Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 286 (633228)
09-13-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by jaywill
09-13-2011 4:35 AM


Jesus as Chimera.
I did not say I was worthless, but rather that if Jesus while he was alive on earth was some half man half god or even whole man whole god chimera, then the who point of his death and resurrection is just a farce and worthless.
And yes, I also said that the "encredible assurance and comfort that you are living unto that which abides forever" is nothing more than a cheap snake oil salesman pitch and not worth my time.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 09-13-2011 4:35 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jaywill, posted 09-13-2011 9:08 AM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 214 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 10:31 AM jar has replied

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


(1)
Message 212 of 286 (633230)
09-13-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by GDR
09-12-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
But it isn't a threat. He lets us choose. I'll repeat this C S Lewis quote.
Well now it's my turn to repeat myself. I disagree with Lewis when he says that "All that are in Hell, choose it.". It is no fair choice. It is not an informed choice. The wrongdoer chooses to do wrong, but without being given any clear and rational source of relevant information, they are flying blind with regards to Hell.
You keep trying to shift the responsibility for Hell onto humanity when it is in fact God who is supposed to have created this set up. He dictates that people who fail his test go to Hell, no-one else. God is the one who maintains this system. He could choose to change it for a more merciful system if he chose to. He must take responsibility, not the victims of his design. You keep saying that we are free to choose, but what use is that when God sets what options we can choose from?
He inspired people to write their stories as they understood them. He didn't dictate the stories to them.
Perhaps he should have. Then people like Iano or Buz (who you believe to have misunderstood the Bible) might have a fighting chance of understanding God's message. Again, clear communication is morally superior to baroque guessing games.
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.
No, he did not. He did not clearly, specifically and unequivocally denounce slavery. This is not a trivial omission, since we can observe that many Christians throughout history have seen fit to cite the Bible in support of slavery, including the NT. A clear teaching on the subject, just something as simple as "Hey kids, slavery is really bad, God says no to slavery." could have worked wonders. But no, we are left to infer this teaching from his general body of teachings. That it can be inferred is not the point. The point is that we are effectively being tested by God, with no rulebook in sight save for vague, contradictory and often wrong-headed scripture. That does not seem like a free and fair choice, nor does it seem like the design of a benevolent being.
OK, I'll try another approach by quoting C S Lewis again.
I think that Lewis is quite misunderstanding the mindset of the so-called "sinner". He is projected the way that he would like to imagine evil people think think. I do not believe that he has got it right at all. This idea that evil people will be repulsed by goodness is a fairy tale, designed to make C S Lewis feel better about himself.
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.
Well thanks for the generous offer, but I don't think it's the best move. I already have one or two problems with Lewis, so he's almost the last person you would want me to read.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 8:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 2:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 213 of 286 (633234)
09-13-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
09-13-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Jesus as Chimera.
t (erased)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 8:41 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 214 of 286 (633253)
09-13-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
09-13-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Jesus as Chimera.
jar writes:
I did not say I was worthless, but rather that if Jesus while he was alive on earth was some half man half god or even whole man whole god chimera, then the who point of his death and resurrection is just a farce and worthless.
You keep telling us who Jesus wasn't jar. I'm wondering who you think he was. How do you understand incarnation for example?
Was He a prophet? Was He the Messiah and how do you understand that? Son of God?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 10:49 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 215 of 286 (633261)
09-13-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by GDR
09-13-2011 10:31 AM


Re: Jesus as Chimera.
Jesus was certainly not the Messiah as based on any Old Testament meaning of the term beyond possibly being an anointed one like many others.
Let me try to address each of your points briefly at least.
First, I see three separate phases of Jesus, before birth, during his life here on earth and after his ascension.
Incarnation:
Incarnation means fully taking on the characteristics, becoming the thing itself. Jesus as born of Mary was just man, not God/Man, and I think that if there was a sacrifice, that is the real one, GOD becoming just man, not being able to control his bowels, having to learn to walk and talk, learn how to go potty, learning how to stand on one foot and blow spit bubbles and how to hop or skip, learning how to get along with other people, to express himself, communicate, earn respect.
Prophet:
Certainly he was a prophet, as is anyone that carries a message from GOD.
Son of God:
Many were called both "Son of God" and "Son of Man". Generally both meant "one that was beloved by God and given limited authority".
Messiah:
Christianity totally revised the meaning of the term Messiah as it changed the referent from an immediate change in the political structure and power structure to an afterlife.
My belief is, and it is just a belief, that Jesus before his birth and after his resurrection is divine. While he was alive and among us he was simply human.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 10:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 3:34 PM jar has replied

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


Message 216 of 286 (633309)
09-13-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Granny Magda
09-13-2011 8:42 AM


Is Hell Just?
Granny Magda writes:
Well now it's my turn to repeat myself. I disagree with Lewis when he says that "All that are in Hell, choose it.". It is no fair choice. It is not an informed choice. The wrongdoer chooses to do wrong, but without being given any clear and rational source of relevant information, they are flying blind with regards to Hell.
You keep trying to shift the responsibility for Hell onto humanity when it is in fact God who is supposed to have created this set up. He dictates that people who fail his test go to Hell, no-one else. God is the one who maintains this system. He could choose to change it for a more merciful system if he chose to. He must take responsibility, not the victims of his design. You keep saying that we are free to choose, but what use is that when God sets what options we can choose from?
I contend that we do choose who we are to become and that it is a fair choice. Every time we commit an act of selfishness it makes the next act of selfishness that much easier and that much more natural. Conversely, every time we act unselfishly we may the next act of unselfishness become that much easier and natural.
God has given us the innate knowledge of the difference between good and evil or selfishness and unselfishness. We know that without having to refer to any holy text. We can see in this life the ramifications of our selfish and unselfish acts. We can see how our selfishness can bring sorrow to others and how our unselfishness can bring joy to others.
We establish a trajectory in our lives towards selfishness or unselfishness and it is very difficult to turn that ship around, but it can be done and I believe that one of the ways of turning around is that God's spirit will be an agent to help us in that.In the end though, through a series of many choices in our lives establish who we are.
I understand Hell as separation from God. I don't pretend to know what that would look like.
I believe that God is merciful, that God is forgiving, that God is loving and that God is just. No I don't have all of the answers in absolute terms, but because I believe in these attributes of God I also believe that in the end there will be a perfectly just and loving conclusion. I'm just going to have to wait to see what that looks like, but in the mean time all I can do is try and work with God in making the little bit of creation that I control, namely my body, something that is humbly kind and just. (I have a long way to go but I'm a work in progress. )
Granny Magda writes:
Perhaps he should have. Then people like Iano or Buz (who you believe to have misunderstood the Bible) might have a fighting chance of understanding God's message. Again, clear communication is morally superior to baroque guessing games.
It isn't a guessing game. We do know the difference between good and evil.
Granny Magda writes:
No, he did not. He did not clearly, specifically and unequivocally denounce slavery. This is not a trivial omission, since we can observe that many Christians throughout history have seen fit to cite the Bible in support of slavery, including the NT. A clear teaching on the subject, just something as simple as "Hey kids, slavery is really bad, God says no to slavery." could have worked wonders. But no, we are left to infer this teaching from his general body of teachings. That it can be inferred is not the point. The point is that we are effectively being tested by God, with no rulebook in sight save for vague, contradictory and often wrong-headed scripture. That does not seem like a free and fair choice, nor does it seem like the design of a benevolent being.
The world has a different view of slavery now that it did in the 1st century world. Slavery wasn't for life, it was a way of paying off debts, it wasn't necessarily racially based and it actually meant that many were looked after when they had no other means of support. It was very different from the despicable slave trade of our more recent ancestors. It was to a large extent Christians such as Wilberforce and Newton that brought about the end of it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2011 8:42 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2011 4:13 AM GDR has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 217 of 286 (633324)
09-13-2011 3:15 PM


This is a selective reply on a portion of discussion. Sorry if I didn't follow the whole context.
Granny says:
No, he did not. He did not clearly, specifically and unequivocally denounce slavery.
It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).
Paul wrote that kidnapping was an unrighteous act. And Paul mentions it along with fornicators, homosexuals, liars, perjurers and murderers -
"But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully [And] knows this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who -
strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers,
for fornicators,
homosexuals,
** KIDNAPPERS **, (my emphasis)
liars,
perjurers,
and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teachins, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
How then can I say that millions of kidnapped human beings stolen from their homeland and forced into slavery is God's will ? Rather the law is enacted for such lawless ones. And it is contrary to the blessed gospel entrusted to the apostle.
Don't listen to the foolishness of those hoping to score points against the Bible by saying it does not speak against slavery. It spoke here explicitly against "kidnappers" as such as was involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade.
This is not a trivial omission, since we can observe that many Christians throughout history have seen fit to cite the Bible in support of slavery, including the NT.
As per above one could hardly charge that there was an omission.
However, we do have Paul giving intructions to the churches. People came to the Lord Jesus in all kinds of situations. And some would find themselves believing in the Gospel as masters of slaves or as slaves themselves. What was the apostles word to these?
Well one place he tells the masters to give to the slaves what is just and equal:
"Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 3:4)
There are many kinds of slavery and indentured servitude. But the hieneous slavery of which I am most familiar in the history of my country, is the kind that envolves kidnapping, fornication, and certainly NOT giving slaves what is just and equal by any means. Inequality is the foundation for the Slavery of which I am most familiar.
I once read that in ancient Rome the city slave had some legal rights to sometime even take his master to court. But the country slave was less fortunate as evidenced by the intruments of torture.
Probably slavery in ancient Rome is a big subject. But Paul knew that the Gospel would reach some slaves who would believe and some masters who also would believe. Together they would be participating in the New Testament church life.
His instructions were not to society as a whole so as to seem to be a social reformer. But to the communities which were churches he gave instruction. Some are eager to point out that Paul said:
"Slaves, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eue-service as men-pleasers, but in singlenessof heart fearing the Lord." (Col. 3:22)
These kinds of passages slaver owners in the US loved to support their kidnapping and fornication. But the abolishonist also could point to passages arguing against them.
In the same letter Paul warns, the CHRISTIANS, that God is not repector of persons. And thought they are eternally redeemed they still may be RECOMPENSED good or bad in some coming age quite aside from eternal life:
"Whatever you do, wok from the soul as to the Lord and not to men, Knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as recompense. You serve the Lord Christ ..." (v.24)
But hold on slave and slave master. It says this:
"For he who does unrighteously will receive what he unrightely did, and there is no respect of persons." (v.25)
Some believers came to the Christ in the institution of slavery.
Some believers came to Christ as masters in the same institution.
Paul says that God is no respector of persons. Either slave or master is called to the inheritance as a recompense. But God will cause one to receive good for the good he has done and to receive unrighteously for the unrighteosness he has done.
This is an exhortation to Christian disciples. God has many ways to deal with His saved people aside from the matter of eternal redemption. He is not tied to not further deal with His children for their perfecting, adjusting, discipline, and even punishment.
Slave and slave master - "For he who does unrighteosly will receive what he unrighteosly did, AND THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS." ( Col. 3:25)
So we have to say "Hold it. Not so fast" to those who gleefully claim that the Bible endorses slavery. And I think the abolishonist won the battle eventually over the consciences of men, albiet some slavers thought they had a case for a divinely approved slave trade.
"Hey kids, slavery is really bad, God says no to slavery." could have worked wonders. But no, we are left to infer this teaching from his general body of teachings. That it can be inferred is not the point. The point is that we are effectively being tested by God, with no rulebook in sight save for vague, contradictory and often wrong-headed scripture. That does not seem like a free and fair choice, nor does it seem like the design of a benevolent being.
Paul's exhortation were not bandaids to put on a sick society. His epistle is to the Christian church. Kidnapping is unrighteous. Using female slaves for fornication is also not to be tolerated in the Christian church.
The church is the city on a hill. The church is to be the lampstand testifying the kingdom of God. No, Paul was not a social reformer putting bandaids on human society. His burden is Christ and the church centric. For the building up of these communities called churches (not physical buildings but collective entities as communities) he touched the conscieces of all involved.
And the Holy Spirit reserved one whole letter in the NT to deal with a Christian brother who was apparently a runaway slave of a Christian brother who was a master. It is quite interesting.
But it is still CHRIST centric and not social reform centric. Its focus is the building up of the church. Its focus is not helping a Christless society get along apart from abiding in the resurrected and living Christ.
Jesus said that the disciples were the salt of the earth. Salt only preserves the meat from totally rotting. The presence of the Christians on the earth only hold in check the complete rotting of society. We are the light of the world and the salt of the earth if we are normal disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:13,1).
I said if we are normal disciples.

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 218 of 286 (633327)
09-13-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
09-13-2011 10:49 AM


Who was Jesus?
Thanks jar
jar writes:
Jesus was certainly not the Messiah as based on any Old Testament meaning of the term beyond possibly being an anointed one like many others.
Yes but all of the other would be messiahs were put to death which brought an abrupt end to their career. Yes the messiah was to be the anointed one of God and I also agree that the vast majority of first century Jews believed that the messiah would be one who would lead them in battle and restore them as top dog. However there is a different idea of the messianic figure throughout the Hebrew scriptures and particularly in Isaiah 53. (The suffering servant)
So essentially I suggest that Jesus did fit a messianic thread through the Hebrew scriptures which I agree is a lot easier to put together in hind sight, but I believe that Jesus understood this from the scriptures.
jar writes:
Incarnation means fully taking on the characteristics, becoming the thing itself. Jesus as born of Mary was just man, not God/Man, and I think that if there was a sacrifice, that is the real one, GOD becoming just man, not being able to control his bowels, having to learn to walk and talk, learn how to go potty, learning how to stand on one foot and blow spit bubbles and how to hop or skip, learning how to get along with other people, to express himself, communicate, earn respect.
I'm partially on board with that. We would agree that anything like the idea that Jesus was just God and not man does a complete disservice to Him and His message. I have no doubt that Jesus saw Himself as Messiah. Consider His response to John the Baptist when He talks about the blind receiving sight etc and quotes Isaiah 35. I suggest that He also understood that through Him as Messiah that God the Father was revisiting the Jewish people. I believe that He understood that in the tradition of the Temple that He, Jesus, was the embodiment of God.
The Temple was the place where the Jews believed God could be encountered, sacrificed to and find forgiveness. Jesus was walking around forgiving sins and saying things like I desire mercy not sacrifice.
jar writes:
Many were called both "Son of God" and "Son of Man". Generally both meant "one that was beloved by God and given limited authority".
I agree that at the time of Christ these terms were messianic terms and didn't imply any kind of divinity. However, I believe that early on, after the resurrection the title Son of God as given to Jesus did imply a divine nature. I think that the title Son of Man did imply more. It does talk about an everlasting dominion that the Son of Man would rule over, but that still could be construed to be messianic and someone who has divine authority given to them by the divine.
jar writes:
Christianity totally revised the meaning of the term Messiah as it changed the referent from an immediate change in the political structure and power structure to an afterlife.
I don't think that He revised it as much as that He understood it differently than the vast majority of His countrymen. I absolutely agree that He rejected the idea of revolutionary change but I don't see it as being just about the afterlife. I think His message was more about the present and immediate future in that He was establishing the Kingdom of God in the present that would run to and into the New Creation that God will establish whenever it is that time as we presently experience it comes to an end.
jar writes:
My belief is, and it is just a belief, that Jesus before his birth and after his resurrection is divine. While he was alive and among us he was simply human.
I think we agree on this. I don't see Jesus as walking around thinking of the good times with the Father at the creation of the world. I do think that He was aware that God worked through Him in ways that God didn't work through anyone else. I also think that He went to the cross in act of faith that His understanding of what He received in prayer and His understanding of the scriptures was actually correct, and that He hadn't made some horrible blunder.
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 4:07 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 219 of 286 (633332)
09-13-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by GDR
09-13-2011 3:34 PM


Re: Who was Jesus?
Of course Isaiah does not have anything to do with Jesus.
I don't think that Jesus revised the meaning of the term Messiah and never implied that. It was the folk that followed along that revised the meaning of Messiah and of course rewrote Jesus back into their storyline.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 3:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 6:44 PM jar has replied

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


Message 220 of 286 (633367)
09-13-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
09-13-2011 4:07 PM


Re: Who was Jesus?
jar writes:
Of course Isaiah does not have anything to do with Jesus.
Well of course I think it does. I don't believe in a deterministic world. I believe that God relates to us in time and that He doesn't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow in the way that He knows what I had for dinner yesterday.
However He would be able to foretell the coming of Jesus the Messiah in the same way that I can say that I'm going to some particular restaurant tomorrow.
I think that the OT does foreshadow the coming of Jesus, and that this is particularly true in Isaiah and to a lesser degree Daniel.
jar writes:
I don't think that Jesus revised the meaning of the term Messiah and never implied that. It was the folk that followed along that revised the meaning of Messiah and of course rewrote Jesus back into their storyline.
No, I didn't mean that He revised it either. I'm only saying that He saw himself as leading a messianic movement, but that His understanding of what that was to look like, although consistent with much of the OT, did not look like what the majority of His countrymen were expecting.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 4:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 6:52 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 221 of 286 (633370)
09-13-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by GDR
09-13-2011 6:44 PM


Re: Who was Jesus?
I think a better case might be made for claiming he lead an Apocalyptic movement and really though that the world was about to end.
And if you want, start yet another thread on Isaiah and Daniel because I've never been able to find support for any reference to Jesus in either without really quote mining them deeply and taking most everything out of context.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 6:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 7:16 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 222 of 286 (633376)
09-13-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by jar
09-13-2011 6:52 PM


Re: Who was Jesus?
jar writes:
I think a better case might be made for claiming he lead an Apocalyptic movement and really though that the world was about to end.
I disagree. I think that the claims about what was going to happen within a generation referred to the destruction of Jerusalem which happened in 70AD. I'm not even suggesting that it took supernatural knowledge to work that out. He was preaching that they should abandon their revolutionary ways and if they didn't the Romans would do what they always did with revolutionaries.
He certainly had an apocalyptic message but as He said, no one knows the hour or the minute.
I don't see the need for a new thread. The question here is do we worship different gods which means having to discuss the characteristics of God and how he relates to us.
As I say Isaiah 35 and Daniel 7 are pretty big chunks so I don't see it as quote mining, but I do see them as foreshadowing Jesus.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by jar, posted 09-13-2011 6:52 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 223 of 286 (633482)
09-14-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by GDR
09-12-2011 9:20 PM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
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?
Why should it is a good question but you cant just plug in an answer.... and therefore god.
Why does a story that has a good ending satisfy me? Why do I like it when smart people get ahead? Why do I feel good when my sports team wins? None of these things matter in the materialistic sense yet our brains are wired to receive these concepts as pleasure. Our brains LIKE when things that seem incongruent or unappealing get resolved. When they are not, we feel uncomfortable as a drive to try to solve them. Unfortunately, some incongruencies are not solvable. If you have ever shivered when discovering a paradox then you probably know. It does not give us philosophical freedom to claims that a higher power must exist that solves the problem.
It may just be that the solution is unknowable and as intelligent beings, we either figure out how to compartmentalize the unknowable, or we invent falsehoods to satisfy our needy little brains. Inventing gods is the easy way out IMO.
Since you wanted to bring it up again
CS Lewis writes:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning
CS Lewis likes to setup false choices just like in his Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. It is perfectly reasonable (and highly probable) that the universe has no meaning and we just can never know that it does or not because that is not something we can measure. It is perfectly reasonable for us to live for our entire existence as sentient beings in a state of complete ignorance about the meaning of the universe. Certainly this little weak analogy by Lewis does not clarify the situation.
Note, I have never claimed that there is no meaning. You are in fact erecting a straw man.
I don't accept that as a god of the gaps argument.
First of all, you ignored my first point about your claim of humility which I think was important. Why should we revere a morality that is granted more than a morality that we fought for? Please go back and read that because I really do think you have this flipped.
Second, why are you brining up origins and ID? I am claiming that your argument is a god of the gaps and in this case the gap is philosophical. You are claiming that since we dont know where morality comes from.... therefore god. It is TOTALLY a god of the gaps argument.
Recall you said:
GDR previously writes:
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?
When I read that I translate that in my head to something like, I am uncomfortable with the uncertainty about the origins of morality, therefore I MUST posit that it comes from a source other than that which we are capable of understanding by conventional means.
That is god of the gaps plain and simple. If not, how am I misunderstanding you?
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.
Yes but the difference is that you are claiming the lack of certainty implies there exists a god while I am perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty.
No more than just comfortable, I think that the uncertainty is actually very beautiful. I hope you dont take this personally but this is just want I feel. Your god is an empty shell used to help dampen the fear of the unknown.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

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 208 by GDR, posted 09-12-2011 9:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by GDR, posted 09-14-2011 10:27 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 224 of 286 (633587)
09-14-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Jazzns
09-14-2011 11:00 AM


Re: God does not give morality. God does not give life.
Jazzns writes:
Why should it is a good question but you cant just plug in an answer.... and therefore god.
Why does a story that has a good ending satisfy me? Why do I like it when smart people get ahead? Why do I feel good when my sports team wins? None of these things matter in the materialistic sense yet our brains are wired to receive these concepts as pleasure. Our brains LIKE when things that seem incongruent or unappealing get resolved. When they are not, we feel uncomfortable as a drive to try to solve them. Unfortunately, some incongruencies are not solvable. If you have ever shivered when discovering a paradox then you probably know. It does not give us philosophical freedom to claims that a higher power must exist that solves the problem.
It may just be that the solution is unknowable and as intelligent beings, we either figure out how to compartmentalize the unknowable, or we invent falsehoods to satisfy our needy little brains. Inventing gods is the easy way out IMO.
I realize this is in the Bible study forum but I wasn’t arguing for any specific god. We are actually discussing two different points in a way. You are pointing out that our brains are wired to react to things the way we do. Well yes, I agree. The question is why are we wired that way. You are right in that I can’t say that a higher power must exist but I can IMHO claim that subjectively it isn’t an unreasonable conclusion.
A prime mover either exists or doesn’t exist . That fact remains the same whether the truth is knowable or not, so all we can do is consider the likelihood one way or another. It is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that all of the feelings that you describe in the paragraph I just quoted would come from a non-feeling, non intelligent, non-moral source. The question is not a scientific one. It is either philosophical or theological.
I agree that it is possible that we can’t know the answer but it does seem sensible to me that if a prime mover does exist, and we consider the fact that we are wired to attempt to find answers about our existence, whether it be by scientific, philosophical or theological means, then I contend that indicates that we can at least have indications of some things about that prime mover.
Jazzns writes:
CS Lewis likes to setup false choices just like in his Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. It is perfectly reasonable (and highly probable) that the universe has no meaning and we just can never know that it does or not because that is not something we can measure. It is perfectly reasonable for us to live for our entire existence as sentient beings in a state of complete ignorance about the meaning of the universe. Certainly this little weak analogy by Lewis does not clarify the situation.
Note, I have never claimed that there is no meaning. You are in fact erecting a straw man.
I know you haven’t claimed that the world has no meaning, but I did if it is based on the assumption that th material world is all there is. If our material world as we perceive it is all there is then I can see no ultimate meaning to it. We know scientifically that at some point this world will end, even though it may take billions of years. If all that we know ceases to exist and there isn’t so much as a memory left then there is no ultimate meaning to the universe.
I’m not denying that we can carry on and find meaning in things like our job, our family or our golf score but those are only temporal, and maybe that is all that there is. However, a world that amounts to more than that makes more sense to me when considering the non-material things that we experience, such as emotions and ideas. Emotions and ideas are non-material things that we experience now so it isn’t unreasonable to conclude that there is more that is non-material which might allow for a prime mover.
Jazzns writes:
First of all, you ignored my first point about your claim of humility which I think was important. Why should we revere a morality that is granted more than a morality that we fought for? Please go back and read that because I really do think you have this flipped.
To review:
GDR writes:
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?
Jazzns writes:
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.
My contention is that if we are on our own are completely responsible for our good nature, we are more likely to be prideful of that good nature than if we attribute that same good nature, at least in part, to a moral prime mover.
Jazzns writes:
Second, why are you brining up origins and ID? I am claiming that your argument is a god of the gaps and in this case the gap is philosophical. You are claiming that since we dont know where morality comes from.... therefore god. It is TOTALLY a god of the gaps argument.
Again, to review:
GDR writes:
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?
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.
GDR writes:
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.
Jazzns writes:
When I read that I translate that in my head to something like, I am uncomfortable with the uncertainty about the origins of morality, therefore I MUST posit that it comes from a source other than that which we are capable of understanding by conventional means.
That is god of the gaps plain and simple. If not, how am I misunderstanding you?
My point was, just as the evolutionary process describes the mechanism for how it occurred, what you are referring to is the potential discovery of the mechanism that produced moral beings. Science may find a mechanism that has produced morality but it tells us nothing about first cause. If you want to call that a philosophy of the gaps ok, but what philosophy is there then that wouldn’t fall into that category? If my conclusion is god of the gaps it is no more so than any other conclusion including atheism. It is just a subjective conclusion based on what we know or think we know.
GDR writes:
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.
Jazzns writes:
Yes but the difference is that you are claiming the lack of certainty implies there exists a god while I am perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty.
No more than just comfortable, I think that the uncertainty is actually very beautiful. I hope you dont take this personally but this is just want I feel. Your god is an empty shell used to help dampen the fear of the unknown.
Well I’m not sure that uncertainty is beautiful. I’m glad our scientists don’t feel that way. As I said, I’m just seeking the truth. My views on what I perceive as truth have been adjusted over the years. In the end, no matter what we believe there is some level of uncertainty, but frankly I’m very comfortable and fairly confident that most of what I believe is essentially correct.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2011 4:14 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 225 of 286 (633911)
09-17-2011 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by GDR
09-13-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
Hi GDR,
God has given us the innate knowledge of the difference between good and evil or selfishness and unselfishness.
Except that this is extremely limited. Modulous has already pointed to the existence of ambiguous ethical problems, of which countless examples exist. There are also other problems with this notion; there are plenty of people who manifestly do not know the difference between right and wrong. Those who are too young for instance, those who are so old that their moral values will strike a younger generation as offensive. There are the criminally insane. There are people who simply lack the necessary intellect to grasp the question. There are people who are born with severe personality disorders, like psychopathy or sociopathy, who, lacking the empathy that would inform the normal person's conscience, have difficulty distinguishing right from wrong.
I agree that an apparently inbuilt moral sense exists, but I differ from you in your claim that this sense is solid and dependable enough to make such serious judgements as those involving an eternal afterlife, especially a hellish one.
We know that without having to refer to any holy text.
Well then, God really screwed up by giving us holy texts.
As I see it, you can't have this both ways. Either our innate moral sense is sufficient or we need holy texts. If we don't need the texts, they are nothing but a hindrance and, at worst, a liability, as they have been used to justify untold acts of evil.
I understand Hell as separation from God. I don't pretend to know what that would look like.
[gratuitous snark]Have you looked out of your window? It looks like that.[/snark]
I believe that God is merciful, that God is forgiving, that God is loving and that God is just.
I consider the "forgiving" part of that to be incompatible with eternal suffering.
It isn't a guessing game. We do know the difference between good and evil.
I'm sorry, but I just think that's wishful thinking. Do you really believe that no-one ever committed an evil act, convinced at the time that they were doing good?
The world has a different view of slavery now that it did in the 1st century world. Slavery wasn't for life, it was a way of paying off debts, it wasn't necessarily racially based and it actually meant that many were looked after when they had no other means of support. It was very different from the despicable slave trade of our more recent ancestors.
You paint too rosy a picture of Roman slavery. It was still abominable. More on this below.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 09-13-2011 2:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 09-17-2011 11:57 AM Granny Magda 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