Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 227 of 286 (633951)
09-17-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Granny Magda
09-17-2011 4:13 AM


Re: Is Hell Just?
Hi Granny Magda
Granny Magda writes:
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.
The thing is that you and Modulous keep insisting the kind of god that fundamentalists worship. You want to know to know the minimum entry requirements for an afterlife with God and what specifically you have to do to avoid Hell.
I agree that right and wrong won't necessarily always be the same for everyone. I also agree that there are those with mental disorders, or are too young to comprehend. It isn't directly about right and wrong IMHO. I contend that it is more about who we are deep down. The question as I see it, as I have said numerous times, is how do we love. Do we love selfishly, (it's all about me), or do we love unselfishly, (it is all about others). Certainly, virtually nobody is all one way or another but in the end we choose which world we want to live in, with life with God the characterized by the former and Hell being characterized by the latter.
Granny Magda writes:
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.
Once again you are taking a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. The Bible isn't a book that is all about how to get on the right side of God. Yes, it does talk about that but primarily it is a story about God, through His created beings, working with creation. It is a story starting with creation and ending with new creation or re-creation.
Man will always find a way to justify acts of evil. If it hadn’t been religion we would have found, and would continue to find, some other way. Maybe if it wasn't for holy texts we would think that we wouldn't even have to bother justifying it.
Granny Magda writes:
Have you looked out of your window? It looks like that
If I am correct and God withdrew from us I think the world would look very different indeed, but that is JMHO.
Granny Magda writes:
I consider the "forgiving" part of that to be incompatible with eternal suffering.
But if we are to be forgiven we have to accept forgiveness, and why would we want to force someone into an eternity that they reject and want no part of.
Granny Magda writes:
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?
Absolutely because they have misconstrued good and evil. Good is a desire that others have maximum joy and minimum suffering. Of course life sometimes isn't that cut and dried and the answers aren't easy but the question is still about what and who we love. What is it that at the very bottom of our heart motivates us?
Granny Magda writes:
You paint too rosy a picture of Roman slavery. It was still abominable. More on this below.
Of course it was, but Jesus was preaching to the Jews who had their own history of slavery which looked quite different from the Romans. As for Paul, he said "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
The whole message of equality and love is consistent with abolishing slavery. If one wants to cherry pick verses you can frankly make the Bible say anything you want pretty much. I point out again that it was Christians like Wilberforce and Newton that were prime movers for abolition.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2011 4:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2011 1:21 PM GDR has replied
 Message 232 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2011 10:05 AM GDR has replied
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 09-19-2011 11:27 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 229 of 286 (633976)
09-17-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Theodoric
09-17-2011 1:21 PM


Re: Slavery revisionism?
Theodoric writes:
Can you expound on this statement? I am not sure I understand what you are getting at. Is your statement that Jews were slaves or that they treated slaves differently than the Romans?
On re-reading what I wrote I can sure see why you found my meaning a little hard to decipher.
I just meant that the Jewish people had a long history of themselves being enslaved and as a result wouldn't have been well disposed to it, which is quite different than the Roman experience obviously.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2011 1:21 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2011 4:00 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 231 of 286 (634036)
09-18-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dr Adequate
09-18-2011 4:00 AM


Re: Slavery revisionism?
Hi Dr A
Well put. I have to agree with you that in all likelihood given half a chance most of the Jews would have loved to have a few Roman slaves around to do their bidding. That does seem to be the way the world functioned at that time. It seems unbelievable that just a very few generations ago we had slavery in our own cultures and segregation in my life time.
However at the time of Jesus that wasn't the issue. The issue that Jesus addressed was how the Jews were to deal with the Romans in the situation they were in.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2011 4:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 234 of 286 (634141)
09-19-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Granny Magda
09-19-2011 10:05 AM


Re: Is Hell Just?
Granny Magda writes:
Well, with all due respect to you, in some ways I think that the Fundamentalist versions of Christianity make more sense. They fail completely when compared to reality, but I think that they have a stronger sense of internal consistency than modern liberal Christianity. Most forms of modern Christianity are just too nebulous for my tastes. They amount to so little.
Modulous writes:
Not at all. If you want to claim that the way to morality is through God, and the way to understand God's morality is to consult the Bible where it says, in simple terms 'Be moral', that this is ambiguous to the point of uselessness as far as applying it to practical life. I never said anything about the god of the fundamentalists and my criticism applies to anyone that suggests that Bible has anything relevant or useful to say about morality - whether they are fundamentalist or not.
It is this ambiguity that leads to different conceptions of who and what god is, even amongst those that agree which source is the relevant one. abe: so yes, it leads to the fundamentalist god and the liberal god and others besides.
I want to try and condense the discussion down to this point, and I'll answer both of you with the one post.
You guys want absolute black and white answers from the Bible. It isn't a collection of books written in order for people to know exactly what they have to do to go to heaven and avoid hell. Yes, the fundamentalists will give you an answer, while at the same time ignoring verses like Matthew 7: 21-23.
The Bible is written to tell the story of what God has done, is doing and planning to do in the world. It is the story of the people to whom God revealed the earliest truths through their mythologies. Through revelation implanted on human imaginations he revealed things like the ten commandments and the concept of loving their neighbours. Later books like Isaiah and Daniel foretell the messiah that will be sent by God.
The Bible tells the story of the early Jews with all of their successes and failures. Yes they had the the teachings of Moses, but they were also heavily influenced by their more powerful pagan neighbours. The story of the church since the time of Christ would look very much the same. In the name of the church there have been terrible atrocities but there have also been successes.
The Bible tells us the story of Jesus as Messiah, the anointed one who would fulfill all of the laws and the prophets, establish His Kingdom, and embody the return of Yahweh to Israel.
The Bible tells us the story of His mission on Earth of His crucifixion and resurrection. It tells of His return in a resurrected body that is similar and yet dissimilar from a normal human body.
The Bible tells us that at the end of time that God will make all things new. This world will be re-created and God's heaven and our Earth will become one.
I am quite prepared to agree that faith is involved. You can ask the question of why I believe that God didn’t advocate genocide but do believe that God did resurrect Jesus. I could go into the arguments of why the resurrection should be viewed historically but in the end we believe it or we don’t. Regardless of the worldview that we hold we hold it on faith. I can’t prove that we live in a theistic world, let alone the world of the Christian God, just as there is no proof we live in an atheistic world.
To go back to the original point I do believe the Bible is a very important book, but it isn’t a book written in the form of rules and regulations as to how we are to live our lives. I contend that using it like a rule book just diminishes the great story that is being told.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2011 10:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by saab93f, posted 09-20-2011 1:51 AM GDR has replied
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2011 12:16 PM GDR has replied
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 10:09 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 237 of 286 (634266)
09-20-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by saab93f
09-20-2011 1:51 AM


Understanding the Bible
saab93f writes:
have been trying to bend over backwards to understand the lengths people are willing to go to interpret the Bible. To no avail - what I have been asking myself (and now you) is why on earth would an omniscient God have his story written in such an ambiguous way that arguments, fights and wars were more or less inevitable? Why could the Bible not be plain language and not parables or metaphors?
Because that's the way people wrote at the time those books were written. The Bible tells the story of God active in the lives of His people as told by men. It isn't a book ghost written by God. It has the cultural and personal biases of the authors told as part of the story.
saab73 writes:
The thing you presumably accuse GM and Modulous about is just so blatantly obvious to someone (like me) who does not have Jesus in his heart. A God who cheerfully commands women and children to be slaughtered to make room for His chosen people is hard to accept as loving and caring.
If you read back through this thread you will see that I don't believe in a god like that either. In this case, they either mistakenly believed that Yahweh had told them to commit that atrocity or the leaders concocted the idea in order to justify their actions to others. (Probably the latter.)
saab73 writes:
Then again it is just unbelievable (pun intended) that to save the world from mistakes that this omnipotent allowed in the 1st place, a hybrid (god/man) had to be tortured to death. To me that sounds at best an effort or explanation that a human writer could have come up with but not a divine way of handling things.
I don't agree that it was a mistake to allow us the ability to choose between right and wrong. If we have no choice we have no free will. It wasn't God that crucified Jesus - it was man. It was God that resurrected Jesus and gave Him new life.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by saab93f, posted 09-20-2011 1:51 AM saab93f has not replied

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


Message 239 of 286 (634279)
09-20-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Modulous
09-20-2011 12:16 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Modulous writes:
In your interpretation things are more grey. And it is these grey areas that lead to differences of opinion about what god wants or requires of us. These lead to different god concepts. This problem afflicts the fundamentalists, yes. But it also raises its head in your vision.
Mostly I agree. What I'd say to that though is that although it might lead to different conclusions in specific situations, what God wants of us is that we have a loving, humble, kind and just motivation for our actions.
Modulous writes:
And I think this proves that your god concept is quite different from that of a fundamentalist and any variety who believe the Bible should be seen as a guidebook of regulations, rules and laws which are to be obeyed.
I agree, which is the conclusion that I came to in my discussion with iano earlier on in this thread.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2011 12:16 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 1:34 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 244 of 286 (634371)
09-21-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Straggler
09-20-2011 1:34 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
So the conclusion here is that different flavours of Christian do indeed worship different gods. Is that correct?
Essentially yes. It is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that we all worship, but our understanding of the nature of God varies considerably.
Straggler writes:
Where do the "false" god concepts originate from......?
We are all created as unique beings, we all have unique upbringings and we all are uniquely socialized. All Christians would agree that ultimately God is a God of love, but all humans have a tendency to make God over in their own image, and as a result their views are impacted by their environment, so other stuff gets added on.
I think I have spelled out what I believe, and frankly I'm confident that I what I believe is at least in general correct, but I acknowledge that I have no way of knowing absolutely and so I may be wrong. Mind you that is true of all of us, and I believe that is because we have been created with the freedom to make our own choices in life.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 1:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 8:03 AM GDR has replied

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


(1)
Message 249 of 286 (634429)
09-21-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Straggler
09-21-2011 8:03 AM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
Well not ALL Christians. There are a few notable exceptions. Preachers of Hate.
Well that site certainly hasn't brightened up my day. Can we go with 99.9% then?
Straggler writes:
But doesn't the God you believe to be correct essentially match your own moral stance? A moral stance that is a product of your own social environment? Isn't the version of God you are advocating exactly a perfected reflection of yourself in this sense at least?
Frankly no. My moral stance has changed in a way that reflects my beliefs about God. For example I was pro capital punishment, (in limited circumstances) and now because of my faith I'm opposed. I'm ex-military and as a result of my Christian faith my views on military activity have changed. The first thing I noticed after becoming a Christian was that I was much more careful of what I said about other people.
In other words it is actually the opposite of what you suggest.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 8:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 3:25 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 250 of 286 (634433)
09-21-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jazzns
09-19-2011 4:14 PM


Re: God of the imagination versus a god of destruction
Jazzns writes:
Subjectively based on what though? And if nothing, how can you claim that it is not unreasonable? You keep bringing up subjectivity as if it was this great equalizing force for things which arent totally objective.
We subjectively conclude which is more likely: that intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent-non-moral source or an intelligent moral one.
Jazzns writes:
In fact, that you are staking out a claim for which there is much material evidence and understanding AGAINST means precisely that it is unreasonable. There are perfectly good, evidence based explanations for why we are "wired that way". Your choice to disregard those explanations has no basis except to prop up the construction of your deity. It seems that if there are no gaps or they are too small, there apparently is no room for GDRs god.
What is that evidence? All the evidence I've ever seen refers to the mechanism of how things are the way they are, but does not answer the question of whether it is the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not.
Jazzns writes:
The assumption that is the flaw in your denial is that ultimate meaning must be eternally persistent. I had a hard time with this too until I realized how my upbringing had me caught up in notions of forever. Everything that we know exists for awhile and then ceases to exist. Why the universe ought to be any different is simply an injection of your own personal desire for such a meaning to be timeless.
This is philosophical again and I realize it isn't at all conclusive, but, it seems to me that if there is no ultimate meaning to our existence then it wouldn't be part of my nature to care about a timeless purpose.
Jazzns writes:
I want to be very careful with what we are talking about because you are claiming that these things are non-material when what I said is that they do not, "matter in the materialistic sense."
You are going to have to take a step back and tell me what a non-material emotion or idea is.
Then after you do that, you will have to explain how the existence of non-material emotions or ideas suggest the presence of other non-material "thingies" (you didnt name them) that allow for a prime mover.
I think in trying to clarify the situation, you have in fact made it much muddier.
OK, I'll try again. What is an idea? We can see activity in the brain that results from ideas, but in looking at that activity we aren't able to discern what the idea actually entails. An idea or thought is something that has no physical dimension and can't be perceived with any of our 5 senses unless the originator of that idea wishes to pass it along to someone else. An idea or thought is something that is real but not material nor is it directly perceivable.
I'm just using that as an example of something that we know of that exists in a non-material world, and so the only point I'm making is that there is intelligence that is not material which should IMHO demonstrate that there is more to our existence than the material world we directly experience, which IMHO opens up the possibility of a greater intelligence existing in a dimension beyond our material world.
Maybe that makes it even muddier. I'm not suggesting that it is a conclusive argument but I think that it is worth considering.
Jazzns writes:
And moreover, how is being humble about our sense of kindness and justice necessarily a good thing? I should have challenged you about that originally but the point remains thus. We VALUE a morality that we create more than the ones that are supposedly ordained! See for example the abject failure of the "divinely inspired" morality of chastity. Who thought up that stupid idea?
Pride is a good thing when it is a pride in doing something to the best of our ability but I suggest that pride in being better than others is not, and can lead to things like bigotry, elitism etc.
As far as chastity is concerned we are going to disagree. I have someone I'm very close to that grew up with a single mom and being hugely affected by the fact that his father refused to have anything to do with him. I suggest that our unchaste society has had huge negative implications for our society.
Jazzns writes:
Well, again you are just trying to equalize thing by claiming subjectivity. My point was one primarily of plausibility and that even the most outlandish material cause is much more plausible than the, I dont know, therefore god argument. At least in the material case we have something we can investigate with the familiar tools of science. You have nothing but your own opinion on the matter otherwise.
I'm all for the tools of science but it can only explain mechanism and not cause.
The material causes whether outlandish or not are again, strictly about the mechanism. Any argument either for or against a prime mover is subjective. Sure we are basing that subjective conclusion on what we objectively know but it doesn't alter the fact that in the end it is subjective. Frankly, I can't imagine believing that the complexity of our existence comes from a non-intelligent source, but I have to accept the fact that intelligent people like yourself actually do believe that to be the case.
Jazzns writes:
Its not a philosophy of the gaps because I dont fill it with something. I leave it as a gap. I can speculate but it is still a gap and I am okay with the existence of the gap. You on the other hand are filling that gap with your own mental creation. Your own god.
Well you do fill that gap. You have told me that there are scientific explanations that cover that gap. A speculation is an attempt to fill the gap.
Jazzns writes:
But how much of your god remains after the intellectual fire sale you have to have to make him work?
I despise ianos god but at the very least his god has something very substantial over yours. He claims to have had recent material effect on this world for his own sadistic purposes. His god is understood to be tangibly evident in the blood of children and the destruction of unworthy human civilization. Your god is not tangibly evident in anything and must only be sensed in abstract imaginings of the unknown.
I suggest that a god that gives us the freedom to make choices based on evidence that isn’t directly tangible is much more worthy and substantial than a god who limits our choices by making everything clear.
I feel that God is completely active in this world through the hearts of his created beings. We had an inter-church meeting last night where we planned ahead how we can better support a mission in Kampala that takes girls off the streets; houses them, feeds them cares for them and provides transportation and finances so they can get an education. Sure you can say that these things would happen anyway but in at least this case everyone that is involved is there as a result of Christian churches.
But I'm not suggesting that God is only involved through Christians either. I think God works through the hearts and imaginations of all those looking to cure diseases, making technological advances that bring hope to the less fortunate or any other altruistic act.
Jazzns writes:
How is a sinner to choose which god to revere?
We are all free to choose. All I would suggest is start looking at a god of love as none of the others would be worth revering anyway.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2011 4:14 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 09-23-2011 5:18 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 251 of 286 (634435)
09-21-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jaywill
09-21-2011 7:58 AM


Hi jaywill
I hesitate to open up another dialogue but there are some things that I would like to correct in your post.
jaywill writes:
Statements like God is not merciful in the Old Testament just don't make sense to me. Or statements that God only hates His enemies in the OT don't make too much sense to me.
I didn't say that. All I'm saying is that a god who tells us to love our enemies is inconsistent with a god that tells his chosen people to slaughter every man, woman and child. God's mercy is all throughout the OT but it isn't consistent. My argument is that God did reveal to them His message of love but their human desires to conquer their neighbours and to make Yahweh into their image was part of their narrative as well.
AbE I wondered where you got the idea that I was saying in the OT that God hated His enemies, so I went back and read what I said in the OP. I actually said this:
"When you really boil it down, in the OT story God hates the enemies of Israel but in the NT lesson God loves all of His creation and wants the followers of Jesus to reflect that love."
In this I was referring to the specific quotes from the OT and the NT that I had just cited, not the entire scripture.
jaywill writes:
The hatred for sin displayed in the Old Testament accumulates upon the cross of Christ to accomplish a great redemption for all mankind.
Aren't we to hate the sin and love the sinner? Don't you think that would be true for God as well?
jaywill writes:
There are about 150 Psalms. Does GDR find no mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering, patience, kindness and pardon in ANY of those 150 Psalms ? That would be really unusual.
Of course, it's all through there. The question is how do we respond.
jaywill writes:
So I don't see at all a "different" God in the Old Testament.
I don't see a different God in the OT either. I do see a God in the OT who is constantly trying to bring the Jewish nation back on track while they, just like His church today, keep adjusting His message to suit their own desires.
Cheers
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : clarification as noted

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2011 7:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 7:55 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 253 of 286 (634453)
09-21-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Straggler
09-21-2011 3:25 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
Well I have to give you credit for practising what you preach.
I guess the point was though, that whatever credit there is to give shouldn't be given to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 3:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 09-22-2011 7:56 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 258 of 286 (634523)
09-22-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by jaywill
09-22-2011 7:55 AM


Hi jaywill
I won't respond point by point because your post is all on the same theme and I think can be better answered in a general sense.
The major difference in the church today and the reason that we worship a different god is our understanding of how to read the Bible. People like you like to use that verse in 2nd Timothy which talks about the writers of scripture being inspired as justification for understanding the Bible to be essentially dictated by God.
Think about the word inspired. We say for example that Beethoven's music was inspired. Nobody thinks that God gave him every note to write. We say that Martin Luther King's speeches were inspired but nobody is suggesting that God gave him a word by word account of what he had to say.
What that verse means is that the Biblical writers were inspired to give an account of the stories and history of what they and their societies experienced. Also of course there is mythology, poetry etc. The story of Job is written in such a manner that it appears to be written to be performed as a play. The Song of Songs is written as a love letter.
However, within all of that is this thread of a monotheistic god that is different than the pagan gods of their neighbours. It is a god that desires that people love one another, be kind to one another, treat each other fairly etc. God has chosen this particular family to give this revelation to with the intent that this message will be given to the world.
We then come to the NT where all of this comes to a climax, and where God is fully revealed through His anointed one Jesus the Messiah. God speaks directly through Jesus to the Jews and so now we have a message that is much more focused.
The thing is, as I have said before, the god that you worship is a god that engages in situational ethics to achieve the very human goals such as the conquering of neighbour societies and occupying the land. You have to believe that God is two kinds of god. You give Him a split personality. On the one hand He is the God that says go down and slaughter every man woman and child, and on the other He is saying love your enemy. He has given us the gift of reason and I suggest that He intended us to use that gift to sort it out and frankly I don’t think it is that difficult.
I think that in our desire to have hard and fast answers it is convenient to treat the Bible as if it was dictated by God but that requires turning the Bible into something like a fourth member of the Trinity. (Of course then it wouldn’t be a trinity anymore. ) What God wants of us is that we have loving hearts. Read Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats. The righteous were those that loved their neighbour without understanding that it was actually Jesus they were loving and serving. The Biblical message is clear that in the end what God wants of us is that we are people that serve others out of love without concern for any reward. The theology is interesting and informative but God is quite capable of handling His end of things whether we understand it or not. It isn’t our theology that it is important it is a question of who and what we love in our lives. Do we love selfishly or do we love unselfishly, and we all, regardless of our theology can make that choice.
As always of course this is JMHO.
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 7:55 AM jaywill 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