Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Nah, it was Eve's fault. That bitch...

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

There you go.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey AZ. That's the saddest part of the whole thing. Think of all the cruelty, persecution and second class status afforded to women in all of recorded history. All from one little pomegranate.There's one for you, Slevesque: Why would god allow the millenia of women's punishment for the "Fall of Man", which was so obviously a scripted act?

Hey Dr. Sing. (Emphasis mine)So how does one decide when to interpret a verse literally or non-literally? I thought the rules were to interpret literally except when it makes more sense to interpret otherwise.Are you a strict literalist?If so, then how in "god's green earth" can you assume literal truth when speaking about what, to me, is obvious allegory (Garden of Eden) versus when you're citing a verse (Is 14) which, to most, requires (relatively) much less mental gymnastics to take literally?Literal except when it suits your purpose, Dr. Sing?Edited by Apothecus, : punctuation

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey Hyroglyphx.I'm trying to determine where "free will" is supported, biblically speaking. Most verses I've looked at require the types of contortions of text which we see so often happen when a certain faith needs that text to support a preassumed conclusion. Free will seems to me to be a recent addition to literalist dogma in order to absolve any type of fallibility of God, no?Thus, even if God was architect and creator of everything seen and unseen (that includes sin, satan, everything, Dr. Sing, even if you don't necessarily believe it), humans' ability to exert free will lets God off the hook for appearing, shall we say, imperfect, no?Except this begs the question of why God would set herself up to appear weak. It's the thorn in the side of ID, which requires a God constantly tweaking what is shown to be an imperfect universe, and seems also to be the achilles heel of literalists, in general.Is God not perfect? Or is it all just scripted, from start to finish?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I have to admit, Dr. Sing, that yours is a opinion I've never come across.So is there a measure of "time" before which an event happens in which god "sees" the unfolding of possible futures and then decides which she will permit? I was under the impression that god is all knowing, and thus would also know which possible future she would permit, no?Would not god have known exactly everything that would occur, (including what would happen to "perfect" Adam due to the Tree, or how Bill Gates would steal the Windows idea from Steve Jobs, etc, etc ad infinitum) forever, before time existed? Thus this idea of "permitting" this or that sort of fails at the outset, doesn't it? And along with it fails the concept of free will.Can you see where this sort of thinking gets the literalist in a bit of trouble? What you're proposing is that god does not have previous knowledge of future events, and thus you relegate her to merely the level of the ancient Greek or Trojan gods, Quetzalcoatl or any other pagan deity in whom you purport not to believe. In your biblical anthropomorphic lampoons, god is "angry" when something her subjects do displeases her, when she should have known from the beginning of time this would happen. Then and only then does she inflict punishment for these transgressions. Why couldn't she have "nipped it in the bud" and not allowed them to happen at all?One word: theater. It makes for a good story, but also makes for a weak deity. This is what you, yourselves, do to your own god, and you don't even realize you're doing it.Thanks for the title, although it may surprise you how many prissy folk will object to referring to a lowly pharmacist as "Dr." even when he holds that very degree.Have a good one. p.s. In response to your forthcoming comment about my over-complicating things: you're over-simplifying things.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Thanks for the reply, Dr. Sing.You still haven't replied to Message 68, when I asked you: The reason I ask is because much of what literalists espouse comes up hard against an omniscient god. For example, if you believe the entire bible was "god inspired" and thus above reproach or question as to whether each and every verse was "god breathed", then how do you explain written incidents of god's anger or punishments doled out to humans due to transgression? Surely god would have known these things would happen, and thus just "expect" them and go on about his business (he couldn't really do anything else considering he would have already known how he would react, yes?).This is aside from the "theatrical" aspect of reality: according to you, god knew from before time that the ancient Isrealites would complain about their lot in the wilderness and time and time again would be punished for it - if this was all predestined and god knew this would all happen and knew how he himself would respond, what's the point of it all? Why not just admit to yourself, Dr. Sing, that you believe we're all performing in the largest (and really, only) theatrical presentation that ever was? It's the Matrix, Original Yahweh Edition.Let me ask you a question, Dr. Sing.Do you pray to god to grant things material or immaterial?If you can already see where I'm coming from with this question, then let me give you credit for your insight. If not, I'll wait on your answer and then explain myself. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the above statement. What are we not understanding about free will? I understood your comment, and also understand your predestinationist/Calvinist views. I just don't understand how you can manage to reconcile these views with others in Christianity without an impressive case of cognitive dissonance.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hello there again, Dr. Sing. Maybe this is just what appears to me to be the elephant in the room, but you still seem to be missing it.My point is that if everything is predestined, then everything is predestined, including god's reaction to...well, whatever. What's the point of god acting surprised or "angry" when his subjects do something that, according to predestination, he knew was going to happen anyway? Think about this, please. Again, is everything just part of some big scripted farce? So, god is just expressing himself for show? He wanted his subjects' disobedience enough to cause these disobedient acts to be predestined even before creation, but for what reason? As an object lesson? To what end? For the mindless devotion (or not) of his subjects, of which he's known since before time? And I find this Calvinist "scriptwriter god" of yours rather funny as well. The fact that, in the bible, we don't see a god who seems to have any sort of precognition of future events (with the exeption of "prophecies") is very telling. What we do see are all types of anthropomorphic emotions attributed to a god who, for all intents and purposes, should have seen the punch line coming from a mile away. What do you do when you've heard the joke but listen anyway? At the end, do you fall off your stool convulsing with laughter, or chuckle in a "Meh." kind of way? Unless you're an inanely artificial individual, I'd suspect the latter, no? And how do you respond, if I may ask? When I asked you to elaborate, I meant about what you think, not what you think Bluejay thinks. All those things are rather interesting, I'll admit, but are fodder for another thread. I think you underestimate admin's (and others') desire to discuss topics such as these. The above won't even register as a blip on the "heinousity radar". FYI. Before you vacate the premesis, Dr. Sing (if you haven't already), I'd like to know your thoughts on the above post.Thanks.Have a good one.

Thanks for the replies, Dr. Sing.Well, suffice it to say that we disagree. I'm ok with that. Let me offer you the invitation to stick around the forum. I, for one, think this place gets a little dull when there's no one to argue with. Sure, most of the regulars here are great with words and ideas, but unless there are others to bat those words back at us and make us think, it's like "preaching to the choir".Thin skins need not apply, though. You've seen that replies can get a little rough, but c'mon, it's the internet and thus, anonymous. Stick to the forum rules and it won't matter what you believe, FSM, IPUs or crazy Calvinist dogma. Have a good one, Dr. S.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey there, Dr. Sing.Sorry if it seemed like I cut the conversation short, but your (very lengthy) post seemed to be a sort of summation of sorts. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and I'll keep it going if you'd like... Even when I was a full-fledged believer and accepted the omniscience of god, I still couldn't reconcile this in my mind. I believed God knows all and has known all since before time, but at the same time I couldn't understand how, if indeed this is true, all this "organizing, guiding, etc..." isn't all just contrived.Christians say god created humans in part, for "his pleasure", correct? What sort of pleasure do you suppose god experiences when, from the beginning of time: 1. He knows what every human will ever think, do, accomplish, say etc... 2. He knows what his thoughts, feelings, reactions will be to all this? It's (somewhat) akin to a skilled engineer and programmer developing a sophisticated artificially intelligent robot. No matter what that robot does or says, the designer, having constructed and written all the computer program code for the machine, cannot be but underwhelmed at the anticipated responses and actions of said robot. I understand that, in a way, this is a bit of a weak analogy since even the most jaded individual couldn't help but feel satisfaction about his creation. But remember: said individual does not exhibit omniscience, and thus cannot know or predict his own varied reactions, unlike god. Alas, the weakness of the analogy. But you do get my drift, no? Ah, at least I'm not the only one with weak analogies. Again, that's all well and good. But again, how is this "active role" not contrived? At frame X in the film reel from 2008, god decides to create an ice dam in the shingles of my home, creating water leakage into my attic. But this flim reel is from before time, god knew what he (and I and my insurance company and the roofing company, and the city, etc, etc...) would do from before time, so what sort of "active role" do you think god really has, at present? I say again, if everything is predestined, what kind of active role do you see happening today? At most, it seems from a predestination standpoint, god is the ancient scriptwriter of scriptwriters, and that, after setting it all down on paper (or film, to continue the analogy), has no choice but to let it all play out. As he predestined everything to be in the first place.See where I'm coming from? God is powerful on the one hand in having the ability to put forth the story in the first place, but in relegating himself to watching as his perfect (perfect from before time, as god is perfect himself) storyline plays out (albeit with himself occupying a BIG role), becomes the weakest sort of god, unable to alter the storyline once written.And that's aside from the fact that it's still just a storyline, even if you think god can be "active" and change the plan he predestined from before time. If it was perfect from the get-go, why would he need to mess with it after the fact? Do you have any basis for this, other than your own opinion? It seems to me that this is a contradiction to the idea of predestination. So only some things are predestined? If god is perfect from before time, how could he have anything but the feelings he knew he would have from before time? Nasty vicious circle we're locked up in here, Dr. Sing... Thanks for those verses. I understand we're in the faith and belief section of the forum, and I also understand I "asked for it" in baiting you in that way, but forgive me if I see this as "proving the bible with the bible." What you showed me were two verses (and I know there are more) which purport to demonstrate precognition in the bible, but I'd stop short of claiming "proof". And, of course, in order to concede the point of "proof", we'd both need to assume total biblical "god breathed" inspiration, and unfortunately, one of us does not. Oh, and as an aside, I believe the world has seen enough failed "prophecies" to at least seriously question omniscience and a totally god-inspired bible. But we're not exactly debating scripture here, so back to the topic... Great answer! That's what I was looking for, Dr. Sing! But then: So close, yet so far away. I can accept the "personal relationship" as a facet in your "walk with god", but then - enter the material prayer request. And, yes, I understand (and read) your thoughts on the fact that your "worldly works" and desire to please god should have no bearing on how often you think you should receive material items in response to prayer.But of course my opinion on prayer shouldn't surprise you, Dr. Sing, especially in light of my views of predestinatory thought. Setting aside the "fostering a relationship" aspect to prayer - everything's been set down in the script long ago: what difference does it make whether we pray or not? Praying for god to "change her mind" is a bit of a pipe dream, no? God is perfect, thus what will be due to god's will, will be. According to predestination, any "mind-changing" re: god will have been written before creation, so how, exactly, can anything change?For example, your friend is diagnosed ("god" forbid ) with cancer - a predestined occurrence, of course. It may as well be written in stone that your friend will come through chemo, radiation and gene therapy like a champ, and enjoy the rest of her long life in remission. So did your prayer, all the group prayer, and all the prayer requests in church do anything to change what, in effect, was preordained to happen from time aeternal? A perfect god cannot "hear" (there's that anthropomorphistic gremlin again) prayer and "change her mind" from "Dead From Cancer" to "Healthy Post-Cancer Patient In Remission Against All Odds" no matter how much your prayer group wishes it were so. You see, you would then no longer have your "perfect god".Same goes for your car. You'll either get one, or not. Well, of course there isn't enough room in heaven for everyone. (Don't be offended, Dr. Sing. I'm making light, but I appreciate your heartfelt description of your faith) Otherwise, she can't be perfect, correct? What about changing her mind? Just thought I'd yank your chain with the CRAZY part. You seem pretty "together" to me... Oh, and IPU = Immaterial Pink Unicorn. Nah, no apologies necessary, because there were no real expectations to begin with. I appreciate the dialogue. I believe I've found my version of "truth", although most of us forget at one time or another that we need to keep in mind that belief will never be the same as knowledge, yes? We'll all either gain this knowledge at "some" point, or ... we won't. Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Thanks for the reply, Dr. Sing. I think we have different understandings of freewill. I was taught that freewill was simply "freedom to accept or reject anything", but that god has always known what choices you would make. In fact, Wiki says this:

quote:

---

In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination.

---

Note the some people portion of the quote. As a believer, I would fit into this category. FYI. This idea of yours, in which god has no knowledge of what a human will do when freewill is involved, is foreign to me, and would have been even more so when I was a believer. I still think freewill proponents erroneously use it to justify picking and choosing when and where they believe god's perfection and omniscience lie, when freewill is nothing more than "acceptance or rejection." I still think the idea that god doesn't know what will be prayed for this sunday by every single person in the lutheran church on the corner makes him into the weakest sort of deity. But, in the end, it's just my opinion, right? Remember, beliefs don't imply knowledge (or truth). You say: it was god answering my prayers, and that's OK with me. You're entitled, and I'm glad that it strengthens your faith. I can see how important it is to you. However, I say: it was coincidence, or better yet, someone you know is familiar with your plight, and they told 3 friends, who told 3 friends, etc, etc... And I still say if god was as powerful as you (sometimes, depending on the context) assert, then he would know what you'll need and pray for even before you do it. Strong god vs. weak god... Here again I'll refer you to the Wiki quote above. So you're saying because god doesn't predestine certain things, he doesn't know that they'll happen? And that is your discretion, but forgive me if I don't ascribe to proving a source using ... that selfsame source.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hello there again, Dr. Sing. I trust you've been well. Thought I'd weigh in on this argument (yawn) for the benefit of those who may not have argued it in the past. I'd posit that, in general, the non-religious maintain a balance between foci (morals vs. "everything else") that is simply superior to the "balance" exhibited by the religious. For example, if non-religious folk were so preoccupied with "everything else", they'd be bombing Oklahoma gov't offices and flying planes into skyscrapers. But we don't see the non-religious propagating these atrocities, correct? Curious, that.Instead, what we do see is a segment of society concerned with searching for the truths of science, philosophy, the arts, etc (tangible subjects), instead of spending time attempting to define morality under the auspices of an intangible deity(ies).No, morality is a human invention, exhibited by the fact that different modern cultures possess different moral customs and ideals. However, to really drive this point home, one need look no further than at the fact that morals change over time. An absolute moral code is not so absolute if it can be modified at will, yes? Slavery, subjugation of women, Dr. Sing? Surely those biblical bronze-age morals are now defunct. But ... they were absolute morals at that time, yes? It's really quite a bit simpler than you make it out to be, Dr. Sing. A life led is a life led. Should you choose to live according to a universal, humanist moral standard or a supposedly god-contrived, absolute (and continually changed, apparently)standard, then all the better for yourself and your fellow humans. What matters is why you follow this standard.
Wouldn't it be better, Dr. Sing, to adhere to a set of morals plainly and simply for the betterment of society as a whole than because "... if you don't, you're gonna burn!"? To me, the religious are being good because they have to, not because they want to.Fear of the wrath of god is a powerful thing, Dr. Sing. May the farce be with you.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

You misunderstand me. I didn't say that the morals of atheists or agnostics are superior to theists' morality. IMO, since morals are human constructs, it wouldn't matter, as far as absolute morality and behavior is concerned, whether you were religious or not. What I'm referring to is the balance maintained between time spent struggling to be a moral individual vs. time spent with "everything else". It is my opinion that many theists (especially fundies) are SO wrapped up in achieving what they define as morality via worldly works (though of course, that's not the way to heaven ) in order to avoid eternal damnation, that they miss out on a lot of what life has to offer otherwise (aka science, the arts, culture, etc...).The non-religious, on the other hand, seem to have a better grip on enjoying this world, as it is the only one we'll ever experience (most rational atheists or agnostics are not so terrified of death nor disgusted with life to be gulled into thinking that the epitome of life is immortality, yet they do seem to recognize what a terrified existence their religious counterparts seem to live). You, as a theist, can argue, argue, and argue some more that if a person has not found Jesus in some form or another, that there is just no reason to behave morally. And yet, and yet, even though the percentage of atheists in this country is approaching 15-20%, the percentage of atheists serving time in prison these days is 0.2%! Striking, wouldn't you say?So the non-religious continue to live (relative to the religious, anyway) an exceedingly moral and low-crime lifestyle, while at the same time enjoying "everything else" unburdened by what a religious person may claim is required to attain "biblical morality." Note that this is contrary to all the arguments of the religious who are so incredulous that this could ever happen at all without belief in some sort of magical djinn.The results speak for themselves, is all I'm saying. Ah, but Dr. Sing, we've been down this road before, you and I. And I think your question's a bit of a red herring, but I'll answer all the same. I believe that many theists believe everything in the bible is "God-inspired" and thus, can only be but advocated by God, no? I won't derail this thread by going into whether it's possible for God to "change his mind" about, of all things, morality (and thus can there ever be such a thing as an absolute biblical moral code?), because, again, that book's been written (and written off, as it were) in other threads. No, you're correct in saying that no one could follow a standard perfectly. My point was only that a significant part of understanding moral vs immoral behavior is the motive behind such behavior. I'd restate that a fear of Hades is a silly reason to behave morally, as opposed to behaving morally for, among other reasons, the betterment of our society as a whole. So, I really don't have an solution per se, if a solution is even required... I'm sorry that an opinion based on personal, objective observation of religious fundamentalists frustrates you. But I'd hesitate to call it dogma. Apparently someone forgot to notify Christianity of this fact! How did you come by this knowledge, and why aren't you spreading the word??? Every church I've ever attended (from liberal to fundy to Catholic) has claimed, in not so many words, that your sins were paid for by the blood of Christ. Now, they go on to say that, yes, murder, rape, etc are Very Bad Sins, but that there are generally no sins which are unforgivable. Most of your incarcerated brethren, "born again" since donning the orange coveralls, would be shocked and dismayed, mystified and mortified to hear of this caveat in their conversion. So, really, Dr. Sing? According to you, only the sins you intended are unforgivable? What then, would be some examples of forgivable sins, and why, if they were unintentional, would they be considered sins?Thanks, and have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : clarification

And ... we've seen this before. Take a break, sit down, collect your thoughts, but please, and I say this as delicately as I can: grow some thicker skin, Dr. Sing.I mean, c'mon. You write great posts -- eloquent and well written, despite the fact that I disagree with most of them. But this is what happens to you time and time again: you self destruct, seemingly at the drop of a hat. I mean, you have to ask yourself why the hell you continue to post here if you don't think your views will be called on the carpet. Masochism?To be fair to you, contrary to Anglagard's accusations, I didn't get the sense that you were proselytizing (at least any more than any creationist seems to do on a whim), or at least I don't think that was your intent if it came across that way. Sometimes the way the religious talk in normal, everyday language sounds to us like a fire 'n brimstone Baptist sermon. Anyway, like I said, buck up. Bring your arguments, not your complaints about the argument itself. I'll be waiting for a response to Message 250.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hello Dr. Sing. Dwise1 and I make the same argument, so I'd like to continue this. I understand and respect these commandments. But I think regardless of their intent, I'd say the day-to-day application of the commandments is where the difference between theist and atheist morality really shows. The words say, "Love thy neighbor...", but the big question is: Why?Consider this: You're not understanding our point. We're not trashing the moral code. It's absolutely fine and dandy that most Christians love their neighbors and behave in a fashion that most humans would consider moral, and I'd admit that by and large, they don't live much differently, morality-wise, than the non-religious. What's different are motives. God (or Jesus, or both) was setting down a law which was to be followed, and which just so happened to be an outstanding moral tenet, regardless of your personal theology or lack thereof. So you really think that when Christians read this in the bible, that they're considering anything other than the fact that "God made this law, and it's a good law since I don't really want to harm my neighbor, but if I don't follow it, then that's a sin and I'll be judged one day for it."? Do you really think (except in the case of deep thinkers) they take it a step further and say, "Oh, and also, keeping this commandment is all to the betterment of society and my fellow humans, as well as to furthering my genetic lineage and personal heritage."? Again, I'd posit that while the latter statement would be much more likely found banging around inside an atheist's head than a theist's, the former statement is all too common thinking among the religious. Theists will follow the rules in order to avoid damnation, regardless of the intent of the commandment. In general. Yep, the same one to which theists are subjected: the US Justice system. You see, the commandments that law enforcment officials consider the most important have put many a criminal behind bars. Atheists know that, should they commit a crime which carries with it a certain penalty, that they'll be subject to that penalty should they be caught. Oh, and in case you forgot, part of my Message 250: --- Did you just admit that, in order for argument to proceed, atheists must necessarily stoop to the level of theists' morality? Just wondering ... Dr. Sing, I think what he was getting at is that the Christian faith claims that, without God, people should degenerate into immorality (and chaos, as you're so fond of putting it). Reality (and incarceration statistics, and lower rates of violent crime in secular vs. religious countries, etc, etc...) shows us this is not the case. Wouldn't you agree with this? Ah, this again. From Message 250: Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964