Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 196 of 286 (633091)
09-12-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 8:24 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
GDR writes:
You keep wanting some kind of human legal system that keeps you on the right side of the law.
Granny Magda writes:
Yeah, I guess I do. If the stakes are as high as Christianity alleges, then I don't see that as being unreasonable.
But that would change the whole character or nature of God, (at least how I understand Him). It is about that which is freely chosen.
We know that robbing a bank isn't the right thing to do, but what if we knew that there was zero chance of being caught if we did. What God wants is that we would choose not to commit the robbery just because we know that is right and that is the kind of person He wants us to be.
Another example would be in the case where we see somebody drop a 50 dollar bill in the parking lot and then get into their car to drive off. We all know that the right thing to do is to pick it up and return it to them. However, do we just wait for them to drive off and put it in our pocket?
God wants us to choose the right thing just because it is the right thing. He wants us to choose unselfish love and reject selfish love. It isn't about keeping the law because we are afraid of the consequences but about keeping the law because it is the right thing. God simply wants us to humbly love kindness and do justice.
Granny Magda writes:
I applaud that sentiment, but I still think that, given the stakes, we deserve a clear delineation of that. The Bible doesn't provide it. In fact, the Bible can easily be used to make the exact opposite argument.
I suggest that the Bible is very clear unless you insist on reading it in a manner that was never intended the way Buzsaw does. I’ve mentioned it before that non-theists on the forum are very critical of those Christians that insist on reading the Bible as if it were dictated word for word by God, but then when they argue against it insist that is the only way of reading it. How clear does Jesus have to be? Read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, the separating of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, read Micah 6:8 in the OT. Sure there are human aberrations in the Bible but the common strand through the whole thing is that God is a loving God and He desires us to be a loving people.
Granny Magda writes:
Because it's not a real choice. It's not an informed choice. That makes it invalid.
Like I said, if we see someone drop a 50 dollar bill in the parking lot and don't return it to them but keep it for ourselves we know that we have chosen selfishness over unselfishness. That is a choice.
Granny Magda writes:
What, you're telling me that they will prefer the everlasting lake of fire? That God is actually doing them a favour? You're kidding.
You keep insisting on a literal reading of the Bible. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I see it this way. For those who desire to love unselfishly, who find joy in the joy of others, who are quick to forgive would find Hell in a world where the other inhabitants are concerned with looking out for number one. For those who want to get ahead even at the cost of others, who enjoy controlling others, who are untouched by, or even find a certain satisfaction in the suffering of those who oppose them and are quick to take revenge when they can, would find their Hell in a world where the leader of that world is one whose idea of leadership is to wash the feet of his followers.
Granny Magda writes:
I think that you're kidding yourself here. I'm sure that there are plenty of venal, cruel and greedy people who are very happy indeed with their lives.
My point though was for people like that it is impossible to find contentment because enough is never enough. I also suggest that life with God would be a misery and Hell would be a place where they can carry on with like thinking people.
Granny Magda writes:
That just makes no sense. They haven't created anything of the kind. God set the rules for this game, not humanity. You can't absolve him of responsibility. God is free to change the rules any time he likes. There is no need for Hell, personal or otherwise. It serves no purpose.
Without Hell there is no free will. I'll repeat a story I told earlier. Twenty years ago a little boy named Michael Dunahee was abducted from a park in the area in which I live. There has never been a trace found of him. The perpetrator of this horrendous crime has never been caught. Where is the justice for this man and where is the justice for little Michael. I believe that in the end justice will be done. It isn’t that the perpetrator would be assigned to Hell but it is that he will have chosen it because as I say an eternity with a God of love would be intolerable.
Granny Magda writes:
You make it sound rather appealing. If I am the architect, I think I'll build a hell that has air conditioning.
Micah 6:8
quote:
8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God.
Matthew 12:7
quote:
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
It isn't that difficult to understand. It is about having an unselfish worldview rather than a selfish one. If unselfishness is chosen for reward it is no longer unselfish. What appears to be unselfish is then actually done for selfish reasons.
I think I’m running out of ways to say the same thing differently.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:24 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 12:15 PM GDR has replied
 Message 200 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 1:24 PM GDR has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 197 of 286 (633094)
09-12-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Buzsaw
09-09-2011 8:45 PM


Re: Understanding Different Dispensations
Hello Buz,
GDRs comment - So you are saying that God not only sanctioned but encouraged genocide in order that the early Jews could hold on to a piece of real estate. (How well did that work by the way?) You then also must agree that the quote from Deuteronomy was also from God and that God decreed that a rebellious child should be stoned by all of the men in the town. You also believe that God encouraged capital punishment for those who broke the Sabbath laws.
Your reply - No. What I am saying is that God sanctioned genocide on pagan cultures to cleanse a tiny portion of land upon which Jehovah, for himself of whom idolatrous cultures rival, could establish a nation which is to be his messianic kingdom on planet earth to come into fruition in our end times which we observe, i.e. the phenomenal restoration of the nation of Israel after having been scattered globally for 19 plus centuries.
Thats what your book says. Your book gives all kinds of justifications. You book says that the people had to be killed because they were all bad. Throughout history the winner always writes the stroy. The winner always justifies his actions by telling the word how evil, cowardly, depraved etc the enmeies were and how right and justified they were in buthering the lot of them.
I am not surprised that the folks who wrote your book have done exactly what every other tyranical group has done after killing a heap of people. Shiites and sunnis, hutus and tutsis etc, they all have a way to justify their actions.
Do you have any historical record of the people who were killed? Other than your book because its authors had a vested interest in writing exactly what they have written.
The genocide was to apply to one tiny spot on planet earth: Canaan
Considering that you find genocide acceptable under certain circumstances, do you believe that being in your religion is the only way to have the correct moral code? Gods moral code. Lots of christians say that there is no moral compass for athiests but I sure as fuck know that at no stage, for any reason is genocide justifiable.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 8:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 286 (633095)
09-12-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
09-12-2011 11:34 AM


The different gods in the gaps
Micah 6 writes:
8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God.
A statement that can be interpreted in a whole spectrum of ways.
What is just? Each man will answer differently. Is it just to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on a certain day? Some men have answered yes. What does Jehovah require of me on this novel moral situation? What is kindness? Is it kindness to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person who is suffering? Some have answered yes, some have answered no.
It is in these kinds of gaps that different versions of gods sharing the same name with the same holy books spring up
It is about having an unselfish worldview rather than a selfish one.
And the differing views of what constitutes selfishness and selflessness is another example of this. Some people might think that telling Africans that condoms cause AIDS is selfless because it saves them from angering God by using unnatural contraceptives. Others think it is dangerously putting forwards ones own beliefs at the tragic expense of other people, thus arguing that it is a very selfish act (and worse!).
Two Christians could easily find themselves at odds on these kinds of questions. Each of them has a concept of god and what it thinks is the kind, just, loving and humble course of action.
The examples of moral questions that you gave (robbing a person, failure to return lost wealth) are rather simple; when you get into the more difficult questions, that's where you see people's ideas for what a moral god would want begin to vary.
Unfortunately, these are all some of the most important moral questions we can typically have since they tend to involve life and death consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 11:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by jar, posted 09-12-2011 12:21 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 201 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 2:21 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 199 of 286 (633096)
09-12-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
09-12-2011 12:15 PM


Man's charge and duty.
The examples of moral questions that you gave (robbing a person, failure to return lost wealth) are rather simple; when you get into the more difficult questions, that's where you see people's ideas for what a moral god would want begin to vary.
Unfortunately, these are all some of the most important moral questions we can typically have since they tend to involve life and death consequences.
Of course, and our duty as a human is to decide whether what is being alleged to be the will of God stands up to our innate knowledge of right and wrong. As the Bible says, when the God is acting immorally the moral human stands up and rebukes those actions.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 12:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 200 of 286 (633103)
09-12-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
09-12-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
But that would change the whole character or nature of God, (at least how I understand Him). It is about that which is freely chosen.
Then like I've said, god should make his demands clear or remove the threat entirely, preferably the latter. Iano does have a point; a choice made under threat is a somewhat diminished choice. God should at least make his threat plain. Really, he shouldn't be threatening people at all.
If God wants our choices to be uninfluenced by him, surely the best thing he could have done would be to hide his existence. Instead, he inspired people to write grossly contradictory scripture about him.
I suggest that the Bible is very clear unless you insist on reading it in a manner that was never intended the way Buzsaw does.
Except that you are clearly wrong, since so many Christians apparently misinterpret it. There are thousands of Christian sects, all with differing views. Many of them would call your version of God a heresy. It may be clear to you that your interpretation is correct, but given that all other versions of God have equally dedicated adherents, it can't be as clear as you are portraying it.
I’ve mentioned it before that non-theists on the forum are very critical of those Christians that insist on reading the Bible as if it were dictated word for word by God, but then when they argue against it insist that is the only way of reading it.
To be fair, what other option do I have in trying to picture Hell? The Bible is the source material for Hell. The only other option is to make it up as I go along, which, I'm sorry to say, is what you seem to be doing with regards to your vision of Hell.
How clear does Jesus have to be?
He could say;
"Oh, by the way humanity, God's just asked me to mention that the slaughter of the Midianites really wasn't his idea. He was pretty pissed off about it actually. And the genocide of the Amalekites? Not cool, people, not cool. God officially frowns upon genocide. And that guy who sent the bear to eat all those poor children? Major league asshole. God had nothing to do with that!"
He could then go on to provide us with a breakdown on which bits of the OT are divine and which are not. He could point out all the specific false teachings. Then he could clearly denounce slavery and misogyny. But he doesn't.
Now I agree that the core teachings of Jesus are pretty progressive for their time and setting. I just think that they fall far short of being so moral that we should think them the teachings of a divine figure. they fall way short of that, not even meeting modern standards of morality. Add to that the rather haphazard means of communicating this message via inspired-yet-fallible scripture and I think that you have, not a clear and inspired scripture, but merely an unhelpful mess.
Like I said, if we see someone drop a 50 dollar bill in the parking lot and don't return it to them but keep it for ourselves we know that we have chosen selfishness over unselfishness. That is a choice.
Ah but they're not choosing Hell are they? They are choosing selfishness, but it is God who chooses to respond to that by condemning them to Hell. That is not their choice because God has chosen to communicate the knowledge of Hell through a medium that is indistinguishable from empty myth. If that knowledge were available in a form that didn't require one to abandon normal logic, then at least the choice would be informed, but the insistence on the wrong choice leading to Hell is all God's. He could easily find a better solution that that. If he is so keen on mercy, he could show some.
My point though was for people like that it is impossible to find contentment because enough is never enough.
I still think that's wishful thinking. I have no doubt that there are plenty of very happy murderers and rapists all over the world who lead contented lives and sleep like babies. It would be nice if there weren't, but the world is a cruel place.
I also suggest that life with God would be a misery and Hell would be a place where they can carry on with like thinking people.
You continue to make Hell sound really freakin' awesome!
Surrounded by like-minded people, no creepy cosmic overseer... Are you sure that's not heaven?
Without Hell there is no free will. I'll repeat a story I told earlier. Twenty years ago a little boy named Michael Dunahee was abducted from a park in the area in which I live. There has never been a trace found of him. The perpetrator of this horrendous crime has never been caught. Where is the justice for this man and where is the justice for little Michael. I believe that in the end justice will be done.
I don't see how any of that helps or makes any thing any better. Justice isn't going to help anyone. No-one is going to learn from it until it is too late to do anything about it. No-one is being protected from further harm. No example is being set. Why not simply let the perpetrator be reincarnated and try to do better next time? Why not simply let everyone be forgiven their sins? Why not give everyone heaven?
It isn’t that the perpetrator would be assigned to Hell but it is that he will have chosen it because as I say an eternity with a God of love would be intolerable.
If you are arguing that Hell could be preferable to heaven for some individuals, then I believe that you have essentially re-defined Hell to the point of equivocation. That is not the Hell portrayed in scripture. That is a modern notion and quite distinct from any version of Hell that most people would recognise.
I think I’m running out of ways to say the same thing differently.
Fair enough. If you don't feel like responding, feel free to break off the conversation. I think that Mod's message covers some of the same ground, only more eloquently than I. It might be more fruitful for you to pursue that thread.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 11:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 8:39 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 201 of 286 (633111)
09-12-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
09-12-2011 12:15 PM


Choose love
Micah 6 writes writes:
8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God.
Modulous writes:
A statement that can be interpreted in a whole spectrum of ways.
What is just? Each man will answer differently. Is it just to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on a certain day? Some men have answered yes. What does Jehovah require of me on this novel moral situation? What is kindness? Is it kindness to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person who is suffering? Some have answered yes, some have answered no.
Don't forget that God is asking is that we humbly love justice. We aren't always going to get things right but we are to conduct our affairs with kindness and fairness as our motivation.
The thing is Modulous you are looking for specific answers. Frankly I don't think anyone at any time thought that stoning someone to death was kind. They may have thought that the pagan god they were serving wanted them to do it, but I don't believe that they would ever suggest it was kind.
The case for deliberating ending the life of a terminally ill patient is a much better example. My point would be that it is possible to hold either position and be kind, (unselfish love), or conversely be able to hold either position selfishly. It is the point I keep trying to make. It isn't that you choose one or the other, it is that God wants our choice to be made out of kindness or unselfish love.
Modulous writes:
It is in these kinds of gaps that different versions of gods sharing the same name with the same holy books spring up
They get written that way because people over the centuries want clear unambiguous specific answers to questions. The world isn't always a clear unambiguous place. If everyone operated from a worldview or mindset of unselfish love then we could come to consensus on specifics.
Modulous writes:
Two Christians could easily find themselves at odds on these kinds of questions. Each of them has a concept of god and what it thinks is the kind, just, loving and humble course of action.
Absolutely. Christians are just as human as anybody else. There are all sorts of moral questions that I haven't been able to resolve.
For example: What are we to make of the killing of Osama bin Laden? Was it revenge or justice?
Was it good or evil? What would God make of it? How would God want me to think of it?
My own reaction at the time was that it was justified and so it seemed that justice had been done. Again on one level that sounds and seems right, but at the same time I felt a sense of sadness. I wondered if the world had been made a better place for what had been done, or had something been lost?
As Canadians for the last several years we have had our young people killing and dying in Afghanistan. Was it kind? Was it just? I find the answer incredibly ambiguous. Certainly there is good in that in some areas of the country women are being educated, and people have more freedom which is just and good. On the other hand innocents are dying. What would Jesus do?
The only thing I do know is that in the end the only final victory in all of these things will come about from a position of love and kindness and that, again as my favourite theologian says, if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 12:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:39 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 202 of 286 (633120)
09-12-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jazzns
09-12-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Jazzns writes:
Let me just say that the reason your particular god is not compelling to me anymore is that he is basically unnecessary. If nothing in the universe can surprise us about the nature of god then the difference of the universe with and without god is exactly the same. Claiming his existence adds nothing to our reality.
I understand your point that if we all have a God given sense of right or wrong then what does it matter whether or not He actually exists or not.
I don't see it as simple as that. If my beliefs are anywhere close to the truth then it makes a point. For one thing we know that there is a point to our existence. We all know that life on this planet is finite even if it means waiting until the sun burns out. If there is no God, then when the end comes there will not even be a memory left. However if God exists then it means there is an ultimate purpose even if we don't understand it completely. Humans in general feel a need for purpose and so I contend that seeing an ultimate purpose provides hope that we wouldn't otherwise have.
Here is a C S Lewis quote.
quote:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
I also contend that if the Christian message is correct we understand that the very fact that we have the ability to choose kindness instead of cruelty, justice instead of injustice etc is not solely based on our own merits. We have been the ability to make that choice and if there is a pre-existing morality then we should have a more humble attitude when we do choose to act kindly or justly.
Jazzns writes:
Morality has no such indication. Freedom has the exact opposite indication. Freedom to shape our own reality was earned by the blood and willpower of our human compatriots over the generations of our existence.
But where did the morality that provided the basis for that blood and will power come from? If we are nothing more than material beings,with nothing more than material origins why would morality even be construed as being a good thing?
Jazzns writes:
When I receive a gift from someone, what makes it a gift (by definition) is that I recognize that it is something that I didnt have before. I KNOW that it is received. My life is now changed, if only a very small bit by the existence of the gift.
I look at my very existence as a gift from God. If that is correct then I have to see that as not only life changing but life giving.
Edited by GDR, : Actually proof read it after it was quoted. Ugh

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2011 10:36 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2011 4:29 PM GDR has replied

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


(1)
Message 203 of 286 (633122)
09-12-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by GDR
09-12-2011 3:44 PM


God does not give morality. God does not give life.
Let me I don't see it as simple as that. If my beliefs are anywhere close to the truth then it makes a point. For one
thing we know that there is a point to our existence.
In fact we don't know that. As much as we would love it to be true.....
We all know that life on this planet is finite even if it means waiting until the sun burns out. If there is no God, then when the end comes there will not even be a memory left. However if God exists then it means there is an ultimate purpose even if we don't understand it completely. Humans in general feel a need for purpose and so I contend that seeing an ultimate purpose provides hope that we wouldn't otherwise have.
What you are basically saying, which I have a LOT of sympathy for, is that it makes you feel better to believe that there is something more to our lives than this incredibly pitiful and short time that we have. That idea kept me going for quite a long time until I discovered for myself what it means to appreciate my life. Rather than thinking about my life as an extremely tini numerator on top of a denominator the size of the univerise, I need to appreciate the alternative which is a big fat zero. Rather than me being infinitly small, there is actually a nearly infinite amount of difference between the chances of my existence and non-existence. How precious is this moment then where I can even utter the words, "I am." The magnificence of life is the moment, not some unseen and unknowable future meaning.
I also contend that if the Christian message is correct we understand that the very fact that we have the ability
to choose kindness instead of cruelty, justice instead of injustice etc is not solely based on our own merits. We
have been the ability to make that choice and if there is a pre-existing morality then we should have a more humble
attitude when we do choose to act kindly or justly.
...
But where did the morality that provided the basis for that blood and will power come from? If we are nothing more
than material beings living here nothing more than material origins why we that even be construed as being a good
thing?
Why should it make us MORE humble? I truly think you have this backwards. You are saying that we should appreciate a morality that was GRATED moreso than a morality that we fought and died to build? I am sorry, I don't think so.
You also seem to question how morality could arise? Well, how could sentience arise? How could intelligence arise? These are questions about emergent properties of our universe that are very complicated. Just because we don't know or don't know yet does not automatically point to an emergent entity. This is a god of the gaps argument.
It certainly seems that intelligence, sentience, and morality are all related. To hazard a guess that these things are all necessary for each other to exist I believe is more than enough of a tentative answer to your question than the lack of an answer that I think you hoped to achieve by asking it in the first place.
I look at my very existence as a gift from God. If that is correct then I have to see that as not only life changing but life giving.
But how could you ever know that such a thing was a gift? You completely avoided my point. Gifts are what they are because they are blatantly recognizable as such. Your or my life is no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 3:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jaywill, posted 09-12-2011 5:32 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 208 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 9:20 PM Jazzns has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 204 of 286 (633128)
09-12-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jazzns
09-12-2011 4:29 PM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
In fact we don't know that. As much as we would love it to be true.....
Why is there any need for us to long or love it to be true that we have meaning, when all we have to do is take God's word for it ? In multiple places we are told in the Bible of the purpose of His will or of His eternal purpose.
And we have a model to look at - Jesus Christ. We can see what is on the heart of God. That is to be thoroughly united and one with His creature - human being.
We have His word and we have a Model - the God-man Jesus Christ. So we know what God is after and what He will eventually obtain in those saved - the mingling of divinity with humanity - the incorporation of God and man in oneness.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2011 4:29 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 09-12-2011 5:39 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 205 of 286 (633130)
09-12-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jaywill
09-12-2011 5:32 PM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
If Jesus was God-Man while living among us then the whole thing is just a worthless farce and of no significance or value to human beings.
If that is what you worship then I have no use for or see any value in that god.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jaywill, posted 09-12-2011 5:32 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 09-13-2011 4:35 AM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 206 of 286 (633150)
09-12-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by GDR
09-12-2011 2:21 PM


Re: Choose love
If everyone operated from a worldview or mindset of unselfish love then we could come to consensus on specifics.
And my point was that we wouldn't on the grounds that people would define 'unselfish' and 'loving' differently. Some say it is loving and unselfish to go to war, when the enemy lives deep in sin. Some say it is loving and unselfish to instead forgive your enemy in that position.
It is an extremely incomplete moral theory. It might as well simply say 'be good', or 'be nice' for all the moral teaching it provides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 2:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 9:26 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 207 of 286 (633162)
09-12-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Granny Magda writes:
Then like I've said, god should make his demands clear or remove the threat entirely, preferably the latter. Iano does have a point; a choice made under threat is a somewhat diminished choice. God should at least make his threat plain. Really, he shouldn't be threatening people at all.
But it isn't a threat. He lets us choose. I'll repeat this C S Lewis quote.
quote:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
Granny Magda writes:
If God wants our choices to be uninfluenced by him, surely the best thing he could have done would be to hide his existence. Instead, he inspired people to write grossly contradictory scripture about him.
He inspired people to write their stories as they understood them. He didn't dictate the stories to them.
Granny Magda writes:
He could then go on to provide us with a breakdown on which bits of the OT are divine and which are not. He could point out all the specific false teachings. Then he could clearly denounce slavery and misogyny. But he doesn't.
But He did. He said that He was the fulfillment of the laws and the prophets. He then said that the great commands of loving God and loving your neighbour is the basis for all the laws and the prophets. The atrocities you mentioned don't fit into that category.
Granny Magda writes:
Ah but they're not choosing Hell are they? They are choosing selfishness, but it is God who chooses to respond to that by condemning them to Hell. That is not their choice because God has chosen to communicate the knowledge of Hell through a medium that is indistinguishable from empty myth. If that knowledge were available in a form that didn't require one to abandon normal logic, then at least the choice would be informed, but the insistence on the wrong choice leading to Hell is all God's. He could easily find a better solution that that. If he is so keen on mercy, he could show some.
OK, I'll try another approach by quoting C S Lewis again. In the last of the Narnia books, (The Last Battle) there is a story that metaphorically talks about the end of time in which a soldier of Tash, (a satanic figure) named Emeth in the belief that he is serving Tash enters into the Kingdom of Aslan. (The Christ figure.)
quote:
So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.
Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.
But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.
Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.
In the end it's all about who and what we love, and where we find joy.
Granny Magda writes:
You continue to make Hell sound really freakin' awesome!
Surrounded by like-minded people, no creepy cosmic overseer... Are you sure that's not heaven?
It seems to me that an entire civilization where everyone is busily looking out for him or herself sounds like Hell to me. Mind you misery loves company.
Granny Magda writes:
Why not simply let everyone be forgiven their sins? Why not give everyone heaven?
Even when they don't want it? "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis is a short and easy read. I really suggest you try it. If you e-mail me, (my e-mail address is in my info) with your name and address I'll have amazon.co.uk send you a copy.
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 1:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2011 8:42 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 208 of 286 (633168)
09-12-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jazzns
09-12-2011 4:29 PM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
Jazzns writes:
What you are basically saying, which I have a LOT of sympathy for, is that it makes you feel better to believe that there is something more to our lives than this incredibly pitiful and short time that we have. That idea kept me going for quite a long time until I discovered for myself what it means to appreciate my life. Rather than thinking about my life as an extremely tini numerator on top of a denominator the size of the univerise, I need to appreciate the alternative which is a big fat zero. Rather than me being infinitly small, there is actually a nearly infinite amount of difference between the chances of my existence and non-existence. How precious is this moment then where I can even utter the words, "I am." The magnificence of life is the moment, not some unseen and unknowable future meaning.
I know what you're saying and I admit that life that has an ultimate meaning does bring a measure of comfort. But why should it? If we really are just a random collection of atoms and molecules why would we care whether there was an ultimate purpose or not, or find comfort in the idea?
I'll take the liberty of repeating that quote by C S Lewis.
quote:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
If Lewis is right and the universe has meaning, we pretty much have to conclude that there is more to our existence than just what we physically perceive as we know that at some point, even though it might be millions of years away this place isn't going to exist.
Jazzns writes:
You also seem to question how morality could arise? Well, how could sentience arise? How could intelligence arise? These are questions about emergent properties of our universe that are very complicated. Just because we don't know or don't know yet does not automatically point to an emergent entity. This is a god of the gaps argument.
I have gone back and fixed up the paragraph you quoted. Somehow I missed proof reading it. I can't believe that you could even understand what I was talking about.
I don't accept that as a god of the gaps argument. Let's talk abiogenesis and say that a scientist someday well put together the right assortment of ingredients in a petri dish and create life. All that will show is that if in a strictly material world it is conceivable that by random good fortune those materials came together and then continued to combine through an evolutionary process to create life as we know it. The thing is though that science cannot tell us whether or not those ingredients came together as a result of a pre-existing intelligence or not.
We have a pretty good understanding of the evolutionary process but all that we can know is what happened. We cannot know whether there was any adjustment to the process along the way nor can we know whether or not there was an intelligence that designed the process from the get go.
Jazzns writes:
It certainly seems that intelligence, sentience, and morality are all related. To hazard a guess that these things are all necessary for each other to exist I believe is more than enough of a tentative answer to your question than the lack of an answer that I think you hoped to achieve by asking it in the first place.
I'm not sure that morality is necessary for the existence of intelligence and sentience. I think that it is a legitimate question to try and understand why morality, sentience and intelligence exist. Just because the conclusion is subjective doesn't mean that it is wrong whether it be your conclusion or mine. We are all just looking for truth the best way we know how.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2011 4:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 209 of 286 (633169)
09-12-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Modulous
09-12-2011 7:39 PM


Re: Choose love
Modulous writes:
And my point was that we wouldn't on the grounds that people would define 'unselfish' and 'loving' differently. Some say it is loving and unselfish to go to war, when the enemy lives deep in sin. Some say it is loving and unselfish to instead forgive your enemy in that position.
It is an extremely incomplete moral theory. It might as well simply say 'be good', or 'be nice' for all the moral teaching it provides.
I agree but I have been saying all along, and particularly in the post that you are replying to, that often the answers are ambiguous. What I am saying though is that if people agree that mercy, forgiveness, love, kindness, justice etc is the goal you have a pretty good basis on which to start a discussion about the right thing to do.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 210 of 286 (633211)
09-13-2011 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by jar
09-12-2011 5:39 PM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
If Jesus was God-Man while living among us then the whole thing is just a worthless farce and of no significance or value to human beings.
If that is what you worship then I have no use for or see any value in that god.
The past tense "was" suggests that the God-Man is no longer with us. You have to speak for yourself. Perhaps you have no experience of Christ. But millions of believers do. And more continue to enter into the experience. We enjoy the dispensing of Christ's Spirit into our innermost beings.
" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
You say "was" but Christ ends His ministry in the book of Matthew with the words that He is with us until the consummation of the age:
"And behold, I am with you all the days until the comsummation of the age" (Matt. 28:20b)
He is still with us and His indwelling presence is only "worthless" in furthering and building up the fallen Satanified world. But for the building of His church and the kingdom of God the God-Man is precious. Nothing can compare with Christ. And nothing can compete with Christ in value and worth.
So if you feel worthless as a human being and of no value, you should speak for yourself. We who know Christ and are having His life dispensed into us feel nothing can separate us from the love of God.
And nothing can either defeat or supercede the value of the eternal will of God.
" Because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.
And the world is passing away, and its lust, but he who does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:15,16)
So if you want the encredible assurance and comfort that you are living unto that which abides forever, receive Christ and His salvation.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 09-12-2011 5:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 8:41 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024