not sent back to reincarnate to try again? That we don't go off to another planet, universe, dimension after his one to continue the journey?

    How can you be sure of that?

    On what Jesus said;
    Originally Posted by Mark 13:5-8
    And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.

    One way to read that is Jesus is telling those that really he is the only one they should listen to. We have seen plenty use the same tactic. And then he goes onto to acknowledge that nothing will actually change, war and earthquakes etc. But it is all part of the plan.

    The question I ask is why? Why do we need earthquakes? What possible purpose do they serve? If the world had no earthquakes would it make believing in god more or less likely? Jesus is not saying anything useful in that paragraph. Everything will continue on as it it currently is, but anything that happens is happening for a reason and I know what the reason is.

    Wouldn't he had been far better to have told us where the earthquakes were going to take place? And when? And give people the knowledge about how to predict them?

    But instead he chose to simply tell people that they should only listen to him and that when things happen its all because of his great plan!


  • #360
    LineConsole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭LineConsole


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Well, I would humbly submit that I do understand it, it is just that my understanding differs from yours.

    And therein lies the problem. How can god have created this singular text and leave so that people like me, in your view, find it so difficult to understand it?


    Simple answer to this is that it's not up to us to understand it in a vacuum (Sorry Protestants). This is born out in Acts - "Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."


    Jesus, the Word of God made Flesh, appointed Apostles and founded upon them the Church. He gave the Great Commission; the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to His disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world. The descendants of those disciples are todays Bishops and Priests.



    Now which Church has the true lineage is another matter for debate, Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold good claims (as do some others). Christ told us how to recognise if someone is from God or not. - “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire Therefore by their fruits you will know them"

    Hence any Church that is not bearing good fruit can be considered to be false. Find a Church bearing good metaphorical fruit, and ask them to explain the scriptures to you if you want to understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    Are you not contradicting yourself here? The two pieces of evidence you've given for a later Mark are:

    "1) that's when the eariest known copies of Mark are found and 2) specific details of the sacking authors before this time shouldn't have known."


    #1 doesn't tell us anything about when it was written; and #2 is clearly a theological point, not a historical one.

    I guess it's possible that Jesus predicted the temple destruction as Mark records and that Mark wrote his gospel later than AD 70, but again I;m not sure if we have evidence that points to that conclusion.

    I don't think it is a contradiction. I think 2 is a supporting argument, or even a counter argument for the theological one, but it's not really needed for 1. So yeah, it could probably be dismissed, admittedly..


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    Ok fair enough, but surely it's only superfluous if you assume that the naturalistic explanation is the only necessary / valid one. And so we're back where we started, with our presuppositions!

    Well we don't need to assume the naturalistic answer is "the only one" to accept the naturalistic answers. Like you said yourself, many Christians accept naturalistic, scientific answers, are even prominent scientists. So no presupposition needed.

    You could say I'm presupposing there is no God and so I can't be sure that theodicy is superfluous as any explanation for explaining natural phenomena, but I would say that that is backwards. I think God/gods needs to be shown to me first before I can factor them into the equation otherwise why am I even factoring them in except as an exercise in grand speculation?

    I'm sure, after all, you don't go around wondering if the Greek gods are playing their games again every time a natural disaster happens. You likely don't even think about it. Well that's how I am with the God of the monotheistic religions, and all the others I don't believe in.



    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    Again, fair point. Theodicy is a problem for Christianity, I would argue the biggest one. I struggle with it, and so do most Christians I know. And I would never want to give the impression that it can be easily dismissed with a trite theological answer.

    I don't think that ditching the idea of God solves the problem - if anything it just shifts the problem slightly as there is then no prospect for ultimate justice to be done and wrongs to be righted.

    In the case of theodicy, where does 'ultimate justice' (ignoring I'm not even fully sure what that's supposed to even mean) and righting wrongs factor in. For instance for Christians who believe, and we see this in the US a lot, that a hurricane ravaged a city because God was upset with homosexuality (rather than just because they live on the tail-end of a hurricane corridor) then where is justice for all the innocent people made to suffer? Is God accountable? Are they just 'collateral damage'?


  • #362
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    But I don't think that ditching the idea of God solves the problem - if anything it just shifts the problem slightly as there is then no prospect for ultimate justice to be done and wrongs to be righted.

    This is only a problem if you consider it to be one. I personally would have no issue with the idea that there are past injustices that cannot or will not be rectified. Nor do I believe in the notion of ultimate justice, whatever that might entail, or even universal justice for that matter. If you consider any court case for example, both judgement and sentencing consider the circumstances surrounding the crime, i.e. the context. As such this illustrates that justice is relative rather than absolute.


  • #363
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I find it odd that your go happily accept that god willingly created us as sinners, willingly allows us to suffer, but that somehow when we die he suddenly, if we have met his threshold, forgive us everything and allow us into heaven.

    People are sinners insofar as they sin. People are responsible for their sin. It requires a pretty contorted logic to argue otherwise.

    Why is there suffering? The Christian view isn't that God "willingly allows us to suffer". The Christian view is the death, and suffering entered the world as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3, Romans 8). I've explained this to you several times on this forum. I would argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction. The Bible would also argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    What is so important about the act of dying? Bearing in mind that death is only a term that we use to understand the end of this life, we don't really die. But we seem to have to 'die' in order for us to be judged worthy by god.

    God gave His only Son for humanity. That shows that He values us greatly. Christianity argues that this is the heart of how we see love.
    1 John 4:7-15 wrote:
    Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

    By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

    If we then continue to reject Him in spite of that then I'd argue the only one who isn't valuing anyone is us. The more you argue that God is evil, the more I see that humanity treat Him shamefully despite His grace and as a result are fully deserving of judgement. That's the Biblical perspective.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    My interpretation of the bible is different to yours, yet your answer is to continually post parts of the bible at me. Yet we know that the bible is open to interpretation. It is a second hard story, translated from an ancient language. Yet you seem to think that your interpretation is correct and if people don't agree with you then they simply fail to understand.

    Your arguments are in flat contradiction of what Christians believe. They've told you, I've told you. It's my faith, therefore I have the right to tell you if you're accurately reflecting my beliefs in arguing against my faith. This is why I say you obviously don't understand. The fact that I quote Scripture shouldn't be surprising. God speaks to us today through His Word and through His Son (Hebrews 1:1).


  • #364
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    You could say I'm presupposing there is no God and so I can't be sure that theodicy is superfluous as any explanation for explaining natural phenomena, but I would say that that is backwards.

    This is the main presupposition I'm referring to - in other words, whether the naturalistic explanation for things is, or is not, the only explanation we should expect to have.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    I think God/gods needs to be shown to me first before I can factor them into the equation otherwise why am I even factoring them in except as an exercise in grand speculation?

    This is a perfectly reasonable request, but doesn't have a simple answer! The first thing to note is that any such God / gods would need to reveal themselves to us, so already we need to approach things on their terms and not our own. On Christianity specifically, I believe that God has revealed himself in the created universe, in the bible, and most of all in the person of Jesus Christ - in other words, God has also entered into space-time at a point in history.

    This is important because we are dealing not just with theological facts but also with historical facts that are verifiable (or not). So, if it could be proven that Jesus did not in fact live and die in first century Palestine then Christianity would collapse like a pack of cards. Equally, if it can be proven that anything in the bible is not true (in terms of how it is presented), or that God says or does things that contradict his revealed character, then we have a similar problem.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    I'm sure, after all, you don't go around wondering if the Greek gods are playing their games again every time a natural disaster happens. You likely don't even think about it. Well that's how I am with the God of the monotheistic religions, and all the others I don't believe in.

    Fair enough, in my experience Christianity provides a better and more coherent explanation for myself, the world around me, and everything else than any of the alternatives.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    In the case of theodicy, where does 'ultimate justice' (ignoring I'm not even fully sure what that's supposed to even mean) and righting wrongs factor in. For instance for Christians who believe, and we see this in the US a lot, that a hurricane ravaged a city because God was upset with homosexuality (rather than just because they live on the tail-end of a hurricane corridor) then where is justice for all the innocent people made to suffer? Is God accountable? Are they just 'collateral damage'?

    Apologies, I was using ultimate justice as lazy shorthand. What I mean is, that justice will be fully done, and be seen to be done. No wrong will go unpunished, and no right will be unacknowledged or unrewarded.

    On specific natural disasters being the result of specific and knowable sins, I think Christians who say that are going beyond the realms of what the bible says and speculating in a way that is particularly unhelpful. It's worth noting in passing that such statements generally relate to certain sins, so might have as much to do with politics and culture as theology.

    What I see in the bible is the consistent witness that evil, pain and suffering exist in the world because of the fall, and the entry of sin to the world, and that these things will remain with us until Jesus returns. In others words, the existence of suffering etc. is humanities fault, and will be put right by God in his way and at his time.


  • #365
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    smacl wrote: »
    This is only a problem if you consider it to be one. I personally would have no issue with the idea that there are past injustices that cannot or will not be rectified. Nor do I believe in the notion of ultimate justice, whatever that might entail, or even universal justice for that matter. If you consider any court case for example, both judgement and sentencing consider the circumstances surrounding the crime, i.e. the context. As such this illustrates that justice is relative rather than absolute.

    This is a helpful point, but it's pretty unsatisfactory isn't it? In reality, the vast majority of wrong, pain and suffering in this life goes both unacknowledged and unrectified.

    I guess my main point in saying this is to point out that a naturalistic or materialistic view of the universe doesn't tie up all loose ends any more than the alternatives.


  • #366
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,755 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    LineConsole wrote: »
    Now which Church has the true lineage is another matter for debate,

    totally agree. Unfortunately, many Christians seem to believe that their version is the only truth and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand.

    Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold good claims (as do some others). Christ told us how to recognise if someone is from God or not. - “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire Therefore by their fruits you will know them"

    Hence any Church that is not bearing good fruit can be considered to be false. Find a Church bearing good metaphorical fruit, and ask them to explain the scriptures to you if you want to understand.[/QUOTE]

    One could easily say that many of the acts of the Catholic church are bad fruit. Not just the paedo priests cover-up, but hoarding money, protecting criminals, Taking Canon law above the law of the land etc. So by your own measure, the Catholic Church produces bad fruit and so is bad.

    But even that doesn't stand up. Since God himself counts every single person as a sinner, therefore all are bad fruit. Hence all churches, being run by humans, are by their nature bad fruit.

    And yet they believe in God and Jesus. What a conumdrum.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    This is a helpful point, but it's pretty unsatisfactory isn't it? In reality, the vast majority of wrong, pain and suffering in this life goes both unacknowledged and unrectified.

    I guess my main point in saying this is to point out that a naturalistic or materialistic view of the universe doesn't tie up all loose ends any more than the alternatives.

    I agree that it is unsatisfactory but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Selecting an alternative on the basis that it is more satisfactory is surely no more than an admission of bias. For me this would be a very similar argument to whether or not there is a possibility of life after death. That such a possibility could exist is a very attractive proposition but has no effect on the probability of being true other than influencing bias.

    You're quite right that a naturalistic view of the universe leaves very many unanswered questions but I would fully expect that to be the case given we are such a tiny part of the universe. This does nothing to prompt me to select an alternative point of view.


  • #368
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    smacl wrote: »
    I agree that it is unsatisfactory but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Selecting an alternative on the basis that it is more satisfactory is surely no more than an admission of bias. For me this would be a very similar argument to whether or not there is a possibility of life after death. That such a possibility could exist is a very attractive proposition but has no effect on the probability of being true other than influencing bias.

    Couldn't agree more. The fact that we long after justice is no more a "proof" of God's existence than the existence of pain and suffering is a "proof" that he doesn't exist.

    But for me, Christianity provides the best explanation of all the available facts, our perception of the world, our hopes fears and desires - including our instinctive desire for justice. To misquote C. S. Lewis, if we find in ourselves a longing that the world cannot satisfy, then it's probably because nothing in the world is supposed to satisfy it.
    smacl wrote: »
    You're quite right that a naturalistic view of the universe leaves very many unanswered questions but I would fully expect that to be the case given we are such a tiny part of the universe. This does nothing to prompt me to select an alternative point of view.

    This is surprisingly close to the Christian position. you might be closer to the kingdom than you think?! :)


  • #369
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,755 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    People are sinners insofar as they sin. People are responsible for their sin. It requires a pretty contorted logic to argue otherwise.

    People are sinners because god made them sinners. You believe in original sin, right? So how can you argue that people are not sinners? They are born with sin on them. You have mentioned a number of times that man is a sinner, and only Gods grace saves us. Not sure how you can argue both ways.
    theological wrote: »
    Why is there suffering? The Christian view isn't that God "willingly allows us to suffer". The Christian view is the death, and suffering entered the world as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3, Romans 8). I've explained this to you several times on this forum. I would argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction. The Bible would also argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction.

    So you don't actually answer why there is suffering, just that Christians don't believe that God willing allows it. But why? What purpose does it achieve? Could we believe in Jesus without suffering?

    Which then begs the follow on. Are those that suffer less in this life, which in this era is mainly western world, treated differently that those that suffer more? If suffering is something necessary, surely the amount and level of suffering is important? If one lives a relatively comfortable life i.e. free from famine, war etc, then is it fair that you are judged the same as a fellow Christian that did suffer those? Are there different classes of access to Heaven?


    theological wrote: »
    God gave His only Son for humanity. That shows that He values us greatly. Christianity argues that this is the heart of how we see love.

    I am not arguing whether he did or didn't, merely asking why? Jesus already defeated death by raising Lasarus, so was Jesus sacrifice necessary? One can of course argue that it was by Jesus death, and resurrection, that showed him to truly be the son of god and hence remove the doubters, but if that was the plan it didn't work very well as billions of people never were converted.


    theological wrote: »
    If we then continue to reject Him in spite of that then I'd argue the only one who isn't valuing anyone is us. The more you argue that God is evil, the more I see that humanity treat Him shamefully despite His grace and as a result are fully deserving of judgement. That's the Biblical perspective.

    I'm not rejecting anything, I am asking for evidence. One, written by men and curated by men, book is all that we have. I'm not arguing that god is evil, how would I know that. I am merely asking how we can assume that he isn't given that he can do anything and he has proven himself to be open to letting us suffer in the past. Why do you think that the act of dying changes that about him?


    theological wrote: »
    Your arguments are in flat contradiction of what Christians believe. They've told you, I've told you. It's my faith, therefore I have the right to tell you if you're accurately reflecting my beliefs in arguing against my faith. This is why I say you obviously don't understand. The fact that I quote Scripture shouldn't be surprising. God speaks to us today through His Word and through His Son (Hebrews 1:1).

    You have your faith, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I am not asking you about your faith. I am asking how you can be certain that no other possibilities exist. You won't even deal with the possibility that god has other plans for us, that this life is merely a stepping stone on a longer journey. Whether I think that true or not is irrelevant.

    I look at the bible and I see enough inconsistencies to give me pause about why I should unquestionably accept that I am being told is the truth. The claims for God are fantastic, amazing. Wouldn't it be great to be certain that any suffering we go through in this life is merely a dot on the eternity we will spend in the splendour of God. But within that very same bible, we see a god that carries out revenge, we see a god that hold all future generations to a sin that he had already designed into the system, a god that created a world where earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, disease exists to make people suffer regardless of their beliefs or how they behave and seemingly for no appreciable end goal.

    But I look at babies dying in childbirth and wonder how an unrepentant sinner can go to heaven. I look at members of other faiths throughout the ages, with no ability to learn of Jesus, who are condemned to hell simply for not knowing of his existence. I see evil acts carried out by those that profess to believe in Jesus, are they going to heaven? If a believer kills a Muslim who lives a good and peaceful life, does the believer really go heaven but the Muslim go to hell?


  • #370
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »

    What I see in the bible is the consistent witness that evil, pain and suffering exist in the world because of the fall, and the entry of sin to the world, and that these things will remain with us until Jesus returns. In others words, the existence of suffering etc. is humanities fault, and will be put right by God in his way and at his time.

    I think The Fall, and how various Christians answer it with regards science and naturalistic explanations, is just one great example of why I feel religious answers are superfluous and problematic when the natural answer suffices.

    With regards to evolution and natural selection various churches have responded in three ways. One is to outright deny and reject the scientific evidence in favour of a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is by far the most problematic and is seen as an embarrassment even among many Christians and is even arguably heretical in Catholicism as it worships a book rather than God (Augustine would say that when nature contradicts the Bible it's allegorical). So I'll avoid going down this rabbit-hole.

    Of the other two the Catholic church and others argue about they both involve creatures evolving, under a guiding hand, until a bipedal species of ape emerges and God 'breathes' a soul into them. One school has it God breathed into two individuals, Adam and Eve (monogenism), and the other into the species in general, that 'Adam and Eve' are the collective man and woman, not individuals (polygenism).

    And while both answers sort of get around the proposition of who Adam and Eve's kids were meant to have procreated with they create their own problems. The first has two fully human (in Church terms with souls) individuals among a group of people who would essentially be animals (again, when we divide, as the Church does, humans and animals into separate categories instead of the same) who their kin would've procreated with(!). And the second causes issues internally for anyone who simply refuses to accept Adam and Eve weren't people.


    It's this self-inflicted tangle that religion brings on itself that simply disappears when you leave it behind. And it's why my main point to the OP, which I don't want to be missed, that I wouldn't even worry about questions of theodicy and if God, if it exists, is scary, because these are only questions for the adherents to worry about. You might as well argue over whether Hulk would beat The Thing when you're outside of it. It's speculatively interesting, but it shouldn't keep you awake.


  • #371
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So you don't actually answer why there is suffering, just that Christians believe that God willing allows it. But why? What purpose does it achieve? Could we believe in Jesus without suffering?

    I didn't say this. If I say something and then you claim that I said the opposite then there's only so far we can discuss.
    theological wrote: »
    Why is there suffering? The Christian view isn't that God "willingly allows us to suffer". The Christian view is the death, and suffering entered the world as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3, Romans 8). I've explained this to you several times on this forum. I would argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction. The Bible would also argue that your finger is pointed in the wrong direction.

    You need to demonstrate that you're willing to engage with my points in good faith before I will reply further to you.

    Part of communicating means listening.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,755 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    I didn't say this. If I say something and then you claim that I said the opposite then there's only so far we can discuss.



    You need to demonstrate that you're willing to engage with my points in good faith before I will reply further to you.

    Part of communicating means listening.

    Mea culpa, I left the 'don't' part out. A genuine mistake on my part, I have updated my post and offer my apologies.


  • #373
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    I think The Fall, and how various Christians answer it with regards science and naturalistic explanations, is just one great example of why I feel religious answers are superfluous and problematic when the natural answer suffices.

    My question would be, suffices for what? From the Christian position, questions of origin, meaning and purpose are all vitally important. Naturalistic explanations, while extremely valuable, can't shed light on any of those.

    Affirming that naturalistic answers suffice in an absolute sense is just as much of a presupposition as that God exists - it's at least partially self-referential and can't be proven outside of the assumption that it is true.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    With regards to evolution and natural selection various churches have responded in three ways. One is to outright deny and reject the scientific evidence in favour of a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is by far the most problematic and is seen as an embarrassment even among many Christians and is even arguably heretical in Catholicism as it worships a book rather than God (Augustine would say that when nature contradicts the Bible it's allegorical). So I'll avoid going down this rabbit-hole.

    Agreed, this is a rabbit-hole to avoid! :)

    All I would say is that my problem with this reading of the creation account isn't that it's literal, but that it's literalistic. What I mean by that is, did the writer intend us to understand the creation week as 7 x 24 hour days, or as a poetic account that would make sense to the original readers? I would argue for the latter. John Lennox wrote an excellent book on this some years ago called 7 days that divide the world
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    Of the other two the Catholic church and others argue about they both involve creatures evolving, under a guiding hand, until a bipedal species of ape emerges and God 'breathes' a soul into them. One school has it God breathed into two individuals, Adam and Eve (monogenism), and the other into the species in general, that 'Adam and Eve' are the collective man and woman, not individuals (polygenism).

    And while both answers sort of get around the proposition of who Adam and Eve's kids were meant to have procreated with they create their own problems. The first has two fully human (in Church terms with souls) individuals among a group of people who would essentially be animals (again, when we divide, as the Church does, humans and animals into separate categories instead of the same) who their kin would've procreated with(!). And the second causes issues internally for anyone who simply refuses to accept Adam and Eve weren't people.

    Severe danger of disappearing down another rabbit hole here, but Joshua Swamidass wrote a book that came out late last year called The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I've not got round to reading it yet, but by all accounts it's very good. He also has the distinction of being a Christian scientist who is well respected by his non-believing peers.

    For what it's worth, I don't think you can have a coherent reading of the bible in which Adam and Eve are not that historic individuals. I also don't think the biblical account can be squared with an understanding of evolutionary science that understands the development of life as completely random and directionless.

    At the same time, this is not a central tenet of the faith and Christians can legitimately disagree on it. I think the relevance of this subject is more to do with the credibility of Christianity to non-Christians than as a marker of faithfulness.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    It's this self-inflicted tangle that religion brings on itself that simply disappears when you leave it behind. And it's why my main point to the OP, which I don't want to be missed, that I wouldn't even worry about questions of theodicy and if God, if it exists, is scary, because these are only questions for the adherents to worry about. You might as well argue over whether Hulk would beat The Thing when you're outside of it. It's speculatively interesting, but it shouldn't keep you awake.

    I think you only leave behind one tangle and encounter others, to be honest. I'd agree that it's difficult to be overly worried about something you don't believe in, and complicated by the fact that Christians can only give "Christian" answers to these questions. The most that I think can be achieved on a forum like this is for Christians to give an honest account of what they believe, and hopefully show that it's well thought out and coherent on its own terms.


  • #374
    PopeVicodin
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭PopeVicodin


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    My question would be, suffices for what? From the Christian position, questions of origin, meaning and purpose are all vitally important. Naturalistic explanations, while extremely valuable, can't shed light on any of those.

    Affirming that naturalistic answers suffice in an absolute sense is just as much of a presupposition as that God exists - it's at least partially self-referential and can't be proven outside of the assumption that it is true.

    Well my point would be that evolution by natural selection suffices as an account of origin. I never mentioned meaning and purpose, though I do have thoughts on that too.

    Mainly I'm aiming at religious people trying to make a scripture story fit naturalistic explanations by further complicating both the naturalistic account and their own narratives unnecessarily through revision. There is a fourth approach that one could take which side-steps the problem I outlined in the previous post altogether and that is to just say the whole Adam and Eve story is allegorical.

    In fact when I used to be interested in Christianity and read the Bible for myself (KJV), without anyone telling me what the scripture was supposed to mean, it read to me, at face value, like the Adam and Eve story was about growing up. Going from innocence of childhood (walking around naked and stuff without shame), discovering the World (Adam naming things) to having sexual awakening (original sin).

    It's not how I learnt other's interpreted it when I went on to find out what people said about the Bible, but it goes to show how open to interpretation the Bible is and how pliable it can be when someone wants to adapt it to worldviews in times very different to the original authors. I'm not even sure we know the original author's intentions any more given that Judaism changed quite a bit over its history, especially during the reign of King Josiah.

    It's all this speculation, a lot of it pointless (can questions of theodicy ever truly be answered even if God did exist?), that I don't miss from my days of trying to 'find god' at all. I don't find it productive. In fact I'm already regretting coming on to this thread after promising myself not to get involved in religious conversations any more. :p


  • #375
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Mea culpa, I left the 'don't' part out. A genuine mistake on my part, I have updated my post and offer my apologies.


    Thanks for this I appreciate it, as a result I will reply to this post more in depth.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    People are sinners because god made them sinners. You believe in original sin, right? So how can you argue that people are not sinners? They are born with sin on them. You have mentioned a number of times that man is a sinner, and only Gods grace saves us. Not sure how you can argue both ways.

    You can't argue that people aren't sinners because it is manifestly true that we are even without consideration of original sin. I know that I fall short of God's standard, and being honest you'd have to say the same. There are other tangential questions about whether or not one agrees with what God has declared, but it is true that on the basis of this standard we all fall short.

    God's grace - saves sinners. If we were not sinners, there would be no grace and no need for the cross. But since we all are, we need it. This is why Christianity is such good news. Jesus stood in our place to pay the price for our sin. That is why we can be declared righteous (Romans 5 is a good place for this).
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So you don't actually answer why there is suffering, just that Christians don't believe that God willing allows it. But why? What purpose does it achieve? Could we believe in Jesus without suffering?

    I did answer why there is suffering. Suffering came into the world as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3). Happy to explore that more, but I did give an answer.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Which then begs the follow on. Are those that suffer less in this life, which in this era is mainly western world, treated differently that those that suffer more? If suffering is something necessary, surely the amount and level of suffering is important? If one lives a relatively comfortable life i.e. free from famine, war etc, then is it fair that you are judged the same as a fellow Christian that did suffer those? Are there different classes of access to Heaven?

    This question creeps into works. That person X deserves more than person Y. Christians are not justified by works, or by virtue of how much they have suffered but by the sheer mercy of God. The reason why the gospel is great is because we are all one in Jesus. Christianity doesn't encourage us to pit ourselves against each other based on how much we've suffered, or how much we earn, where we come from or other such things. If we are in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters to one another. That's also great news. Jesus offers us a family united under one Father in the church.

    Your question touches on something similar that Jesus taught in the gospels. It links to the parable of the workers in the vineyard:
    Matthew 20:1-16 wrote:
    “For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”

    Knowing why suffering exists (the Fall, and our rebellion against God) should lead us to oppose the reason why it is exists. Namely our sin.

    Note: This doesn't mean that particular people suffer more because of their sin, but it means that suffering generally is in the world because of our collective sin.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I am not arguing whether he did or didn't, merely asking why? Jesus already defeated death by raising Lasarus, so was Jesus sacrifice necessary? One can of course argue that it was by Jesus death, and resurrection, that showed him to truly be the son of god and hence remove the doubters, but if that was the plan it didn't work very well as billions of people never were converted.

    And those who are in Christ will rise from the dead also (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

    Who are you to demand when God does things?

    You can read my previous post and what I've said above to see why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I'm not rejecting anything, I am asking for evidence. One, written by men and curated by men, book is all that we have. I'm not arguing that god is evil, how would I know that. I am merely asking how we can assume that he isn't given that he can do anything and he has proven himself to be open to letting us suffer in the past. Why do you think that the act of dying changes that about him?

    Not once in your posts following my original response have I seen a demand for evidence. I've seen you make lots of arguments based on assumptions about my faith that I don't believe are true. I'm simply clarifying misconceptions and misunderstandings for others.

    I'm confused about why you are asking about the "act of dying". Is it because you are asking about the cross or something else. This isn't clear to me.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You have your faith, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I am not asking you about your faith. I am asking how you can be certain that no other possibilities exist. You won't even deal with the possibility that god has other plans for us, that this life is merely a stepping stone on a longer journey. Whether I think that true or not is irrelevant.

    You make lots of assumptions about what we believe that are incorrect in your arguments. That's why I am responding to clarify. Hopefully for your benefit, but if not for the benefit of others reading. I hope to give a fuller understanding of the Christian faith to those reading your objections.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I look at the bible and I see enough inconsistencies to give me pause about why I should unquestionably accept that I am being told is the truth. The claims for God are fantastic, amazing. Wouldn't it be great to be certain that any suffering we go through in this life is merely a dot on the eternity we will spend in the splendour of God. But within that very same bible, we see a god that carries out revenge, we see a god that hold all future generations to a sin that he had already designed into the system, a god that created a world where earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, disease exists to make people suffer regardless of their beliefs or how they behave and seemingly for no appreciable end goal.

    I've also explained why these things take place from a Christian perspective. That is my job. It isn't my job to convince you. If you aren't convinced you aren't convinced. I hope that you will accept that you don't understand what Christianity is and look more humbly into who Jesus was and why He came, but I can't force you to do this.

    Edit: On the last paragraph. For children who die, we trust God to make the right call. For Muslims who live a "good life", that assumes that any of us are actually really good. I dispute that and so does the Bible. It also leads me to think that you're still expecting a works based religion. If you're looking for one, they don't work. Grace through Christ is much better.


  • #376
    8kczg9v0swrydm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭8kczg9v0swrydm


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Indeed. The point was though, that that authority is granted the Magesterium by you. Making you the ultimate authority for what you believe.

    Like, if you, like me, didn't grant it authority in matters of the faith, then it would have none. None that can be demonstrated in any case

    Same thing if you grant one of the 20 squillion Protestant denominations authority over you on matters faith

    Or decide not to grant authority to any authority and make up your own mind.

    Messy, I know, but it can't be helped. You're on your own, even if part of a crowd.

    Well based on how I understand Scripture and Tradition, I would argue that the Magisterium has objective authority. That means, it has teaching authority whether I subjectively agree to respect it or not, given to it by Christ Himself. What I have is the choice to follow the Magisterium or not (and take all the consequences which flow from this act), but its objective authority remains.
    An example of your own authority to remove the authority of the Magisterium over you. You would see the authority kicking you out. But only because you first expressed your authority to differ.

    In which case so what if your kicked out. By someone who you grant no authority over you??


    Again, I think we have to look at it objectively. If I am excommunicated, I am out regardless if I consent to the decision or not. It is the same if I am deported from a country. I may think its unfair etc., but the fact remains that I am deported.
    Additionally, the Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore it cannot be its own final authority./quote]

    Since we are both our own authority we are each our own interpreters. Now you can decide to cook for yourself or farm out the work and get a takeaway. But what nutrition we put into our bodies is our own choice.


    The Bible is, in parts, a massively complicated work. Take the Letters of St Paul for example. They are quite complex and could yield very bizzare interpretations to an untrained reader. I would argue that it would be downright imprudent to interpret some of these passages for yourself.

    Moreover, the Jews had a teaching authority. The common man, although he could well know the Scriptures, went to the Scribes and the Pharisees for authoritative pronouncements. Remember what Christ said: "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt 23:1). The Jews had to listen to whoever occupied the Seat of Moses, the teacher. Why would this idea be lost under the New Covenant?
    Once you start with the bible itself and itself alone, those arguments fall asunder. Only the authority granted to the Magisterium binds things together. Apostolic sucession from a verse. A huge doctrine. From a verse? Not possible. Well if that possible and permissible then just about anything else too.

    If you strip back the boiler plate stuff, the stuff which is assumed without evidence, there is very little upon which the Magisterium stands.

    I can appreciate a system constructed with a verse left hanging over the door which is said to encompass it. But that verse isn't sufficient to ground the structure. You can't pull a massive church out of a hat with 'on this rock'. Not a chance..


    There is boatloads more evidence for the teaching authority of the Church.

    Let's see:

    Jesus told his disciples, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)


    Jesus sent his apostles to teach, and promised to remain with them. Many passages of Scripture show that Christ’s authority accompanied their teaching:
    • “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (John 20:21)
    • “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
    • “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18; Matt. 18:18)
    Christ did give us a rule of faith before His ascension. He gave us the teaching of the apostles. It is important to note that Christ never mentions the writings of the apostles. He gave them no command to write, and never restricted their authority to the written word. His authority attached to their persons and their teaching.

    People usually admit that the apostles taught with authority. They deny that the apostles transmitted this authority to their successors. However, Scripture and history refute them.
    Scripture:
    • “They appointed presbyters for them in each church.” (Acts 14:23)
    • [Paul to Titus] “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might . . . appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you.” (Titus 1:5)
    • [Paul to Timothy] “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Timothy 2:2)
    • “For a bishop as God’s steward must . . . be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.” (Titus 1:7-9)
    These texts show clearly that the apostles appointed the bishops and priests (presbyters) who took over the leadership of the infant church. They also show that leaders were 1) stewards of the Gospel, 2) given authority to teach and refute false doctrine, 3) ordered to entrust this charge to others.

    The earliest sources outside the New Testament attest the belief that the apostles appointed successors who continued to teach with authority.
    • The First Epistle of Clement, c. 42 (written sometime between A.D. 70-96): “Christ therefore was sent forth by God and the apostles by Christ . . . [T]hey [the apostles] appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”
    • St. Ignatius to the Ephesians, (between A.D. 98-117): “For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”
    https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/


  • #377
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    Well my point would be that evolution by natural selection suffices as an account of origin. I never mentioned meaning and purpose, though I do have thoughts on that too.

    Big topic for sure, and there is a dedicated mega thread for it. A summary of my position is that I don't think purely naturalistic explanations can account for every aspect of the world as it is, or as we experience it.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    Mainly I'm aiming at religious people trying to make a scripture story fit naturalistic explanations by further complicating both the naturalistic account and their own narratives unnecessarily through revision. There is a fourth approach that one could take which side-steps the problem I outlined in the previous post altogether and that is to just say the whole Adam and Eve story is allegorical.

    Scripture certainly isn't a science textbook, and we shouldn't it expect it to answer modern scientific questions in technical language. The question is whether it can legitimately be read in a way that doesn't clash with our increased understanding of the natural world, and I think it can. The sheer number of bible believing scientists attests to this, as I would highly doubt that they are all either bad scientists or bad Christians :)

    Seeing Adam and Eve as allegorical would be a nice neat solution, the only problem is that that isn't how the New Testament writers viewed them. Adam is described in terms applicable to an actual individual, directly compared with Jesus (the second Adam). In short, I think that seeing Adam as allegorical does too much violence to the New Testament text to be viable.
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    In fact when I used to be interested in Christianity and read the Bible for myself (KJV), without anyone telling me what the scripture was supposed to mean, it read to me, at face value, like the Adam and Eve story was about growing up. Going from innocence of childhood (walking around naked and stuff without shame), discovering the World (Adam naming things) to having sexual awakening (original sin).

    It's not how I learnt other's interpreted it when I went on to find out what people said about the Bible, but it goes to show how open to interpretation the Bible is and how pliable it can be when someone wants to adapt it to worldviews in times very different to the original authors. I'm not even sure we know the original author's intentions any more given that Judaism changed quite a bit over its history, especially during the reign of King Josiah.

    This is the best way to start reading the bible, exploring it for yourself with an open mind. Meeting with a Christian friend that you trust is also a good idea.

    The only comment I would make is to remember that the bible is self-interpreting, in other words our understanding of any particular part needs to be informed by the whole. That realisation made a massive difference to my own bible reading, and helped unlock passages that were previously very puzzling. Not that I don't still have a lot of work to do, mind!
    PopeVicodin wrote: »
    It's all this speculation, a lot of it pointless (can questions of theodicy ever truly be answered even if God did exist?), that I don't miss from my days of trying to 'find god' at all. I don't find it productive. In fact I'm already regretting coming on to this thread after promising myself not to get involved in religious conversations any more. :p

    Yeah I hear you, at some point we need to accept that we're not going to get a full and satisfactory answer to every question we might have. That's true no matter what we believe.

    I've enjoyed our back and forth, but happy to leave it at that! :)


  • #378
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    theological wrote:
    This atonement is for our own sin, which we are entirely responsible for. It requires pretty contorted logic to argue otherwise.

    Hmmmm.

    God creates a choice-situation the result of which is that everyone else inherits a nature which is bent to be attracted to sin.

    The person did nothing to obtain this nature. No more than someone with a family line of heart disease does anything to give themselves a heart attack.

    If they weren't so influenced by this sin nature they would have a fair, balanced choice whether to sin or not. But they have a skewed choice, something (a sin nature) leaning them in the direction: sin.

    How do you figure we are entirely responsible for sin which is in part the product and consequence of our inherited sin nature.

    Logically that is. Its one thing to say 'the bible says so'. That doesn't make it logical.


  • #379
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Hmmmm.

    God creates a choice-situation the result of which is that everyone else inherits a nature which is bent to be attracted to sin.

    The person did nothing to obtain this nature. No more than someone with a family line of heart disease does anything to give themselves a heart attack.

    If they weren't so influenced by this sin nature they would have a fair, balanced choice whether to sin or not. But they have a skewed choice, something (a sin nature) leaning them in the direction: sin.

    How do you figure we are entirely responsible for sin which is in part the product and consequence of our inherited sin nature.

    I don't buy the assumption that because we can be tempted to sin that means that we are not responsible for what we do. We don't believe that on a secular level, so I don't know why people would conclude that also applies on a Christian level.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Logically that is. Its one thing to say 'the bible says so'. That doesn't make it logical.

    I make no apologies that I reason on the basis of what God has spoken in His Word. I think if you object to that, you need to provide a better basis for how we can know anything about God.


  • #380
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    theological wrote: »
    I don't buy the assumption that because we can be tempted to sin that means that we are not responsible for what we do.

    The biblical idea is that we, as lost, are slaves to sin. Captives. Adam was tempted but he's a different case.

    You say totally responsible. In the measure that our sin is beyond our control, for reasons that are beyond our control, doth the totality of our responsibility diminish. That's 1st year law student stuff I'm sure.
    We don't believe that on a secular level, so I don't know why people would conclude that also applies on a Christian level.

    We indeed don't believe that that element of our wrongdoing/ lawbreaking, which lies outside our control, is our responsibility.

    Extenuating circumstances m'Lud.


    I make no apologies that I reason on the basis of what God has spoken in His Word. I think if you object to that, you need to provide a better basis for how we can know anything about God.

    Your take on what God has said, you mean. And you said logical .. which I took to mean other than relying on your take on scripture. Obvious, self-explanatory.

    Logically (rather, according to any sense of justice anyone has) you cannot be held responsible for the act of another, namely Adam and the level to which we are compelled and dominated by his choice.


  • #381
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The biblical idea is that we, as lost, are slaves to sin. Captives. Adam was tempted but he's a different case.

    You say totally responsible. In the measure that our sin is beyond our control, for reasons that are beyond our control, doth the totality of our responsibility diminish. That's 1st year law student stuff I'm sure.

    We indeed don't believe that that element of our wrongdoing/ lawbreaking, which lies outside our control, is our responsibility.

    Extenuating circumstances m'Lud.

    Your argument still remains poor. Effectively you're saying that because I have agency over what I do I am no longer responsible for doing it. Or in short: If I can do it then it isn't my fault if I do.

    That doesn't work in any scenario. It is precisely because you have agency that you are responsible.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Your take on what God has said, you mean. And you said logical .. which I took to mean other than relying on your take on scripture. Obvious, self-explanatory.

    Logically (rather, according to any sense of justice anyone has) you cannot be held responsible for the act of another, namely Adam and the level to which we are compelled and dominated by his choice.

    As I said already - please provide a better approach as to how we can know anything about God and then we can continue discussing meaningfully on this topic.

    It is easy to criticise the views of others without putting forward your own alternative. Dismissively stating the following doesn't add anything to the conversation:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Logically that is. Its one thing to say 'the bible says so'. That doesn't make it logical.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    john123470
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭john123470


    "Religion is regarded by the ignorant as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

    Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)


  • #383
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    john123470 wrote: »
    "Religion is regarded by the ignorant as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

    Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

    Mod warning: And posts such as the above in this forum are considered ignorant by the mods and seem intended to inflame. From the charter;

    "6. Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion."

    Please read the charter before posting again. Do not respond to this in thread, please use either the feedback thread or PM. Thanks for your attention.


  • #384
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    We indeed don't believe that that element of our wrongdoing/ lawbreaking, which lies outside our control, is our responsibility.

    Extenuating circumstances m'Lud.

    The bible puts things in even more stark terms than you've been discussing here - look at Romans 9:17-29. Pharaoh was raised up specifically to show God's power in rescuing his people, yet is still held responsible for his wrongdoing.

    There are no extenuating circumstances, and no excuses. It's precisely because our position in sin is so hopeless that the good news is so good!


  • #385
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    .
    theological wrote: »
    Your argument still remains poor. Effectively you're saying that because I have agency over what I do I am no longer responsible for doing it. Or in short: If I can do it then it isn't my fault if I do.

    That doesn't work in any scenario. It is precisely because you have agency that you are responsible.
    .

    My argument was that our agency is't totally ours. We have a genetic flaw handed down.

    I was responding to your saying we are totally responsible, when its clear that we can only be responsible for our element in our agency.

    Thus partially responsible.


    As I said already - please provide a better approach as to how we can know anything about God and then we can continue discussing meaningfully on this topic.

    It is easy to criticise the views of others without putting forward your own alternative. Dismissively stating the following doesn't add anything to the conversation:

    I don't mind having a discussion around what the bible might be saying. I was dealing however with your statement about

    a) the responsibility being total

    b) this being a logical (ie based on a reasonable / what reasoning people would conclude.

    If you wanted to alter your wording by saying that biblically speaking we are totally responsible then by all means.

    Logically however, you are on a sticky wicket. We are not to blame for being born predisposed to sin. Nor totally responsible for the consequences that follow.

    Responsible, yes. Not totally. Would appear to be the logical position


  • #386
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    The bible puts things in even more stark terms than you've been discussing here - look at Romans 9:17-29. Pharaoh was raised up specifically to show God's power in rescuing his people, yet is still held responsible for his wrongdoing.

    There are no extenuating circumstances, and no excuses. It's precisely because our position in sin is so hopeless that the good news is so good!

    Firstly Romans 9 is a treatise on the replacement of physical Israel with spiritual Israel. The objection being raised - and dealt with - is God's action in this regard. Its not really a doctrine forming piece on personal responsibility.

    Secondly: God raising up. It is not described how God raises up. He can achieve things in two ways (your probably supposing the former)

    - direct that such and such occur. Make it happen by divine intervention. God of Almighty Power God. God of the Old Testament

    - not take action and allow things to run their course. God as dove: gentle, meek, dismissible. God of the New Testament. Jesus - who, afterall is the most accurate representation of God we have.



    If the latter, he can chose not to apply a restraint on someone (say the restraint of conscience) and the person, unrestrained, sinks into depravity. Pharoah was depraved.

    God is not obliged to apply the same restraint on everyone, equally and at all times.

    Pharoah raised up, according to Gods purpose. By God's inactivity.

    -

    Anyway, Pharoah cannot be held responsible for that element of his sin which has nothing to do with him. Are we agreed there is an element of our sin that has nothing to do with us? Or are we to blame (because your reading says so) for being born with a sinful nature?


  • #387
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Firstly Romans 9 is a treatise on the replacement of physical Israel with spiritual Israel. The objection being raised - and dealt with - is God's action in this regard. Its not really a doctrine forming piece on personal responsibility.

    This is good discussion!

    Agreed, that is the immediate context of Romans 9. But the point still stands, Pharaoh is guilty before God in spite of the fact that he was raised up to show God's power, glory, and saving mercy. And remember, in the whole of Romans up to this point Paul has been making the point that all stand guilty before God, both Jew and Gentile, and are in need of his saving mercy. Romans 9:19-21 therefore have a general applicability.

    It's interesting that Paul doesn't offer a philosophical resolution for the interaction of human free will and God's sovereignty, but says in effect "Remember that God is God and you are not." At a minimum, this indicates again that the first thing we need to do with regard to God is lay down our arms and give up our rebellion, rather than demanding he answer every question we have.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Secondly: God raising up. It is not described how God raises up. He can achieve things in two ways (your probably supposing the former)

    - direct that such and such occur. Make it happen by divine intervention. God of Almighty Power God. God of the Old Testament

    - not take action and allow things to run their course. God as dove: gentle, meek, dismissible. God of the New Testament. Jesus - who, afterall is the most accurate representation of God we have.

    I think you are driving too great a wedge between God's acting in the old and new testaments - he has not and does not change. He is absolutely sovereign, at all points and throughout. He hasn't relinquished sovereignty in new testament times in the name of gentleness or meekness - I think this is to misread the witness of scripture somewhat.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the latter, he can chose not to apply a restraint on someone (say the restraint of conscience) and the person, unrestrained, sinks into depravity. Pharoah was depraved.

    God is not obliged to apply the same restraint on everyone, equally and at all times.

    Pharoah raised up, according to Gods purpose. By God's inactivity.

    Pharaoh, and every human being who has ever lived since Adam, is totally depraved. Meaning that sin extends to every part of our being, and no part of us is free from its taint.

    God's grace certainly restrains evil in the world, so that no-one does all the wicked things that we might do, but that is separate to the question of depravity.

    I'm not sure where you're going with Pharaoh being the results of God's inactivity. The consistent of scripture seems, to me, to be that God is sovereign at all times and in all places. The means employed in a particular instance are less relevant than the fact that God is always in control.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway, Pharoah cannot be held responsible for that element of his sin which has nothing to do with him. Are we agreed there is an element of our sin that has nothing to do with us? Or are we to blame (because your reading says so) for being born with a sinful nature?

    On this, I think we need to distinguish the two ways in which we are guilty. First, we are guilty in Adam (original sin) as Adam is our representative head. He is the fountainhead if you like, and this is what the bible means when it talks about us being Adam's descendants / line / race etc. Second, we are also guilty because we actually and really do sin, in our thoughts, words and deeds. So we are doubly guilty. The fact that our actual sins follow from Adam's original sin doesn't decrease our guilt, as when Adam fell we all fell too - because he is our representative.

    In Christ we are saved from both these problems, being justified and sanctified, born again, and adopted into the family of God. This is also why the comparisons between Adam and Christ are so important, because when we come to faith Jesus becomes our representative - his faithfulness is counted to us in the same way that Adam's guilt was before.


  • #388
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ChrisJ84 wrote: »
    This is good discussion!

    So long as we don't say 'the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"
    Agreed, that is the immediate context of Romans 9.

    God's sovereign choice that Israel be spiritual and not physical is often parlayed into God's sovereign choice to save this one and not that one.

    I wouldn't skip over the context to rush to another doctrine.
    But the point still stands, Pharaoh is guilty before God in spite of the fact that he was raised up to show God's power, glory, and saving mercy.

    No argument there. The question is the totality of guilt - that was what was been insisted on and I question that. If you have been lumbered with a distinct propensity to sin, its difficult to say you are totally responsible for the consequences.

    Now you can turn to your bible and pluck a verse out, but the problem remains. If you rely on some special pleading 'irrespective of how bizarre it sounds, we are totally guilty because God says so' then it is special.

    God is above us. His justice is our justice - perfected. Not mangled.

    You cannot read the bible but through the lens of what it is to be human. God's justice, if utterly divorced from our own sense of justice - however flawed and inconsistent - would be gobbeldygook. You could only say "dah byble sayz it"
    And remember, in the whole of Romans up to this point Paul has been making the point that all stand guilty before God, both Jew and Gentile, and are in need of his saving mercy. Romans 9:19-21 therefore have a general applicability.

    I don't agree. Paul earlier deals with an objection to the gospel 'what shall we say then, shall we continue in sin because we're irrevocably saved?" By no means..

    He deals with a specfic matter. There is no reason to suppose (as Calvinists do) that passages dealing with a specific objection to the gospel ("e.g. but what about Israel?") has anything at all to do with the way of salvation.

    The twins, Esau and Jacob are frequently pulled out."This is how salvation is wrought: God's sovereign choice". But the passage is dealing with an objection "what about Israel?" not salvation.

    How is a writer supposed to deal with one subject (spiritual Israel vs physical Israel when everything he says is shoehorned into another subject?

    You gloss over that. "Yes that't what he's speaking about but we can take more from it.."

    Can we? How?


    It's interesting that Paul doesn't offer a philosophical resolution for the interaction of human free will and God's sovereignty, but says in effect "Remember that God is God and you are not." At a minimum, this indicates again that the first thing we need to do with regard to God is lay down our arms and give up our rebellion, rather than demanding he answer every question we have.

    That presupposes that my questioning is rebellion and your view aligns with God's.

    Yes, who are we to say to God 'how dare you'. But first we must establish if this indeed is what God dares.

    On free will: there is no free will. Slave to sin have not free will.




    I think you are driving too great a wedge between God's acting in the old and new testaments - he has not and does not change.

    God as Jesus. God as Hitler, the ethnic cleanser. If you are content that ethnic cleansing and the killing of babies is okay so lony as God does it then there is no issue.

    God would be like Hitler petting his dog or Stalin cuddling his daughter - a bizarre entity beyond comprehension.

    Or Jesus is actually the representation of God. Not the one written about by a formerly pagan people who had worshipped war gods who led them to victory amd demanded their children as sacrifices. Rather, one written about by people who met him face to face.






    He is absolutely sovereign, at all points and throughout. He hasn't relinquished sovereignty in new testament times in the name of gentleness or meekness - I think this is to misread the witness of scripture somewhat.

    I think the cross displays as no other, the depths to which God is prepared to exercise his sovereign choice. Gentle and meek unto death. There is no greater underline attaching to the nature of the exercision of the sovereignty of God than that he laid down his life.

    If God's sovereignty allowed him to do anything he liked and be right every time, why would he die for us.

    God is sovereign. But he is mevertheless constrained. Not evem he has a magic wand.

    Pharaoh, and every human being who has ever lived since Adam, is totally depraved. Meaning that sin extends to every part of our being, and no part of us is free from its taint.

    Yeah, but Pharoah had no hand in obtaining his depraved nature (what a poor choice of word - requiring much explanation given what is normally attached to that word)

    Unless you magic up a form of justice which blames the kid for the sins of the father.




    [Qupte]God's grace certainly restrains evil in the world, so that no-one does all the wicked things that we might do, but that is separate to the question of depravity.[/quote]

    How so. Conscience acts as a restraint. Sometimes we expend effort (at least I do) to suppress its restraint so that I can sin. Sometimes I don't insist on having my daily sin.

    Are you suggesting that we have no involvement?

    I'm not sure where you're going with Pharaoh being the results of God's inactivity. The consistent of scripture seems, to me, to be that God is sovereign at all times and in all places. The means employed in a particular instance are less relevant than the fact that God is always in control.

    Taking you hand off the wheel is as much an act will as steering the wheel. Both are sovereign choices. There is no need to suppose sovereignty is a matter of action. You can also decide not to act

    If deciding not to act ( a sovereign decision) then the person is in control.

    Why would you think God is always in control? His will might be done in allowing others to determine things.


  • #389
    jelem
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭jelem


    god is cult whatever religion and name.
    majority of humans are weak and need something even invisible non existant to
    cling to.
    All the cults are man made and change by reason of politics or attendance.
    from the perspective of stronger humans whom are not humane and abuse humans
    cults gives them a framework to gain power and wealth.
    The fear of the unknown has haunted humans since time began and
    cults build on that fear by imposing a gain lose regime.
    this as simple as bad burn in hell good go to heaven.
    the frameworks built by those building and supporting cults also
    transfer non existant diety to supreme power and make it into
    human laws. this allows for punishment when do not conform.
    the factual example to this is Moral.
    Moral is a man made construct which has no undeniable fact to support it.
    theft is immoral but take part of neighbours goods to feed your child, is argued by all cults.
    christians have problem with birth control as banned but have 9 children you cannot support
    where is moral there and the only answer is to stop a normal nature natural function sex.
    to stop what the cult deity gave you as body function pleasure is a catholic scripture of
    wasting talant.
    as a human you have no right to deny nature in favour of some non provable entity,
    let alone set up punishable laws based on the cult.
    Moral nihilist (error status) i am, if you not gathered and should thus research.
    Question all from young age and found the elders\patriarchs constantly wrong
    despite and aside from the obvious "grass bends with the wind".
    god and cult is the biggest human scare foistered on the ignorant and weak for
    sole purpose of power ane wealth of those whom promote most.
    write down a moral and inspect it for fact, you cannot win.
    even hand in fire get burnt is not fact if hand protected or fire been put out.
    so a bare hand in fire is not moral it is nature and learned behaviour for which a 6 year old
    should know. if not then the elders have failed to teach\instruct and pass knowledge which is
    inhumane and is sign of wishing to hold power.
    fact we live in something only guessed as a universe which fact shows there is yin and yang\positive and negative
    along with light and dark, all of which depends on your perspective and position.
    the "scare" is that foistered on humans to coral and control using a made up deity and not "possibility of a god".


  • #390
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,741 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I am thinking now that God is not external to us, it is not an entity/being external to us.

    God is not a person / being / entity, that you can point to, or blame.

    It is us.

    We are God.

    God is us.

    God is all the goodness and beauty in life.

    So in a sense, God is everywhere.

    I must ask my priest what he thinks about this.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,262 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    Geuze wrote: »
    I am thinking now that God is not external to us, it is not an entity/being external to us.

    God is not a person / being / entity, that you can point to, or blame.

    It is us.

    We are God.

    God is us.

    God is all the goodness and beauty in life.

    So in a sense, God is everywhere.

    I must ask my priest what he thinks about this.


    She'll probably tell you you are an animist and to get over it.


  • #392
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    jelem wrote: »
    god is cult whatever religion and name.
    majority of humans are weak and need something even invisible non existant to
    cling to.
    All the cults are man made and change by reason of politics or attendance.
    from the perspective of stronger humans whom are not humane and abuse humans
    cults gives them a framework to gain power and wealth.
    The fear of the unknown has haunted humans since time began and
    cults build on that fear by imposing a gain lose regime.
    this as simple as bad burn in hell good go to heaven.
    the frameworks built by those building and supporting cults also
    transfer non existant diety to supreme power and make it into
    human laws. this allows for punishment when do not conform.
    the factual example to this is Moral.
    Moral is a man made construct which has no undeniable fact to support it.
    theft is immoral but take part of neighbours goods to feed your child, is argued by all cults.
    christians have problem with birth control as banned but have 9 children you cannot support
    where is moral there and the only answer is to stop a normal nature natural function sex.
    to stop what the cult deity gave you as body function pleasure is a catholic scripture of
    wasting talant.
    as a human you have no right to deny nature in favour of some non provable entity,
    let alone set up punishable laws based on the cult.
    Moral nihilist (error status) i am, if you not gathered and should thus research.
    Question all from young age and found the elders\patriarchs constantly wrong
    despite and aside from the obvious "grass bends with the wind".
    god and cult is the biggest human scare foistered on the ignorant and weak for
    sole purpose of power ane wealth of those whom promote most.
    write down a moral and inspect it for fact, you cannot win.
    even hand in fire get burnt is not fact if hand protected or fire been put out.
    so a bare hand in fire is not moral it is nature and learned behaviour for which a 6 year old
    should know. if not then the elders have failed to teach\instruct and pass knowledge which is
    inhumane and is sign of wishing to hold power.
    fact we live in something only guessed as a universe which fact shows there is yin and yang\positive and negative
    along with light and dark, all of which depends on your perspective and position.
    the "scare" is that foistered on humans to coral and control using a made up deity and not "possibility of a god".

    Mod warning: This post is in breach of a number of points on the charter. Please take time to read and understand the charter before posting here again. Do not respond to this in thread, please use either the feedback thread or PM. Thanks for your attention.

    "1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."


  • #393
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Geuze wrote: »
    I am thinking now that God is not external to us, it is not an entity/being external to us.

    God is not a person / being / entity, that you can point to, or blame.

    It is us.

    We are God.

    God is us.

    God is all the goodness and beauty in life.

    So in a sense, God is everywhere.

    I must ask my priest what he thinks about this.

    What you're considering there boils down to pantheism which runs contrary to Christianity which is for the most part trinitarian and in some traditions dualistic. The following article may be of some interest; https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-pantheism-700690


  • #394
    john123470
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭john123470


    Sandor Clegane wrote: »
    An all powerful god decides to create the world and humans and then fills the world with such pain and misery and then expects us to worship him constantly, why? It then tries to fill us with fear of his wrath if we disobey in anyway.

    What kind of a god is it to do that? a very scary one in my honest opinion, I mean if I created life the last thing I would want to do is bestow untold misery on it and then demand it grovels to me, that's insane.

    How do people reconcile the fact they are worshiping a god that does and behaves this way? We condemn dictators and evil despots for doing this kind of thing but God gets a free pass, why? is it not just as wrong? are people only believing and following out of fear?

    Also how many religions and gods are there in the world? ..

    Iv'e been struggling with this lately, id always considered myself a lapsed catholic, I don't attend church but I believed there maybe something, but now the thought of something is just as scary, if not scarier than simply ceasing to exist.

    This opening post is a very reasonable question by Sandor. We all ask it in some form - To be or not to be, that is the question.

    From the poster's questions above, he seems to be inviting discussion on these questions in a general way. 'We are victims of our geography etc...'
    I don't think he specifically asked for a scholarly debate on the bible.

    And yet, it seems that posters are continually getting sidelined for offering their 2 cents on the poster's questions.

    Its a great question. It could have been a very interesting disussion


  • #395
    jelem
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭jelem


    the moderator is as blind and biased in issueing a dictat - oh the power thrill.
    Wrong and wrong as i clearly state
    "god is cult whatever religion and name"
    it is not aimed solely at christians.
    i point out the moderator is abusing interpretation to weild
    ignorant power.
    another whom neads educating to learn the ability to soak in what has been read.


  • #396
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    jelem wrote: »
    the moderator is as blind and biased in issueing a dictat - oh the power thrill.
    Wrong and wrong as i clearly state
    "god is cult whatever religion and name"
    it is not aimed solely at christians.
    i point out the moderator is abusing interpretation to weild
    ignorant power.
    another whom neads educating to learn the ability to soak in what has been read.

    Mod: Jelem is now enjoying a short enforced holiday from this forum so I'd ask other posters to please not respond to the above. Two week ban for backseat modding, ignoring mod instruction not to discuss moderation in-thread and breach of charter.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    john123470 wrote: »
    This opening post is a very reasonable question by Sandor. We all ask it in some form - To be or not to be, that is the question.

    From the poster's questions above, he seems to be inviting discussion on these questions in a general way. 'We are victims of our geography etc...'
    I don't think he specifically asked for a scholarly debate on the bible.

    And yet, it seems that posters are continually getting sidelined for offering their 2 cents on the poster's questions.

    Its a great question. It could have been a very interesting disussion

    Mod: With just shy of 400 posts, I'd say it has been and continues to be a very interesting discussion for many here.

    This is the Christianity forum so it is entirely reasonable to address any questions here in the context of the bible. Suggesting that this is sidelining the debate is back seat modding which I would ask you not to do. Thanks for your
    attention.


  • #398
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    jelem wrote: »
    god is cult whatever religion and name.
    majority of humans are weak and need something even invisible non existant to
    cling to.
    All the cults are man made and change by reason of politics or attendance.
    from the perspective of stronger humans whom are not humane and abuse humans
    cults gives them a framework to gain power and wealth.
    The fear of the unknown has haunted humans since time began and
    cults build on that fear by imposing a gain lose regime.
    this as simple as bad burn in hell good go to heaven.
    the frameworks built by those building and supporting cults also
    transfer non existant diety to supreme power and make it into
    human laws. this allows for punishment when do not conform.
    the factual example to this is Moral.
    Moral is a man made construct which has no undeniable fact to support it.
    theft is immoral but take part of neighbours goods to feed your child, is argued by all cults.
    christians have problem with birth control as banned but have 9 children you cannot support
    where is moral there and the only answer is to stop a normal nature natural function sex.
    to stop what the cult deity gave you as body function pleasure is a catholic scripture of
    wasting talant.
    as a human you have no right to deny nature in favour of some non provable entity,
    let alone set up punishable laws based on the cult.
    Moral nihilist (error status) i am, if you not gathered and should thus research.
    Question all from young age and found the elders\patriarchs constantly wrong
    despite and aside from the obvious "grass bends with the wind".
    god and cult is the biggest human scare foistered on the ignorant and weak for
    sole purpose of power ane wealth of those whom promote most.
    write down a moral and inspect it for fact, you cannot win.
    even hand in fire get burnt is not fact if hand protected or fire been put out.
    so a bare hand in fire is not moral it is nature and learned behaviour for which a 6 year old
    should know. if not then the elders have failed to teach\instruct and pass knowledge which is
    inhumane and is sign of wishing to hold power.
    fact we live in something only guessed as a universe which fact shows there is yin and yang\positive and negative
    along with light and dark, all of which depends on your perspective and position.
    the "scare" is that foistered on humans to coral and control using a made up deity and not "possibility of a god".

    This is a rant, not a discussion point, but I'm up for engaging with it so we can seriously say that the point wasn't actually silenced.

    First question for you: Why do you think that God is a "cult"? What definition are you using, because on a cursory Google I can see that there are several. I think the best is this one:
    a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing.
    If God is genuinely who He says He is as creator, and saviour, then I don't think my admiration is misplaced. I agree that if God is "imaginary" as you argue it may well be, but you would need to back up that claim.

    On politics:
    Given that the origins of Christianity were in Israel and that the infancy of Christianity went against the ruling authorities one genuinely can't say it is political. I would perhaps lend some support to the case that Christianity was hijacked at several points for Christian purposes. This point is increasingly harder to argue in a modern context given that political authorities increasingly oppose Christian viewpoints, in particular in respect to social issues like marriage, abortion and gender.

    On hell and heaven:
    You obviously don't understand Christianity if you're arguing that Christianity teaches that the good go to heaven and the bad people go to hell. That isn't how it works as I've explained over the previous pages. Christianity starts with the standpoint that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). This is why we need a saviour to begin with (Galatians 2:21). We are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 5:8-9), not because we are "good". People face judgement because they continue to reject God and as a result are judged by their works rather than being saved by grace.

    On morality:
    You state that morality is a moral construct, but relative morality simply doesn't work. Why? If morality is simply what I deem to be good, and what I deem to be evil, why is that an authority for anyone else? Who is to say that your moral judgements are any better than mine? We could add the factor of majority norms being what is moral, but majority norms frequently end up being evil. A better solution is that there is a moral lawgiver who is the ultimate authority in respect to what is good and what is evil, and that this moral lawgiver has revealed this to us. This is why I think the Christian moral philosophy is better than yours. Feel free to come back to me on this.

    On birth control:
    Only Roman Catholics have this viewpoint on birth control. Many of us on this forum are not Roman Catholics. For example I am an evangelical Christian, we've got no issue with contraceptives.

    This post drives home the point I've been making. Atheists for the most part on this forum do not really know what they are criticising, and as a result we see ignorant rants like this time and time again.

    Money and wealth:
    It is not true that Christianity for the most part is promoted for money and wealth. The vast majority of churches including my own are accountable to their membership for how the money gets spent. Our treasurer provides the accounts every year so that we can see what gets spent where. We can see what the staff costs are, we can see how much gets spent on buildings and upkeep. It is a myth that most churches are profiting from the gospel. I agree that in some rare cases there are horrible things like televangelism and the prosperity gospel, but for the most part people do not profit from the gospel, and if people do, that would be considered sinful in Christianity. A love of money is criticised quite strongly in the Bible (1 Timothy 6:10, Hebrews 13:5).

    As for questioning: I genuinely think that Christianity encourages us to question. Jesus said that we should seek in order to find. That is how I became a Christian over a decade ago. It was by looking into the case for Jesus from the eyewitness material that we have in the gospels. My encouragement is that you would read what God has to say to us in His Word and learn what you are criticising and see if you're on the right side of the argument.
    Geuze wrote: »
    I am thinking now that God is not external to us, it is not an entity/being external to us.

    God is not a person / being / entity, that you can point to, or blame.

    It is us.

    We are God.

    God is us.

    God is all the goodness and beauty in life.

    So in a sense, God is everywhere.

    I must ask my priest what he thinks about this.

    I am using lower case g for god here to distinguish this from the Christian concept of God.

    The problem is that life isn't exclusively beautiful, or good. There are good and redeeming features in life, but it is far from perfect. The earth is equally a place that can be said to be horrible and equal. If god were the earth, that would undermine god's perfection as a result. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

    The problem with pantheism is if god is in everything, why do you get to suggest that god is only the good and beautiful things rather than the evil and horrible things also?


  • #399
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    theological wrote: »
    This is a rant, not a discussion point, but I'm up for engaging with it so we can seriously say that the point wasn't actually silenced.

    Mod note: Please note Jelem has been banned from the forum for two weeks and will not be in a position to reply to your post. I'm leaving your post in place as others may wish to engage on the various points under discussion and your post relates to a post prior to the one which I've asked posters not respond to.

    For anyone who does decide to reply, please keep it civil and pay attention to the rules of the charter. As always, any discussion on moderation either to the feedback thread or via PM. Thanks for your attention.


  • #400
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    theological wrote: »
    First question for you: Why do you think that God is a "cult"? What definition are you using, because on a cursory Google I can see that there are several. I think the best is this one: "a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing."

    With respect, that is a rather weak definition of cult by any measure, let alone in the context of a forum on religion. For example it could apply to how an individual considers their favourite beer. ;)

    The problem with the word 'cult' is that it has many definitions, mostly pejorative, various ones of which could be used to support opposing sides of the same argument such as this. I think the opening paragraph in Wikipedia on cults is rather more appropriate
    Wikipedia wrote:
    In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2]:348–56 It is usually considered pejorative.
    This post drives home the point I've been making. Atheists for the most part on this forum do not really know what they are criticising, and as a result we see ignorant rants like this time and time again.

    I'd advise anyone involved in these discussions against such broad generalisations as they tend to be divisive, lead to polarization, name calling and not much else. Christianity is a broad church, atheism isn't even that. Better to refer to specific posts made by individual posters. Please see my post on the feedback forum here for my take on this.
    The problem with pantheism is if god is in everything, why do you get to suggest that god is only the good and beautiful things rather than the evil and horrible things also?

    I think you'll find that pantheism outside of the Christian tradition doesn't subscribe to the dichotomy of good and evil you're presenting above which makes that point somewhat moot. Similarly the notion that good or evil exist in an abstract sense independent of a person's actions is very much an aspect of certain religious and philosophical beliefs that is simply not present outside of those belief systems.


  • #401
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Scary...no.

    Angry...yes.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement