Confession of a former christian

As I understood it, the only thing you couldn't get your head around was the idea that it is not unloving to maintain the view that sin is sin.Did Jesus love that woman caught in adultery? If love is action and his action saved her life (whilst risking his own) then love her he did. Indeed, the general picture is that he loved all sinners more than himself in laying down his life for them. At the same time as he loved that woman he told her that her sin was sin.Given that the Christian definition of loving others doesn't preclude calling sin other than sin I can't see why you couldn't figure out that it was possible to love your homosexual neighbour (in Christian fashion) whilst maintaining their sin to be sin. If you were to take unChristian views on what sin and loving others mean then you might well be expected to get into difficulties. That isn't leaving the Christian faith however. It's leaving whatever idea of Christian faith you were labouring under.

...and your response to the points made regarding your position?{AbE}Out of interests, what do you suppose mainstream Christianity should do regarding this matter. Should they:- interpret the Bible in such a way so that homosex ceases to be considered sinful?- stop considering the Bible to be Gods revelation to man?- do something else?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Everyone is killed by God and unless he decides today's your day, you certainly ain't gonna die on it. Not unless you're correct in being inclined towards supposing that God could be taken by surprise that is. Taken by surprise by a drunk driver for instance.Otherwise God is completely fair and impartial. That means that there is but one (physical) death per person - irrespective of race, religion, sexual orientation, creed*. Nor is it that only the good die young either.-God didn't instruct his chosen people to rape. I've debated the Numbers case (where Moses instructs that the "Midianite women and children be slain and only the virgins are to be taken") a number of times and no one has managed to make the rape charge come even close to sticking. It doesn't take all that much to make a tabloid front page (as you do here) but rape is a criminal charge and any argument made in that direction is reminded that criminal is the class of argument to be approached here - not tabloid charge.Ditto murder...-Not that a murder charge has a snowballs chance in Hell mind...Murder is essentially defined as: "unrighteous/unlawful killing". But if God instructs his chosen people to slaughter millions then no murder can have been committed by them. They executed their orders under instruction from the lawgiver as do armies in general. They would be but bullets in God's gun in that case, instruments of his warfare.The difficulties become insurmountable when it comes to God-in-the-dock (were it that a doc could be found for God to stand in - but let us suppose Alice-in-Wonderland for a moment). How could a righteous killing (sinners promised death-by-God > sinners get death-by-God) ever be proven unrighteous? Is there a lawyer in the house?Enslavement. Could it be punishment for sin? Should sinners be punished in Gods way and at Gods time?-The general trouble with your POV Rahvin, is that is doesn't stop to consider things in anything like the depth due to the God you suspect might exist. It's fast and loose ... and might well attract a PotM from a nodding donkey. But your POV stumbles badly at the fences of a Sovereign and Holy God. One who owns you and me. And whose will will be done in both our lives.Like it or not. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Free for all? Not that I consider pointing out the weaknesses in a particular part of your case preaching. Anymore than I would consider your own post atheistic-preaching. We are both rationalising our stance.Now if you (or anyone else) could present an argument as to how God is acting unrighteously in turning off something he promised to turn off - or modifying the condition of something he owns anyway (I'm talking about our physical life here) - then I'm all ears. In another thread is fine by me.- Something has to define what good is. Your own definition revolves around you being your own Authority. You subject yourself to whoever/whatever system of morality you chose to. And rebel against what you chose to rebel against. Me? Well, I was my own Authority too. Somewhere along the line I authorised myself to go Gods way - knowing that that choice was irrevocable. I wouldn't look down on your choice (although I might find elements of your system as repugnant as you do mine). That much is God-given us both.As pointed out above, things become problematic when you try to subject God to the law he subjected men to. Take the law forbidding stealing for example: how could God steal - given that he owns everything?? Beats me!- Assume for a moment that I am correct. IF you were to consider everyones death as the point at which they are moved to their final, eternal destination AND you assumed that everyone was given an equal chance w.r.t their opportunity to access a "positive (rather than negative) afterlife outcome" THEN why would you consider God in such a negative light regarding his moving people to eternal destinations?If a central point of this blink-of-an-eye existance on earth is to sort out eternal destinations then why the objection to people going to eternal destinations. Aren't you being a bit earthly minded?- I know this is why you don't believe. Next to believing in some false god it must be the main reason why unbelievers unbelieve.It's a common thing to hear people talk about leaving Christian faith - when they never had Christian faith. What they had is what they were told and once they reached the age/circumstance whereby they could assess the evidence in their possession they realise all they had is what they were told. God quickly goes the way of Santa Claus. And so he should. Such a faith is a blind faith and on it's own is useless.You won't believe in God until God demonstrates his existance to you in no uncertain terms. They are your terms and (happily) they frequently happen to be Gods terms too. Grant that there is no need for God to provide classical empirical evidence of his existance - suppose instead that he would have no problem reconforming the arrangement of your mind so as to render you 100% convinced of his existance. To demand God jump through your hoops - when it must be accepted that God can prove-it-otherwise-and-to-your-satisfaction AND is entitled to do it his way ... is displaying the heart of the hellbound.It is worth noting that he provides this evidence of his existance after you are saved so there is no need to raise the "I can't believe until I have evidence" objection. You are not expected to believe in Gods existance without evidence that satisfies. This God you hate so much is nothing if not reasonable.- It doesn't really work that way. There is only one person who can prove it and that's God. In the meantime what you get exposed to are aspects of the gospel. There are snippets of it throughout this post for example. Consider it as a sort of subliminal advertising The gospel delivered via the Trojan Horse of debate.

quote:

---

Romans 1:16 ..the gospel..is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes

---

...not any argument of mine.

Taking it apart a little. Those at Nurnberg were rendered subject (by defeat) to the laws/argument/morality of the victor. If no victory then no court. If no court then no attempt at this defence and no possible defeat of it. Before you can apply your comparison you must find away to get the Israelites to the dock (so to speak). To simply suppose they must be placed there because you don't like the killing of men, women and children isn't reason enough. According to that reasoning we would have to suppose Allied troops standing in the dock at Nurnberg!The Nurnberg picture resonates chillingly with what is promised by God. God will be the final victor and all those who died fighting on his enemies side will be raised so as to stand at his Judgement. They all will be subject to his law/argument/morality and their defence ("I was only following his orders" and "I was under his influence") will be defeated.There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth come the verdict.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The discussion assumes God exists for the sake of argument in order that his action can be explained in the light of what his existance means. Or be attacked as the action of a psychotic madman. In assuming Gods existance Allahs non-existance is also assumed. They are wrong because Allah is a figment of satans imagination. That is my belief at least. For an absolute objective answer I believe we all only have to hang around for a few score years.- The currency of zeal and the currency of belief might not be as miscible as first appears. Islam is a religion of works and if I had the same level of belief in Islam as I currently have for Christianity it wouldn't be at all surprising to find me worrying about the distinct possibility of a negative afterlife outcome. I'm a sinner you see.But if someone were to open up a way whereby a positive afterlife outcome was assured simply by carrying out an act such as you describe - then I could very well imagine myself leaping at the chance. What's a few score years here when certain bliss can be had by 'sacrificing' it? What use a few score years when my sin could well lead to me blowing it and spending some or other time in purifying or permanent Hell?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This thinking person looks to Abraham who believed God and was declared righteous. Abraham never heard of Christ yet is saved in Christ. Which only goes to show that a person doesn't need to have heard of Christ in order to be saved in Christ. It wouldn't be pushing the boat out too much further to suppose that a person need not have heard of the biblical God either - in order to be saved by the biblical God. I'm sure you'll observe much the same thing if examining 10 descriptions of your wife written by 10 different people. Or read 10 witness accounts of the same car crash. Is the person being described different or are the people doing the describing different.I know which answer I'd give.

The rational thought I am engaged in involves the notion that God is better able to define what good is than any man-made relativistic model could attempt to. I don't suppose God does things for no reason at all anymore than I suppose anyone does things for no reason at all - so the issue of his doing something for no reason and my response to it doesn't arise.- Your 'sense' of God having done evil arises out of an attempt to bring God down to man-sized levels so as to be able to compare his actions with those of other men. Hence daddy-killing-puppy analogies. Understandable but problematic. You are trying to compare an infinitely large apple with a fairly puny pear.In your killing of a baby we can find nothing good in you to speak of. In God's case, God knows that his action (or inaction in the case of his not preventing you killing a baby) will result in pain and loss for the parents involved. But if Gods intention is to leverage this pain for a potentially greater gain then his action/inaction is good.See pain this way perhaps. There are only two states a person can be in - they can either be "lost" or they can be "found". If lost then pain can be used as a tool by God in his attempt to bring a person to the found position. That would be a good thing God would have done. Once found, God can use pain in the process of sanctifying (making holy) a person. That too is a good thing God will have done (based on the defintion of what is good given earlier). The western worlds philosophy on pain is that it is to be avoided and masked and removed. The fact of the matter is that pain is always a way of telling us that there is something wrong.- A world economic system requiring ever increasing consumption of ever diminishing resources and you're talking to me about human reason. Millions wallowing in preventable poverty, hunger and sickness in the face of the gluttony and greed of millions of others ...and you're talking about human empathy?- The entity proved to me he exists and that is sufficient for me to bow to his authority. I'm not sure how not being able to empirically prove him to you alters the rationale for me bowing to him. It appears you consider the central tenets of empiricism-the-philosophy to be factual rather than merely philosophical.- Given the topic, I would have thought it more useful to invoke the case of an artificial intelligence orders of magnititude below me in terms of "size". Your hyperbole would deflate somewhat where you to insert "ant-sized AI" into the ethics equation. Such a move would better reflect the relative sizes involved.Your case is not aided by jumping to the conclusion: "killing and torture for no reason whatsoever". The stated reason for eternal punishment is clear. Eternal beings punished eternally for eternal transgressions of law. It's not all that different to what happens in our own temporal justice systems. Temporal crime attracts temporal punishment for a time. The units involved need to be kept constant.- Given the eternal enormity of each persons death, I don't think a focus on the method of arriving there is warranted. I'm not downplaying the horrendous pain and suffering and terror that can be experienced - but a person is either facing an eternity of unimaginable bliss or an eternity which will cause whatever temporal anguish they suffered here to be something yearned to be returned to.- I'm not inclined to see Hell as a place with a literal lake of fire. I think the Bible attempts to convey the horror of Hell using the limits of human experience and language. I suspect actual Hell to be far worse than described.Once you understand that you are an eternal creature and that your sin is carried out in the eternal realm (time being a subset of eternity) then you'll be more accepting of the fact that your sins debt to God attracts an eternal price. The nature of eternity is a bit of a mystery - but there is no arguing with the logic of the currency.- How "greater and lesser in the kingdom of God" is decided upon I am not sure. But I gather it has something to do with our deeds in this life (aside from that which gains us entry into that kingdom - which has nothing to do with deeds). It seems reasonable to suppose there will be degrees of punishment in Hell too - based on deeds.I'm not sure what you mean by "on a whim". God hates sin with a furious hatred that is unimaginable. In the measure you love (children) you hate (the actions of a paedophile) afterall. Given God so loved the world and what he did for it, one can only begin to imagine God so hating their sin..I think the problem is with people downplaying the seriousness of sin - not realising that they are viewing through unholy eyes and God is viewing through throughly holy eyes.- Would it be fair to say that you came to embrace an empiricist philosophy? If all you had was Christian Religion at that point it wouldn't be surprising that your belief would evaporate like the morning dew. Whilst this says nothing about Gods existance or no, it does point to the power of empiricism to dispel fairytales.- I'm not sure I understand. I'm not suggesting that you need rely on anyone elses belief. I am asking whether you will grant that God could render you as sure of his existance (sans classically empirical evidence/proof) as you are of any empirical thing you care to mention.- But the whole tone of your rejection of God is based upon a philosphy which is subjective, unprovable and unsupported by any objective evidence. Empiricism has nothing to say about the unempirical other than that it has nothing to say. You seem to be using the silence inherent in empiricism as an argument. Which would make it an argument from silence. Which would be a fallacious thing to do.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I can't see that it matters what or who the source of the pain is. Insofar as God utilises it (whatever it's source) in the attempt at saving us it can be considered a good thing. Like breaking eggshells is a good thing in the process of making omelettes. I'm not sure that a car could be considered evil - even though it can hurt you. In that sense of "thing" I would agree with you. I would agree that the root of evil occurs at the point of rejection of Gods restraint which balances one side of the see-saw. Rejection (the cutting loose) of this restraint permits the see-saw to tilt and slide the person down towards the attraction profferred by sin - which had been balancing the other end of the see-saw. Balancing things that is, until the will makes the choice for sin.Where the line is drawn between this root of evil and the products that follow I cannot say.All God does is good. In permitting my murder I get to see God quicker - which is good for me. My murderer has broken a law of God which is good for him. Doing so will either assist in his being brought to his knees before God and saved (the law as a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ)- which is a good thing for him. Or it will condemn him to Hell. Hell is something that only occurson account of a final, irrevocable demand of a persons will - sin being the vehicle for that person ending up and remaining where it was they wanted to go. It is good that a man be permitted to exercise his choice - irrespective of where that choice leads him. Otherwise he wouldn't really be a man. To be honest, I generally don't consider civil law in terms of any moral comment they might be making. Not in terms of your observation - but because there is little point in me judging others. I arrived at the same conclusion by a different route thus. God will deal with us all in the end and that (in my least wordly moments) is good enough for me..- A knowledge of good and evil - most certainly in the sense of our own personal good and evil - access to which we all have. Knowledge of anothers good and evil is of secondary importance.

This is a little off but understandably so given what you were responding to. The simple definition of 'good' given earlier went something like "that which conforms or aligns to Gods will". Evil would then be defined as the contrary to that: "that which runs counter to Gods will".In taking the tack you were responding to, I was engaging in relativistic argument to show how something considered as a relative "good" (eg: going to heaven instead of hell) could arise out of some action/inaction of God which would be considered relativley "bad"(God inflicting/permitting pain).In fact, "good" and "evil" are relative only in so far as they relate to Gods will or no.In the sense of "knowing best what good is" thus, God knows best not because he is more knowledgeable but because God knows what his will is - better than anyone else.- It wasn't just my entire moral philosophy I handed over to God (..and I certainly didn't have much of a one to offer him), it was me entirely: lock, stock and smoking barrel. It was more down to his diligence than it was my due.- Excuse me if I stop you right there. Have you not just placed a limit on Gods ability to demonstrate his existance? Surely all your tests can hope to achieve is a rearrangement of atoms in your brain tending towards a pattern called "as certain as these tentitive tests can enable me to be". God can arrange the atoms in your brain into that pattern too. Perhaps you'd like even more certainty - it's just a modification of that pattern after all. How certain would you like to be. That's no problem to God..- As you might imagine, reality takes on a different hue once God appears on the scene. There is no reason to suppose tools applicable in evaluating a godless-tinted reality will be of any use in this new terrain. To suppose so is to speculate wildly.

And who is going to be the ultimate judge of whatever test you care to carry out? Why, it's youself of course. You are the one who assigns worth to whatever test is carried out. You are the one who decides to accept or reject the tests conclusions. You are caught in a catch-22 of recognizing limits and not-recognizing limits.To suggest yourself able to test would require that you be "god" in this instance. Which means that is indeed a limit placed on God ... by god.

It's not that it's a negative thing, it's that it's an impossible thing. You can't know (by testing) whether this reality exists, instead you assume it exists and go about investigating the nature of it by testing. If the reality you find yourself encompassed by includes God, you don't go around testing to see if God exists, you test to find out more about the nature of that reality.You are sure the reality around exists and that you are not being fooled regarding that - because there is nothing else to do and no test to apply. By 'god' I mean someone who sets themselves up as ultimate authority. When it comes to the reality you perceive around you you have no authority, you simply assume because there is nothing else to do. Yet with the exact same class of thing: reality in which God is present you suppose to test for it. god thus.That sort of god can be fooled by himself - not least by his own schemings.- You are supposing that God cannot demonstrate his existance to you in a way which would leave you in no doubt. You are taking what you know about the way the world works and extrapolating without justification unto what God knows and can do. Do you really suppose God is limited by what you're limited by?When I said "how sure do you want to be?" I was implying that you could be certain to a level grater than the tentitive way you set your sights at. You do set your sights at a tentitive level don't you? The testing posed being 'scientific' in nature. That is not certainty.There is nothing to say that common-to-yours observations of others should increase your certainty that you are not being fooled. All common observation tells you is that others see the same thing in the same way. Not that they aren't being fooled about what they see.Let's not make a god out of a convention on the matter of common observation

If someone asks me why I believe the answer is simple and rational: I believe because I have evidence supporting that belief. I have a concrete reason to believe. That the evidence isn't empirical doesn't matter to the question at hand. My answer remains rational.If I was to ask you why you believe, what would you say? For you seem to eschew notions of evidence. But if there is no evidential reason to believe then you are engaged in blind belief - are you not? And if blind then why not belief in pixies (for which I myself have no evidence and in whom, thus, I do not believe).

If evil is defined as "thoughts/actions/deeds arising from beings rendered capable of choosing, which are contrary to Gods will/desire/pleasure" then the question "where evil comes from" is answered.It comes from those beings.Is it evil to create beings capable of choosing to act contrary to Gods will? Not if it's Gods will to create them so capable it's not.Can we say that God doesn't care just because he permits willed beings to express will - including expression in the evil direction. I don't see why so. God would cease to care about us if he removed our ability to express our will in that way. Cease to care because we would cease to exist.Unless one could be said to care for robots of course.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The reason they exist is because God created them in such a way that they would be able to choose both for and against his will.I'm not sure what omnipotence has to do with it - unless your supposing omnipotence to mean God can do simply anything at all (such as create a weight that is too heavy for him to life)- God doesn't do what God consider evil. How could he do evil (given the defintion of evil). Beings he creates choose against his will (= do evil). God is responsible for creating them (which is not evil) - not for their choices.Evil comes from whence it comes - from beings who chose. Why God doesn't get rid of them (and their abilility to bring evil about) is another issue.Certainly having his will done (allowing beings he creates to chose) cannot be done if he prevents them choosing. That much stands to reason. But having his will done in this sense means his will isn't done in another sense. The resolution to that condundrum is the product called "evil". Evil is what occurs when Gods will is not being done. Certainly God could create beings who could choose freely from a range of options all of which fall within his will. It would be like the Garden of Eden without any forbidden-of-any-tree fruit.Of course, such beings wouldn't have chosen to be created so, so it might be the case that God created beings who could (in some way) decide which kind of beings they wanted to be. Beings that operated within Gods will or beings that operated outside Gods will. This temporal life being the place where that decision gets made by what are in fact eternal beings Evil is something which goes against Gods will. But in the sense of it being used to (arguably) achieve God's overall purpose it is good.For instance, if it is Gods intention that a being gets to (effectively) chose whether to be with God or away from God for eternity and evil is the substance which enables the being to have it's choice exercised then evil is a good thing.It depends on which level of God's will you are dealing with. Is it my will that a child hurt itself in any way? Of course not. Is it my will that a child learn of danger through hurting itself? Certainly. Poor analogy but that kind of thing.Edited by iano, : No reason given.