Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 61 of 286 (630952)
08-29-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
08-29-2011 2:40 PM


Re: God Concepts
jar writes:
Anything born dies, except maybe some polyps. Jesus was born, therefore he would die.
Yes, but why did He choose to face His accusers, knowing full well they may kill Him? Why not simply run off into the woods like Khadafi?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 08-29-2011 2:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 08-29-2011 2:50 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 286 (630954)
08-29-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
08-29-2011 2:46 PM


Re: God Concepts
He did run away, several times. Have you ever read the Bible?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 08-29-2011 2:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 63 of 286 (630961)
08-29-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
08-29-2011 9:50 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
iano writes:
What is it about genocide that conflicts with holiness? Maybe the core of our difference lies here? To me, holiness, per definition, hates that which is evil - hence I have no issue with the killing those who are evil (me included)
Holiness hates evil - Holiness condones genocide (In some circumsatnces) - Genocide is good. (In some circumstances)
iano writes:
Where are you getting this notion of the Jews as evangelists-to-the-world from the text?
I actually said their mission was to take God's love to the world and it comes from Genesis 12.
quote:
3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
iano writes:
If God was actually wrathful, how on earth could he hope to establish a knowledge of that fact in you? It seems one narrow aspect of the Bible is taken as as unequivocally accurate revelation (the love of Jesus) and all else: myth, metaphor, apocalyptic writing.
If God was actually wrathfull, the only reason He would have for making me know about it would be to keep in line by fear in similar way to keeping slaves in line. It would not be the way of the God I worship who wants us to choose His way because of love.
iano writes:
Two questions:
If God was actually wrathful, how on earth could he hope to establish a knowledge of that fact in you? It seems one narrow aspect of the Bible is taken as as unequivocally accurate revelation (the love of Jesus) and all else: myth, metaphor, apocalyptic writing.
It is a metanarrative telling the history of those through whom God is revealing Himself and His desires to the world, as told by those people with all of their faults included.
iano writes:
I've asked a number of time what specific justness-problem is there with removing a sinner from the game at a point of God's own choosing? Does any sinner deserve to live for one second longer than suits God's purpose? If not, what ground lies beneath your objection to genocide.
I've given you the reason that in the Bible stories it just about always has God doing the slaughtering for Him. It means having the people He supposedly loves walking into people's home and slaughtering children. What is the message that gives to them and what does it do to their hearts and minds.
It also has God being pretty non-specific about which sinners he chooses to do away with. How about sinners in the different nations including those amongst the Jews themselves. Why doesn't he take out Hitler for example? Is it possible that Hitler was just doing what God had asked him to do? I know you don't believe that but how do you tell the difference?
How would the average ancient Jew understand God telling them to love their neighbour but at the same time slaughter them? Kind of a mixed message don't you think?
God is God so if He wants to slaughter a whole nation then it's within His power to do it. OK, the message from that is might makes right.
The God I worship wants us to choose Him because we love Him and what He stands for. I see no reason to love a God that sanctions genocide and the killing of our own children when they are rebellious teenagers.
As for the last part of your question about sinners deserving to live it then begs the question of why did God kick this whole thing off in the first place. We are all at our core essentially selfish. Why not do away with all of us?
GDR writes:
However, let's look at the ends. How did it work out by the time Jesus arrived. The Jews were living as exiles in their own land under the brutal rule of the Romans who utilized a brutal Jewish regime to keep them in line and paying their taxes. They had a wide range of beliefs and lived with a rigid class structure. So just how well did this genocide of nations, and the use of capital punishment work as far as keeping them in a "fit state". I think that I could make a much stronger case that because they did these things against the will of God they wound up in the "abhorrent state" that actually existed at the time of Jesus.
Think about it logically, if what you said about God needing to utilize those methods to prepare the nation for Jesus is true then God’s plan failed miserably, and all that slaughter accomplished nothing positive. They were anything but prepared for Jesus. Remember how He was nailed to the cross at the insistence of the Jewish authorities.
iano writes:
You consider Jesus being nailed to the cross a failure in planning?
So now it sounds as if you were saying that God had the Jews committing genocide etc in order to harden their hearts, so that centuries later the Jewish leadership would be opposed to Jesus and have the right mindset to crucify Him.
iano writes:
You seem to be pronouncing on something considered a mystery (3 distinct persons, 1 God) by saying the mystery is resolved: there can be no Trinitarian God. I'm wondering whether part of the canyon that separates us lies in the fact that our basic understanding are worlds apart.
I don't see this as the canyon at all. It goes much deeper than that. I believe in a Trinitarian God but I also believe that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. If you view Jesus as God physically coming to Earth it does kinda beg the question of just who was the Father that Jesus worshipped.
iano writes:
I am mindful of the fact that his instructing me to love others involves my bringing to light the kingdom of God which is here and now. To live now as I will be surely living when the kingdom is fully revealed in all it's glory
Absolutely
iano writes:
That I am instructed to love for that reason has absolutely no bearing on what God ought/ought not be doing for his own purposes. That he chooses to provide me with the weapon of love doesn't mean the weapon of love is or should be the only one at his disposal.
You are then suggesting that I should worship a God who essentially says do what I say and not as I do most of the time, but not when I want you to commit genocide on my behalf.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 9:50 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 6:13 AM GDR has replied
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 3:45 AM GDR has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 64 of 286 (630969)
08-29-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
08-29-2011 2:29 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
I am more than just a little bit amazed at this kind of thinking. What possible evil could some newborn pagan child have done to deserve being killed?
Nothing in all likelihood. But since the newborn pagan child was about to lose it's parents and all other means of support there is a certain amount of mercy in killing it rather than leaving it to starve.
I think this is a total failure of imagination due to this particular commitment of faith. What about the thought that the genocide didn't need to occur at all? Is god also so unimaginative that he can think of no other way to get what he wants (which also happen to align with the material wants of the people writing the story)?
It needs to be born in mind that God has given the life. There is no right to retention of it outside his granting that right. If he retracts life at any point then there is no injustice done.
According to whom? God? I think that is what you are saying.
But that doesn't address how WE should value life. What it seems you are essentially saying is that we can have no higher value for life than that of this imaginary despot who treats life as a petty substance that can be tossed away at a whim in order to serve his materialistic fancy. Killing so that a certain ethnic group can have a certain spot of land amongst all potential spots of land on this vast earth he supposidly built for them.
If that is not what you are saying, then we can in fact judge these heinous acts as what they plainly are. That is okay as long as your are willing to accept that this god is a tyrant.
Thankfully it is likely that none of those stories are true, or at the very least at that scale. Thankfully the blood on the hands of this particular god is not increased by the mytical war stories of the primitive people who invented him.
I agree in the sense that multiple viewers of a car crash will have different slants on it. Which isn't to say their slants are useless in their variation. Nor that the car crash is a figment of folks imagination.
This analogy fails at the very root of the fact that car crashes leave physical evidence. Even if we were to play with this analogy a little bit it is unfortunate that you chose to relate the identification of god to one of the most unreliable methods of investigation available to us.
To go back to what I was saying, some people believe that god had a son, others believe that god would NEVER have a son. Those are not simply different slants of the same view. Those are mutually contradictory ideas. Even amongst Christians, some believe that you MUST be baptised in order to go to heaven. Others believe that you do not. Those are not different slants, they are exactly contradictory.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of little attributes of god that people pick and choose to make up their particular god. And my point was, the things that they are okay with accepting as a part of God tend to say a significant amount about their personality.
I am not sure how to say this without making it personal. You shock me. Your belief that god can justify genocide is vulgar to me. It pains me to know that people think this way. And this was true even before I renounced my faith.
It's hard to argue against the owner of life taking it when it pleases him. That's less cultural characterization, more plain common sense.
I completely disagree. I think it is hard to argue that these ideas make any sense whatsoever. Even IF you grant the existence of this entity for the sake of the discussion. It seems to be quite easy to argue that such an entity taking life when it pleases him makes him vulgar and evil. Moreover, I also believe that the rationalization of the idea is disturbing because it has much to say about the failure of the human condition.
What I am charged to do with life (value it) is a completely different matter.
That is something that I can agree should have a sensible amount of diversity.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 2:29 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 5:36 PM Jazzns has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 65 of 286 (630980)
08-29-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jazzns
08-29-2011 4:48 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Jazzns
quote:
I think this is a total failure of imagination due to this particular commitment of faith. What about the thought that the genocide didn't need to occur at all? Is god also so unimaginative that he can think of no other way to get what he wants (which also happen to align with the material wants of the people writing the story)?
Maybe there were a thousand ways to achieve the infinite number of micro-outcomes that would have constituted such a large event. Maybe there was only that one. It's not all that relevant. God is sovereign, figured this way suited his purposes and proceeded.
-
quote:
According to whom? God?
According to the standard of justice that all will agree with when they see it. Yes. I don't quite know which court a person could appeal to in order to evade that conclusion
-
quote:
But that doesn't address how WE should value life. What it seems you are essentially saying is that we can have no higher value for life than that of this imaginary despot who treats life as a petty substance that can be tossed away at a whim in order to serve his materialistic fancy. Killing so that a certain ethnic group can have a certain spot of land amongst all potential spots of land on this vast earth he supposidly built for them.
I would hold that God justified in killing sinners for their sin alone. If he choses to achieve some other goal whilst doing so then I can't see it adds or subtracts from the central issue of sin deserving death.
That God removes life when it has achieved his end for granting it doesn't mean he doesn't value it. You've got a non sequitur going there.
-
quote:
And my point was, the things that they are okay with accepting as a part of God tend to say a significant amount about their personality.
I am not sure how to say this without making it personal. You shock me. Your belief that god can justify genocide is vulgar to me. It pains me to know that people think this way. And this was true even before I renounced my faith.
Forgive the poor analogy.
I think the issue of God's revelation (if we take the biblical God for a moment) is complex. Sure, people will come up with all kinds of takes - just like they will if you place anything complex issue in front of them. This doesn't necessarily mean their own personalities are being projected onto God - the very complexity guarentees variety all by itself.
I don't take your obvious horror personally - you've not yet undergirded with firm argument enough to cause me to question myself. You've chosen instead to deploy emotive language. You might have answered above why it is you object to God's right to remove players from the stage when their part in the play is over. I've not commented (nor would I) on the eternal destination of any of those Midianite players.
-
quote:
I completely disagree. I think it is hard to argue that these ideas make any sense whatsoever. Even IF you grant the existence of this entity for the sake of the discussion...
It's kind of a necessity that we do assume he exists for the sake of discussion...
quote:
It seems to be quite easy to argue that such an entity taking life when it pleases him makes him vulgar and evil. Moreover, I also believe that the rationalization of the idea is disturbing because it has much to say about the failure of the human condition.
God creates something for a purpose. When the purpose for which it has been made has been served God disposes of it. Who the heck is the pot to tell the potter what the potter should be doing. Like, which bootstraps do you pull on to give an iota of sense to that nonsensical idea.
I can fully appreciate the angry rebellion and self-sufficiency that would power these emotions of yours. I cannot for the life of me see where one would extract any rationality from the postion.
God is sovereign just because he is. It's a no brainer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Jazzns, posted 08-29-2011 4:48 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2011 5:46 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 66 of 286 (631063)
08-30-2011 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
08-29-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Saved or Not?
GDR writes
quote:
Holiness hates evil - Holiness condones genocide (In some circumsatnces) - Genocide is good. (In some circumstances)
The question being: is there a problem with holiness eradicating evil?
-
quote:
3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
Don't you think that's a little thin to begin hanging a doctrine from? Not least because the nationhood being described can be seen to be the Christian church (which is taking the news of the love of God to all the nations)
-
quote:
If God was actually wrathful, the only reason He would have for making me know about it would be to keep in line by fear in similar way to keeping slaves in line. It would not be the way of the God I worship who wants us to choose His way because of love.
The day I found out there was a Hell was the same day I found out that I wasn't going there. There is no need for me to fear God in that way and I am as free to worship him because I love him in the light of that sure knowledge. So why not you?
(That said, it is right that I fear a holy God who would discipline those whom he loves with that discipline possibly extending to death. The fear isn't a craven one however.)
What about the point made? You've redeployed staggering amounts of NT and OT argument regarding the wrath of God to safe havens (Paul writing apocolyptically/stylistically??) and retain the sliver that is the 4 gospels as unadulterated God-inspired. How do you make this fly? How do you decide all but the gospels is a..
quote:
.. metanarrative telling the history of those through whom God is revealing Himself and His desires to the world, as told by those people with all of their faults included.
-
quote:
I've given you the reason that in the Bible stories it just about always has God doing the slaughtering for Him. It means having the people He supposedly loves walking into people's home and slaughtering children. What is the message that gives to them and what does it do to their hearts and minds.
Yet the basis for your supposing this problematic could only involve a pointing to the damage done to child-killing soldiers caught up in a war that hasn't the imprimateur of God stating the killing a righteous one.
You've got no basis for supposing a problem for those who are steeped in the righteousness of their action. At risk of delivering up jibe-fodder, the closest evidence we have comes from the actions of the fanatically committed - they appear undisturbed and unrepentant. Why can't the Israelites?
-
quote:
It also has God being pretty non-specific about which sinners he chooses to do away with. How about sinners in the different nations including those amongst the Jews themselves. Why doesn't he take out Hitler for example? Is it possible that Hitler was just doing what God had asked him to do? I know you don't believe that but how do you tell the difference?
It doesn't matter that I know. What matters is that God is entitled to remove a sinner when His purpose is served. The sinner has no rights other than those granted him by God.
God either kills no sinners, kills all sinners at the same time. Or kills some sinners and lets others live. We're patently living with the latter option.
-
quote:
How would the average ancient Jew understand God telling them to love their neighbour but at the same time slaughter them? Kind of a mixed message don't you think?
Not at all.
Message 1 tells the Jew how he, the Jew is to behave with his neighbour
Message 2 tells the Jew how He, God is going to behave with this particular neighbour.
Don't mistake the bullet for the trigger finger.
-
quote:
God is God so if He wants to slaughter a whole nation then it's within His power to do it. OK, the message from that is might makes right.
The message is that God is sovereign. He can do as he wills. And I think as creator and owner of all, he is entitled to it. Quite where you think we should have any say in things (other than the say God might grant us) I have not the slightest idea.
It doesn't matter much whether we call Gods actions right or wrong since the word 'right' can either be tied to "the flavour of Gods actions whatever they happen to be" or to some other standard of your own choosing (by which some/all of God's actions can be deemed wrong)
-
quote:
The God I worship wants us to choose Him because we love Him and what He stands for. I see no reason to love a God that sanctions genocide and the killing of our own children when they are rebellious teenagers.
Your sole objection would appear to rely on God using intermediataries in doling out his justice. And the damage it might cause them. Is there any other string to your objection?
-
quote:
As for the last part of your question about sinners deserving to live it then begs the question of why did God kick this whole thing off in the first place. We are all at our core essentially selfish. Why not do away with all of us?
He intends to do precisely that. Either you'll be crucified with Christ (saved) or you'll be destroyed - whether involving a conscious existance or not (lost).
That he delays the day enables choice to be made wrt to him.
I take it you don't object to his right to kill sinners though?
-
quote:
So now it sounds as if you were saying that God had the Jews committing genocide etc in order to harden their hearts, so that centuries later the Jewish leadership would be opposed to Jesus and have the right mindset to crucify Him.
I said/implied nothing about genocide hardening anyone's heart. A life of sin will produce a hard heart in anyone without their needing to engage in genocide.
-
quote:
I don't see this as the canyon at all. It goes much deeper than that. I believe in a Trinitarian God but I also believe that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. If you view Jesus as God physically coming to Earth it does kinda beg the question of just who was the Father that Jesus worshipped.
God. The Father. The bible tells us. That you can't progress further in getting your head around it doesn't alter the fact of the answer.
-
quote:
You are then suggesting that I should worship a God who essentially says do what I say and not as I do most of the time, but not when I want you to commit genocide on my behalf.
Precisely. The weakness of "do as I say, not as I do" lies in the order of the individual issuing it > typically parents (human sinners) to children (human sinners). Ergo hypocrisy.
In the case of God/you the orders are different. You need simple instructions on what constitutes right living because you are capable of sin. He doesn't.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 08-29-2011 3:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 08-30-2011 10:31 AM iano has seen this message but not replied
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 6:10 PM iano has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 286 (631090)
08-30-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
08-30-2011 6:13 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
iano writes:
In the case of God/you the orders are different. You need simple instructions on what constitutes right living because you are capable of sin. He doesn't.
Yet the Bible says differently. It says we already have the knowledge just as God does and that we also need to dope slap God when God is about to act immorally.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 6:13 AM iano has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 3:55 AM jar has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 68 of 286 (631151)
08-30-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by iano
08-29-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Lets actually take a bit from the end of your reply first do dismiss of something straight away.
I don't take your obvious horror personally - you've not yet undergirded with firm argument enough to cause me to question myself. You've chosen instead to deploy emotive language.
...
I can fully appreciate the angry rebellion and self-sufficiency that would power these emotions of yours. I cannot for the life of me see where one would extract any rationality from the postion.
You are using my emotive opinion to dismiss my prior argument that didn't depend on the emotion. Your views are contradictory and I ALSO think they are disgusting. You didn't address the issue I raised of the contradictory appraisal of life.
You are unable to extract any rationality and yet:
God is sovereign just because he is. It's a no brainer.
We are supposed to swallow that as rational?
Maybe there were a thousand ways to achieve the infinite number of micro-outcomes that would have constituted such a large event. Maybe there was only that one. It's not all that relevant. God is sovereign, figured this way suited his purposes and proceeded.
But my point is that we are in fact allowed to have value judgments that are different from god. I claim that these values are rational and by them we can come to the conclusion that a god that would act in such a way would accurately be labeled a tyrant.
According to the standard of justice that all will agree with when they see it. Yes. I don't quite know which court a person could appeal to in order to evade that conclusion
I don't know if there is a logical fallacy called an Appeal to a Promised Authority but perhaps there should be. You also are asserting that we "all will agree" with this barbaric standard when we see it when in fact it could be that we all will simply be condemned while still very much believing we are being persecuted by a tyrant god.
As I said above, the value for life that I mentioned is our constructed value. Not one ordained by an unproven authority. It is the basis of our human laws, social structure, community development, and evolutionary history. That value for life is intrinsically greater than that of this god by which these primitive societies reflected their war mythos. The court is the court of public opinion which over time is rejecting the standard for the value of life set in barely historic times for the one that we have today. It is called progress and it is evident even if it is not perfect.
I would hold that God justified in killing sinners for their sin alone. If he choses to achieve some other goal whilst doing so then I can't see it adds or subtracts from the central issue of sin deserving death. That God removes life when it has achieved his end for granting it doesn't mean he doesn't value it. You've got a non sequitur going there.
Since you are simply repeating from your previous post this assertion of the supremacy of god without addressing my challenge even in the slightest, I cannot see how you can claim that I have delivered a non sequitur. You have not adequately characterized my position to be able to say that it "does not follow"
I think the issue of God's revelation (if we take the biblical God for a moment) is complex. Sure, people will come up with all kinds of takes - just like they will if you place anything complex issue in front of them. This doesn't necessarily mean their own personalities are being projected onto God - the very complexity guarentees variety all by itself.
That it should be so complex goes to the truth of it in my opinion but that is perhaps for another topic. I don't think you adequately addressed my characterization of individual gods at all other than just to say you disagree. Descriptions of god differ not quite at the level of a single individual and the places that they converge can best be explained by cultural influences. Simply saying that religion is complex is not a better explanation than saying that it is personal invention. The various religions will agree that their competing faiths are bastardizations born in the minds of their wayward followers. It is a mutually assured destruction of ideas.
Who the heck is the pot to tell the potter what the potter should be doing. Like, which bootstraps do you pull on to give an iota of sense to that nonsensical idea.
Yet another poor analogy I am afraid. When pots can make their own value judgments then they may very well be right in opposing the actions of the potter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 5:36 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 7:09 PM Jazzns has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 69 of 286 (631156)
08-30-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
08-30-2011 6:13 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
iano writes:
The question being: is there a problem with holiness eradicating evil?
The point is that evil cannot be eradicated by more evil. Evil can only be overcome by love, and that love is the gift of God.
iano writes:
Don't you think that's a little thin to begin hanging a doctrine from? Not least because the nationhood being described can be seen to be the Christian church (which is taking the news of the love of God to all the nations)
It is consistent with Christ's message as well.
iano writes:
The day I found out there was a Hell was the same day I found out that I wasn't going there. There is no need for me to fear God in that way and I am as free to worship him because I love him in the light of that sure knowledge. So why not you?
(That said, it is right that I fear a holy God who would discipline those whom he loves with that discipline possibly extending to death. The fear isn't a craven one however.)
I don't want to sound self-righteous but to be honest I don't think too much about the next life as I'll deal with that when it comes. What I'm trying to deal with is being the man that God wants me to be today and tomorrow.
Frankly that is a huge problem for me with fundamentalist thinking. The focus is so much about me and my salvation. The whole Gospel message is that we are to be less concerned with ourselves and more concerned with our neighbour. Fundamentalists thinking is IMHO 180 degrees from the Gospel message.
iano writes:
What about the point made? You've redeployed staggering amounts of NT and OT argument regarding the wrath of God to safe havens (Paul writing apocolyptically/stylistically??) and retain the sliver that is the 4 gospels as unadulterated God-inspired. How do you make this fly? How do you decide all but the gospels is a..
Look at what Paul writes about the armour of God. Paul is not inconsistent with the Gospels. Most of the Epistles are written to aid in establishing the new church. The Gospels are essentially about the story, life and teachings of Jesus. The OT is the history of the Jewish people, that do include revelations of God as told in their own style.
iano writes:
Yet the basis for your supposing this problematic could only involve a pointing to the damage done to child-killing soldiers caught up in a war that hasn't the imprimateur of God stating the killing a righteous one.
You've got no basis for supposing a problem for those who are steeped in the righteousness of their action. At risk of delivering up jibe-fodder, the closest evidence we have comes from the actions of the fanatically committed - they appear undisturbed and unrepentant. Why can't the Israelites?
If righteousness can involve genocide then I want no part of it.
Read through this account of the Spanish in S. America talking about what wonderful things they were doing for the Christian faith. Was this of God?
The Battle of Cajamarca
This is the sort of thing that can happen with a perverted view of Christianity IMHO.
iano writes:
Message 1 tells the Jew how he, the Jew is to behave with his neighbour
Message 2 tells the Jew how He, God is going to behave with this particular neighbour.
Don't mistake the bullet for the trigger finger.
You make the point perfectly. You worship a God who says do as I say, not as I do, and in addition when he wants you to break rule one he'll get back to you.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 6:13 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 70 of 286 (631162)
08-30-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Jazzns
08-30-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Jazzns writes:
quote:
You are using my emotive opinion to dismiss my prior argument that didn't depend on the emotion. Your views are contradictory and I ALSO think they are disgusting. You didn't address the issue I raised of the contradictory appraisal of life.
What do you mean by "contradictory appraisal of life"? Weren't we dealing with your claim that the variety of views of God stems from the variety of personalities of the people who say they believe in God? That they are making a God in their own image and likeness as it were?
I was arguing this needn't be so (of the biblical God) given the complexity of the God therein revealed.
If I've crossed wires somewhere then perhaps you could redirect me?
quote:
You are unable to extract any rationality and yet (iano writes "God is sovereign is a no brainer"
"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographical area".
Where, other than where God has permitted it to be so, is he not sovereign?
-
quote:
But my point is that we are in fact allowed to have value judgments that are different from god. I claim that these values are rational and by them we can come to the conclusion that a god that would act in such a way would accurately be labeled a tyrant.
How precisely would you go about establishing your being allowed to have different value judgments from those permitted you by your creator (we're still in the mode of assuming he exists for the purpose of discussion)?
Sure, you can establish an arbitrary system of value and rationally find against God according to it. But where does it get it's validity from?
-
quote:
I don't know if there is a logical fallacy called an Appeal to a Promised Authority but perhaps there should be. You also are asserting that we "all will agree" with this barbaric standard when we see it when in fact it could be that we all will simply be condemned while still very much believing we are being persecuted by a tyrant god.
I gather that luxury won't be forthcoming. It would appear that the ability to suppress the truth about how vile we can be will be removed from us. Every rotten aspect of ourselves will be brought into the light for us to see.
We actually have the ability to appreciate the awfulness of that vileness - we are expert at spotting it and reviling it in others afterall.
We will be driven to our knees by an awful realisation of what we in fact are. Unless we can be driven to our knees by him before that awful day.
-
quote:
As I said above, the value for life that I mentioned is our constructed value. Not one ordained by an unproven authority. It is the basis of our human laws, social structure, community development, and evolutionary history. That value for life is intrinsically greater than that of this god by which these primitive societies reflected their war mythos. The court is the court of public opinion which over time is rejecting the standard for the value of life set in barely historic times for the one that we have today. It is called progress and it is evident even if it is not perfect.
The Holocaust, Dresden, Hiroshima, Pol Pot, Rwanda, the Somme, perpetual African famine, ever growing divergence between rich and poor, the rape of the planet on land and at sea.
Progress? Surely you jest!
-
quote:
Since you are simply repeating from your previous post this assertion of the supremacy of god without addressing my challenge even in the slightest, I cannot see how you can claim that I have delivered a non sequitur. You have not adequately characterized my position to be able to say that it "does not follow"
I would have thought God supreme a no brainer but will await a non-bootstrap source of validity for your own value system.
-
quote:
I don't think you adequately addressed my characterization of individual gods at all other than just to say you disagree. Descriptions of god differ not quite at the level of a single individual and the places that they converge can best be explained by cultural influences. Simply saying that religion is complex is not a better explanation than saying that it is personal invention. The various religions will agree that their competing faiths are bastardizations born in the minds of their wayward followers. It is a mutually assured destruction of ideas.
True enough - when you are speaking of organized religions (which is not to say there aren't believers nestled within). Not so easy when dealing with a God who deals with individuals directly and personally and who eschews organised religion.
I fully expect there will be people from all religions (and none) in the kingdom of God come the end. And I fully expect many who self-identify themselves as Christians not to be there.
It would be in spite of a persons religion rather than because of it that they would be saved in the economy of the God of the Bible. Does this impact on your point at all?
-
quote:
When pots can make their own value judgments then they may very well be right in opposing the actions of the potter.
Again, I'll await the pouring of some concrete foundations for this notion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2011 5:46 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 3:52 AM iano has replied
 Message 77 by Jazzns, posted 08-31-2011 10:59 AM iano has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 71 of 286 (631237)
08-31-2011 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
08-29-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Saved or Not?
quote:
I actually said their mission was to take God's love to the world and it comes from Genesis 12.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The verse refers to those who curse you unwarrentedly; in ancient times a curse signified genocide ['Come, curse me Israel' - Canaanite king]. It was also prophesized that the burden of monotheism would cause bondage and other issues with divine king nations, which the world was wholly sunk in. Of all groups, the Jews hold the least history of killing others or occupying another peoples' lands the past 4000 years; the most blame of mass murder and land robbery falls on European Christianity, seconded by Islam.
Those who did the greatest devilish deeds call their victims born of the devil; those who call others born of apes have displayed the greatest apishness in geo-history. Before talking about other groups, list a chronology of yourself.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 08-29-2011 3:50 PM GDR has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 72 of 286 (631238)
08-31-2011 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
08-30-2011 7:09 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
quote:
"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographical area".
I don't think so. Land represents a place to park on and sleep in peace; its akin to breathing and eating. It is a common denominator with all life forms. One can say the Jews got the bad end of the stick where land is concerned - the smallest, barren swampland, with a command not to steal a cubut of another peoples' land - the reason the Jews refused massive chunks of land in Africa and Australia. Yet it has caused unending obsessions by those who have more than they can count, to the extent they have only succeeded in making that barren swampland the most precious real estate in the universe. Funny that.
"IT IS A GOODLY LAND"
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 7:09 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 08-31-2011 6:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 286 (631239)
08-31-2011 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
08-30-2011 10:31 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
quote:
Yet the Bible says differently. It says we already have the knowledge just as God does and that we also need to dope slap God when God is about to act immorally.
First, we have to check who holds the sword and rakes and who drips with blood: Gd or those deflecting their crimes elsewhere.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 08-30-2011 10:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-31-2011 7:58 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 74 of 286 (631252)
08-31-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 3:52 AM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
IamJoseph writes
quote:
I don't think so. Land represents a place to park on and sleep in peace; its akin to breathing and eating. It is a common denominator with all life forms. One can say the Jews got the bad end of the stick where land is concerned - the smallest, barren swampland, with a command not to steal a cubut of another peoples' land - the reason the Jews refused massive chunks of land in Africa and Australia. Yet it has caused unending obsessions by those who have more than they can count, to the extent they have only succeeded in making that barren swampland the most precious real estate in the universe. Funny that.
"IT IS A GOODLY LAND"
I was trusting the definition of 'sovereignty' (as understood to apply to earthly kings) would be easily expanded by the participant to apply to a heavenly King.
The word 'geographical area' would, for example, be understood to encompass all areas: physical. spiritual, etc.
(I'd agree there is something remarkable about the attitude of so many to such a tiny parcel of land)
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 3:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 6:28 AM iano has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 286 (631253)
08-31-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
08-31-2011 6:07 AM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
quote:
(I'd agree there is something remarkable about the attitude of so many to such a tiny parcel of land)
More remarkable is how the world accepts this notorious situation with silence.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 08-31-2011 6:07 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 6:05 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024