Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:47 PM
349 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,303 Year: 23,909/21,208 Month: 1,874/2,468 Week: 383/822 Day: 43/66 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Author Topic:   Calvinism and Arminianism remix
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5062
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 256 of 283 (817770)
08-20-2017 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by GDR
08-19-2017 10:18 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
GDR writes:

For suffering that is the result of human evil then I believe it is necessary in order that we have the choice between god and evil. Without that choice, or the memory of that choice, goodness could not exist.

But Christians believe that god created a paradise where humans were only good and apparently vegetarian. This was his intended creation, not the one we see today. Evil apparently came from outside - also a creation of the Christian god. God it appears, didn't share your view that good can't exist without evil, but he's not godly enough to prevent it. We're back to the puny god again.

As far as things like cancer or tsunamis are concerned I see it occuring due to the fact that we live in a world where time only flows in one direction and as a result the world is subject to entropy.

The above also applies to disease and disaster - they weren't necessary in Eden. But also what has entropy got to do with disease? Did god really have to create - or allow to be created - polio, anthrax, AIDS, ebola? It makes no sense within a belief system of a loving god.

As far as carnivorous life is concerned it seems to me that it is a necessary way of culling the world of the weaker members of the animal world as in "the survival of the fittest". I agree that is the most difficult part to answer but as I worship the God of love whose nature I see embodied by Jesus then I have to go on faith that it is necessary.

Ditto above. But also before we understood how the natural world uses competition to create species, Christians believed that they were put here intact. Species were created and were immutable, competition for life was not a necessary force to drive evolution it was a deliberate act of malicious creation, yet they still believed as you do. They just created equally irrational apologetics for it.

As with each of these, the question stands - is this the best a god can do?

Again of course, I believe that ultimately the wolf will lay down with the lamb and it won't be a part of the new creation.

The Christian god that created Adam and Eve did not believe in, or need, the wolf. He wanted heaven on earth. Apparently he failed and his creation has stayed broken for several billion years and can't be fixed. It's a failed experiment. Not much of a god.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 08-19-2017 10:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 10:36 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 265 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 6:30 PM Tangle has responded

kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1375
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 257 of 283 (817772)
08-20-2017 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by ringo
08-19-2017 12:04 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
ringo writes:


Who gives a damn about the "end of time" even if there was such a thing? Why should people suffer today for some supposed end-of-time benefit?


Such a mature and selfless attitude! You sound like a four-year-old who must have his marshmallow NOW rather than waiting for something better.
ringo writes:


As I already said to Phat, a lot of people would probably rather give up the personal growth. If God is so big on choice, why doesn't He give us that one?


Ditto. A four-year-old doesn't care about personal growth, either.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:04 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 10:38 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:44 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9756
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 258 of 283 (817786)
08-20-2017 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Tangle
08-20-2017 3:11 AM


Blaming Or Crediting A Hypothetical
Blaming God does nobody any good. The evidence shows that the only controllable variable that we as humanity has is our own personal responsibility and duty towards our present and future quality of life.

There are several solutions for removing the blame placed on God.

we can:

  • believe that the evidence shows He/She does not exist. Yet that (the responsibility must be ours. We become the decisions that we make---either collectively or individually. )

  • Believe that God exists yet that the responsibility must be ours. We become the decisions that we make---either collectively or individually.

    In other words, belief or lack of belief is irrelevant regarding the responsibility that humanity has to address AIDS, Ebola, Tsunamis, Terrorist marches, Group Behavior, and isolated global actions that harm or kill others.

    Perhaps, Tangle...this is the point you want religious folks to see.

    Finally--- Although I do not see God as a hypothetical. I am now saying that my beliefs do not ultimately matter in regards to my responsibilities as a global citizen. I can and do pray...and I can and do try to use logic, reason, and reality-based thinking when possible.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by Tangle, posted 08-20-2017 3:11 AM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 260 by Tangle, posted 08-20-2017 11:25 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  • Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9756
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 259 of 283 (817787)
    08-20-2017 10:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 257 by kbertsche
    08-20-2017 6:37 AM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    You have to understand ringo. He claims to be an atheist and is a contrarian in regards to most arguments, but he would prefer that even if God does exist that he (ringo) simply be left alone and allowed to voice his free willed beliefs and philosophies.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 257 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2017 6:37 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5062
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 260 of 283 (817796)
    08-20-2017 11:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 258 by Phat
    08-20-2017 10:36 AM


    Re: Blaming Or Crediting A Hypothetical
    Phat writes:

    In other words, belief or lack of belief is irrelevant regarding the responsibility that humanity has to address AIDS, Ebola, Tsunamis, Terrorist marches, Group Behavior, and isolated global actions that harm or kill others.

    Perhaps, Tangle...this is the point you want religious folks to see.

    Wahey, by George he's got it!

    Regardless of god/s what we have to do is be responsible for ourselves and others and set up the institutions that can improve our lives - health, education, criminal justice, welfare, industry, environment etc etc.

    Meanwhile, it would help if we did away with all the spurious activity that wastes time and energy and creates diferences bewteen people so that they can fight about them. Just think how much more we could do with all than time and money absorbed by our religious institutions that could actually be doing something useful.

    Finally--- Although I do not see God as a hypothetical. I am now saying that my beliefs do not ultimately matter in regards to my responsibilities as a global citizen. I can and do pray...and I can and do try to use logic, reason, and reality-based thinking when possible.

    Maybe you'll get round to noticing that that the praying bit is unnecessary too.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 10:36 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13639
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 261 of 283 (817810)
    08-20-2017 2:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 253 by GDR
    08-19-2017 4:51 PM


    Re: Why do you care?
    GDR writes:

    Something had to occur to cause any one of the countless processes that are required to start. It could be anything like some star going super nova or any other cause.


    Weasel words. As I said, nothing needs to be added to mindless processes. Stars going supernova are mindless processes.

    GDR writes:

    No one is able to explain the naturalist causes for the processes required to bring our world into existence.


    But we do understand the processes of chemistry. We just don't know the exact details of how they fit together - yet. We didn't know how electricity worked until we did. There's no reason to think we won't figure out how abiogenesis works. We didn't need intelligent design to figure out electricity and we don't need intelligent design to figure out abiogenesis.

    GDR writes:

    Frankly it seems to me more rational to conclude, as with the house, that there is a unified intelligence involved than to conclude that their was virtually an infinite number of cases of mindless random chance as a cause for our world.


    We're not talking about your personal opinion of what's "more rational". We're talking about which explanation is simpler a la Occam. The explanation that doesn't rest on a giant question mark is obviously simpler.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 253 by GDR, posted 08-19-2017 4:51 PM GDR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 7:16 PM ringo has responded

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13639
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 262 of 283 (817811)
    08-20-2017 2:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 255 by Phat
    08-20-2017 2:10 AM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    Phat writes:

    how could you possibly claim they are false doctrines?


    Because they're not in the Bible. If they were, you could point them out instead of just being shocked.

    Phat writes:

    The only argument you might try is the one that charges John as a revisionist gospel...yet even that is far from settled.


    Nope. I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 255 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 2:10 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 264 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 3:58 PM ringo has responded

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13639
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 263 of 283 (817812)
    08-20-2017 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 257 by kbertsche
    08-20-2017 6:37 AM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    kbertsche writes:

    Such a mature and selfless attitude! You sound like a four-year-old who must have his marshmallow NOW rather than waiting for something better.


    Is that an attempt at sarcasm? We're not talking about delayed gratification here. We're talking about the needs of the present versus some hypothetical fictitious wishy-washy weasely future benefit.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 257 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2017 6:37 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9756
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 264 of 283 (817817)
    08-20-2017 3:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
    08-20-2017 2:40 PM


    Who Is In The Beginning Anyway?
    Phat writes:

    how could you possibly claim they are false doctrines?


    Ringo writes:

    Because they're not in the Bible. If they were, you could point them out instead of just being shocked.

    Ok, I'll admit that it is harder to prove that the talking snake is satan...so I won't attempt to literalize that metaphor.
    ringo writes:

    I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus.

    What else could "in the beginning" mean? The Word was with God...the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning.... He Who? Additionally, we have these references:

  • John 1:14
    And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

  • John 17:5
    "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

  • Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  • 1 John 1:1
    What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--

    Granted those are all from the revisionist author---so many critics denounce the attempt..(Not I, though)

  • Hebrews 1:10 And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the …
  • Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning …
  • Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    Critics challenge the idea of the virgin birth, but Matthew makes it clear:

  • Matthew 1:23
    Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, …

    Why do you insist on reinterpreting an entire group of books? Humans are no wiser today in matters of philosophy than they ever were. In the final analysis, it all boils down to belief, anyway. We have no DNA.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 262 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:40 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 268 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 11:50 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  • GDR
    Member
    Posts: 4279
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 265 of 283 (817831)
    08-20-2017 6:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 256 by Tangle
    08-20-2017 3:11 AM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    Tangle writes:

    But Christians believe that god created a paradise where humans were only good and apparently vegetarian. This was his intended creation, not the one we see today. Evil apparently came from outside - also a creation of the Christian god. God it appears, didn't share your view that good can't exist without evil, but he's not godly enough to prevent it. We're back to the puny god again.

    As an atheist you are pretty clear about what Christians believe. As NN says you sound like Faith. You are arguing against the fundamentalist view of Scripture. The majority of Christians probably don't even think about that, let alone believe it. We know that mankind has the knowledge of good and evil and is able to make and act on moral choices. It seems that any intelligence that can bring about the existence that we know today, even if imperfect is anything but puny.

    Tangle writes:

    The above also applies to disease and disaster - they weren't necessary in Eden. But also what has entropy got to do with disease? Did god really have to create - or allow to be created - polio, anthrax, AIDS, ebola? It makes no sense within a belief system of a loving god.

    In our entropic world the body is going to break down and be subject to disease.

    tangle writes:

    Ditto above. But also before we understood how the natural world uses competition to create species, Christians believed that they were put here intact. Species were created and were immutable, competition for life was not a necessary force to drive evolution it was a deliberate act of malicious creation, yet they still believed as you do. They just created equally irrational apologetics for it.

    Once again you argue against the fundamentalist view which the majority of Christians, (and certainly in your country), don't hold.

    Tangle writes:

    The Christian god that created Adam and Eve did not believe in, or need, the wolf. He wanted heaven on earth. Apparently he failed and his creation has stayed broken for several billion years and can't be fixed. It's a failed experiment. Not much of a god.

    Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come on earth as in heaven". God, through Jesus, acknowledges that things aren't the way they should be, but as we can see in the teachings that we have of Jesus, we are called to enact in the present what will be fully realized in the future.

    One thing that is obvious to any theist is that God made us co-creators in the process. We are also in the view of I think pretty much any Christian, that we are given responsibility to be stewards of this planet and the life on it. So where there is suffering for whatever reason, we are called to do whatever we can to relieve it. Sometimes we do a good job of it and often we fail miserably but that is what we are called to.

    AS an aside, I think that a very good argument can be made for a Christian to be a vegetarian. I'm not, but I have a feeling that I probably should be.


    He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

    Micah 6:8


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by Tangle, posted 08-20-2017 3:11 AM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2017 4:18 AM GDR has responded

      
    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 4279
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 266 of 283 (817833)
    08-20-2017 7:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
    08-20-2017 2:35 PM


    Re: Why do you care?
    ringo writes:

    We're not talking about your personal opinion of what's "more rational". We're talking about which explanation is simpler a la Occam. The explanation that doesn't rest on a giant question mark is obviously simpler.

    We are just going around in circles. We aren't going to come to a conclusion so I will accept that we are just going to disagree.

    I'll try and state my point as simply as possible. Yes multiple natural processes exist. The question is why do they exist. Are they simply the result of more natural mindless processes or is there a point or points where a pre-existing intelligence was involved. The issue can't be proven and it boils down to a matter of belief. It is my view that the more reasonable conclusion is that intelligence was involved and you believe the opposite.


    He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

    Micah 6:8


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:35 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 11:56 AM GDR has responded

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5062
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 267 of 283 (817847)
    08-21-2017 4:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 265 by GDR
    08-20-2017 6:30 PM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    GDR writes:

    As an atheist you are pretty clear about what Christians believe.

    Very few atheists start out as atheists, most are brought up with the religion of their parents. I was brought up as a Christian I therefore know what my fairly standard, non-fundamental version of Christianity believes and teaches. I also attend various birth, death and marriage services and hear what is still preached. Please don't pretend I don't understand what Christians are taught and believe.

    However, I have pointed out many times here that it's almost impossible to discuss issues like this in a general manner because each one of you here believes different things about it. Essentially you each make up your own versions.

    As NN says you sound like Faith. You are arguing against the fundamentalist view of Scripture. The majority of Christians probably don't even think about that, let alone believe it.

    It's true that I do refer to scripture because that is the origin of your belief - I'm not going to apologise for that. I know Adam and Eve is total fantasy, but that's what's written and taught. I accept too that most liberal Christians have abandoned those bits of the bible that are now known to be either too violent to depict the sort of god that is currently fashionable, or too childish for a grown-up to believe or just disproved by modern knowledge, but that leaves you with no anchor, simply making it up.

    We know that mankind has the knowledge of good and evil and is able to make and act on moral choices. It seems that any intelligence that can bring about the existence that we know today, even if imperfect is anything but puny.

    Well of course intelligence is an emergent quality of an evolving brain so that idea can be immediately dismissed, but sure, if a god was necessary to create a system to start it all in motion, then he'd be pretty powerful. But he's not the omni-god we were all taught about beacuse he made such an appalling hash of it according to how he intended it all to work out.

    Of course, if you wish to walk away from every traditional idea of a Christian god, all powerful, all loving all seeing etc then you can say anything you like and this world can be as sick as it is without contradiction. But you can't have it both ways.

    Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come on earth as in heaven". God, through Jesus, acknowledges that things aren't the way they should be, but as we can see in the teachings that we have of Jesus, we are called to enact in the present what will be fully realized in the future.

    I hate to drag you back to the bible because I know you think it's the preserve of the fundamentalist, but Jesus said that this kingdom would come within the lifetimes of the people he preached to. But it didn't happen and to get out of that trap you have to introduce another set of apologetics. The future, sadly, will not see any second coming; any improvement to our wellbeing will only come through our own efforts - as it always has.

    One thing that is obvious to any theist is that God made us co-creators in the process. We are also in the view of I think pretty much any Christian, that we are given responsibility to be stewards of this planet and the life on it. So where there is suffering for whatever reason, we are called to do whatever we can to relieve it. Sometimes we do a good job of it and often we fail miserably but that is what we are called to.

    Well this is a terribly modern idea isn't it? This position would have been an anathema to a 17th century Christian. It's pure humanism - congratulations! This shows hope for the future, Western religion is fading into a liberal mush which is a very good thing indeed.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
    I am Finland. I am Barcelona.

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 265 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 6:30 PM GDR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 270 by GDR, posted 08-22-2017 3:04 PM Tangle has responded

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13639
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 268 of 283 (817874)
    08-21-2017 11:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Phat
    08-20-2017 3:58 PM


    Re: Who Is In The Beginning Anyway?
    Phat writes:

    What else could "in the beginning" mean? The Word was with God...the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning.... He Who?


    Where does it say "He" was with God in the beginning?

    Start by not capitalizing "Word" and not assuming that Jesus is the word. Now what do you have?

    quote:
    John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory...

    Doesn't that say that the word became Jesus, as opposed to having been Jesus from the beginning?

    Phat writes:

    Why do you insist on reinterpreting an entire group of books?


    I'm not reinterpreting anything. How could Jesus become something He always was? You're the one who's trying to shoehorn a lot of figurative language together to make sense.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 3:58 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13639
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 269 of 283 (817878)
    08-21-2017 11:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 266 by GDR
    08-20-2017 7:16 PM


    Re: Why do you care?
    GDR writes:

    The issue can't be proven and it boils down to a matter of belief.


    We're not trying to prove an issue. We're talking specifically about Occam's razor.

    You can not make an explanation of your car simpler by insisting that it needs an invisible pink unicorn to pull it. You can believe it till the cows come home and you may even be right but you can't use Occam to back you up. If you can not prove it exists, you can not use it to simplify anything. You are flat-out contradicting Occam.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 7:16 PM GDR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 271 by GDR, posted 08-22-2017 3:10 PM ringo has responded

    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 4279
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 270 of 283 (818005)
    08-22-2017 3:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 267 by Tangle
    08-21-2017 4:18 AM


    Re: The Problem Of Evil
    Tangle writes:

    However, I have pointed out many times here that it's almost impossible to discuss issues like this in a general manner because each one of you here believes different things about it. Essentially you each make up your own versions.

    I doubt you'd find two Christians anywhere who have thought and read to any extent on the issues would agree on everything. The message is simple, it is all about love, love your neighbour, and even your enemy, but it is the theology that is open to interpretation.

    It is about understanding the nature of God and how it is to apply to our lives. So, yes in a sense we do worship the god we choose. I choose to worship God as embodied by Jesus. As far as Christianity is concerned I also believe that the Gospel writers got it right, that Jesus was bodily resurrected, that there is an ultimate plan for this creation, and that it won't end in oblivion but as part of a recreated world.

    You may call that wishful thinking but after considerable study I contend that it makes sense of my life and the world in a way that nothing else does.

    Tangle writes:

    It's true that I do refer to scripture because that is the origin of your belief - I'm not going to apologise for that. I know Adam and Eve is total fantasy, but that's what's written and taught. I accept too that most liberal Christians have abandoned those bits of the bible that are now known to be either too violent to depict the sort of god that is currently fashionable, or too childish for a grown-up to believe or just disproved by modern knowledge, but that leaves you with no anchor, simply making it up.

    But I do absolutely have an anchor. I start with the absolute conviction that God resurrected Jesus and that Jesus perfectly embodied the nature of God. I can then look at the Sciptures through the lens of of Jesus’ life and teaching. So yes, I don’t believe that God ordered genocide or public stoning as it is totally inconsistent with what Jesus did and taught. I see the Bible as being God inspired but not God dictated.

    I do agree though that as you go through the OT the message of love that Jesus taught is in there as well. Jesus was a first century Jew speaking primarily to first century Jews.

    Tangle writes:

    Well of course intelligence is an emergent quality of an evolving brain so that idea can be immediately dismissed, but sure, if a god was necessary to create a system to start it all in motion, then he'd be pretty powerful. But he's not the omni-god we were all taught about beacuse he made such an appalling hash of it according to how he intended it all to work out.

    Of course, if you wish to walk away from every traditional idea of a Christian god, all powerful, all loving all seeing etc then you can say anything you like and this world can be as sick as it is without contradiction. But you can't have it both ways.


    I have given you a couple of times my rationale for things being the way they are. If that means God is not as powerful as you were taught then so be it. I do believe that we are called, and have been given the tools to eliminate much of that suffering. I also believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice and a world without the short comings that you have pointed out.

    Tangle writes:

    I hate to drag you back to the bible because I know you think it's the preserve of the fundamentalist, but Jesus said that this kingdom would come within the lifetimes of the people he preached to. But it didn't happen and to get out of that trap you have to introduce another set of apologetics. The future, sadly, will not see any second coming; any improvement to our wellbeing will only come through our own efforts - as it always has.


    But that is a complete misreading of the texts. Jesus did establish an earthly Kingdom of His followers commanded to reflect God’s love into the world. Those readings are not about end times. That is why Jesus is referred to as being King in the present. A King requires a kingdom. Jesus would have understood this through His understanding from the book of Daniel 7:14 where the Son of Man is given dominion over a kingdom where people of all nations and languages might serve him. Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray that His Kingdom would come on Earth as in Heaven. It is a Kingdom established 2000 years ago, and is for the here and now as well as extending into the world to come.

    He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

    Micah 6:8


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 267 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2017 4:18 AM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 272 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2017 3:39 PM GDR has responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    14151617
    18
    19Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017