|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So you're stepping outside of the story to rationalize this, which I guess is okay. But there's nothing in the story that suggests that the heart-hardening was metaphorical and that the pharaoh did have free will. The problem for you is that it contradicts what you believe about the Lord character from other stories. Fair enough, I guess, but not at all convincing. Think about it logically. When one attacks the story of God and pharaoh, one is assuming that God is actual and that he has all the characteristics attributed to him in the scriptures that being the case: To suggest that God needs to coierce anyone into doing anything is ludicrous. God brought no tragedies upon Pharaoh until he refused to let them go. Actually the plauges were not just a demonstration to the children of Israel, they were a way to show Pharoah his patience and longsuffering twords even him. He could as you suggest simply kill him. Why didnt he? he showed more patience for Pharoah than he did Ananias and Saphirra and many others? Why would God need to lie, show off or brag. Such an approach is nonsense Its simply the usual nonsense of trying to find contradiction where none exist
Well, how jealous are you? The Lord is willing to punish up to four generations of children because their parents had another god before him. I don't think we can say that he's doing that "for the children". And jealousy is self-serving by definition. Good point, now think about it logically. If Sin, which is a product of free will, is so serious, why would God give free will then just pull it away, reguardless of who it is. Judas, Pharaoh or anyone. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in scripture, where it was not the case that they could not exercise thier free will Again, and it bares repeating, far from dictating pharaoh's free will, the plauges demonstrate his mercy, patience and long suffering Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Simply put he failed to demonstrate why God would give free will then quickly remove it ... Fortunately, the Bible explains this:
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Fortunately, the Bible explains this: But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it. And only someone not paying any attention at all, would not see the phrase in the passage "he will not listen to you". It would not be necessary for God to point this out if his free will was actually removed, with no potential of being able to make his own decisions. If god was actually doing something to him that made his choice impossible, he would NOT have the capacity to listen. Since its clear he still can, your POINT FALLS TO THE GROUND Even the passages give you the answer right in them and you still PRETEND you dont understand Now why doesnt that surprise anyone Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And only someone not paying any attention at all, would not see the phrase in the passage "he will not listen to you". Whereas I, of course, saw the phrase. God announces that this will be the effect of God hardening Pharaoh's heart.
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Whereas I, of course, saw the phrase. God announces that this will be the effect of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Whereas I, of course, am, like any thinking person able to see that you cannot have both at the same time. God did not say he would not be ABLE to listen, he said he would not chose, even though the signs were multiplied Only one of the choices is possible at the sametime. Either God took away his ability to listen (understand) or he did not. since the passage makes it clear he refused (chose not to listen), the choice was Pharaoh's all along. It is not logically, contextually or reasonablly possible to make Hardening of his heart, that he overshadowed or took away his reasoning or choosing ability Your up Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually, what the Bible says is this:
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
To suggest that God needs to coierce anyone into doing anything is ludicrous. Not really: If we have free will and God wants someone to do something that they won't, then he'd have to coerce them.
God brought no tragedies upon Pharaoh until he refused to let them go. But even after the Pharaoh agreed to let them go, God enacted more plagues because he wasn't done showing off yet. In order to do that, he hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let them go.
Actually the plauges were not just a demonstration to the children of Israel, they were a way to show Pharoah his patience and longsuffering twords even him. Wait, wouldn't you show patience by NOT plaguing them? As in, I'll just wait a bit and see if you let them go rather than causing you a bunch of suffering because you won't.
He could as you suggest simply kill him. Why didnt he? I dunno, the Bible has stories of God doing all kinds of stuff that doesn't make sense. And you could use your argument for anything. He could simply kill them with a snap of his finger, why did he flood the whole planet? Why would God need to lie, show off or brag. Such an approach is nonsense He is a jealous God.
Its simply the usual nonsense of trying to find contradiction where none exist I'm not trying to find contradiction, and in fact this isn't even a contradiction. You're just unwilling to accept that God removed the Pharaoh's free will when he hardened his heart. But its plainly apparent from a simple reading of the story. The Lord even detailed his plan before he went through with it.
Good point, now think about it logically. If Sin, which is a product of free will, is so serious, why would God give free will then just pull it away, reguardless of who it is. Judas, Pharaoh or anyone. Because he was making an example of the Pharaoh. He wanted to show off to the children so they'd know how powerful he was.
the plauges demonstrate his mercy, patience and long suffering Now THAT is ludicrous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Romans 9:17 is even more explicit about this than those verses in Exodus:
quote: If you do a search for this topic, you'll find that Christians do find Romans 9:17 and the Exodus verses to be problematic. People who advocate that God did not harden Pharoah's heart invariably suggest that the language is only figurative. But there simply isn't any room to take the Bertot approach of saying that the a literal reading of the text, particularly the text of Romans does not involve God in the hardening of Pharoah's heart. Some example interpretations: Theory 1: For God's Glory. Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? - ChristianAnswers.Net
quote: Theory 2: Use of non-literal expressions. Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart? - Apologetics Press
quote: Some people back this up by noting that Samuel 6:6 places the blame squarely on Pharoah I Samuel 6:6
quote: Theory 3: The Pharaoh was evil and was justly used and punished: Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? | GotQuestions.org
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you do a search for this topic, you'll find that Christians do find Romans 9:17 and the Exodus verses to be problematic. People who advocate that God did not harden Pharoah's heart invariably suggest that the language is only figurative. But there simply isn't any room to take the Bertot approach of saying that the a literal reading of the text, particularly the text of Romans does not involve God in the hardening of Pharoah's heart. First off its not the Bertot approach, its the Biblical approach. You quoted Romans, now look at another passage from the same writer. He is using hyperbolic language. Note verses 4 and five. Surely God didnt choose people even if they decided to not obey the Gospel. he simply KNEW ahead of time whos name would be written in the book of life. But, Jonathan Edwards, notwithstanding, the person is the one that makes the choice, even if the future is already known to God. There is simply no contradiction here [os]Ephesians: 1: 1-12 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he\[b\] predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillmentto bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13[/qs] But then in 1Peter he says: "God is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slacknes, but is longsuffering twords all men, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERSISH, but that all should come to knowledge of the truth" So how do these passages not contradict eachother? How can certain ones be chosen, but his WILL is that none should perish? A person is chosen ahead of time because the plan is in place before the person chooses. In a sense we can change our own future, even if it is already known to God. Neither the Exodus passages or the the ones in Ephesians are PROBLAMATIC, if one applies alittle common sense Lets look at a comparative story, the story of Job. One could conclude from the descritptions and details provided in this story, that perhaps the devil or God was coiercing Job to make decision. Or forcing him into things beyond his control. But as the story progresses we see that no matter the influence and desruction of Satan, Job never looses his freewill. God could said to be doing these things to Job, because he allowed satan the latitude to test him. But in all of it Job never lost the decision to exercise his free will. Even when things were heaped upon him worse than Pharaoh. However, while there sre somethings that are explainable in Gods actions, there are other things that we cannot explain. Examples would be Uzzah, reaching out to touch the Ark of the Covenant and Ananias and Sapphira, lying to God in Acts chapter 5. I can think of no one that could give an adequate explanation as to the sever punishments that were handed down in these situations. Only to explain that God has his own way of doing things in this area (Punishment) One however, could not find an instance where he removed, interefered with someones freewill Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Didn't see this until now (big thread!)
First of all regardless of whether Catholicism is Christian or not, Ireland is slowly getting rid of Christianity, because younger people are increasingly atheistic, which I think counts quite strongly as not Christian. The vast majority of the population under 25 would be either atheists or liberal deists, this is a huge change from my parents generation were almost everybody was a strict Roman Catholic. As for Ireland having an original "pure" Christian church, this is an idea I've seen a few times, along with the idea that Gaelic Ireland was libertarian (or anarchist according to some writers). I'd be happy to debate this with you on another thread if you wish, because I think it is completely false. The pre-1200 Irish church (1200 was when the Irish church became mostly Roman), would certainly not count as evangelical or true Christians using your definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course it's very sad to me that Ireland has lost its Christian character if that's true. But I know there are still believers there.
As for the early Christianity of Ireland not having anything to do with Roman Catholicism, I think there's quite a bit of evidence for that, for instance Phillip Schaff's History. This linked page goes into quite a bit of detail but about halfway down it makes it clear that Ireland had a strong church from about the sixth century on {Look for the line "The earliest native and foreign sources show a flourishing church in Ireland in the sixth century."} that they did send out missionaries and that Roman Catholicism didn't take them over until about the 1100s. I don't think we need to debate any of this, I'm not up on all the details myself and there isn't much more I could say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Ah, I see. Yes, that is correct, the island originally had a church semi-independent of Rome, so there is some justification in calling it non-Catholic. One of the big areas of debate in Irish church history is was the church Roman or not, so certainly that view is a valid one.
Full "Roman" Catholicism took over in the period you mention, basically as a consequence of the Norman invasion. What I was getting at is that the non-"Roman" church which existed in the Old Irish period (so called because all texts from that period are written in Old Irish, a literary standard) had a lot of elements to it that I would imagine (although I could be wrong) you wouldn't consider very Christian and maybe possibly worse than Roman Catholicism. That is, I'm not sure Celtic Christianity would be any more palatable than Roman Catholicism to modern Protestants.
Of course it's very sad to me that Ireland has lost its Christian character if that's true.
Well in the turn from Roman Catholicism, the two major alternatives have been American style evangelism or deism/atheism, so probably the number of Christians has gone up as far as your concerned! I should say though that our Christian/Catholic character is mostly a result of the famine. In the 18th century for example virtually nobody attended mass and having heard or read any of the bible was considered noteworthy even for a literate person. To give you an idea our native poetry (in Gaelic) rarely contains any reference to the biblical imagery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure Celtic Christianity would be any more palatable than Roman Catholicism to modern Protestants. I understand the Celtic church was big on monasticism, and that it was monks who were the missionaries. Beyond that my impression is that they believed the same basic doctrines I believe, rather than the Romanisms Protestants object to. But perhaps you could show me otherwise. AbE: That page I linked makes it pretty clear that Rome had NOTHING to do with the early Irish church, so it wasn't "semi" independent of Rome but totally independent. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
From the page you linked:
This flourishing state of the Irish Church was disturbed by the Roman mission to the Saxons in 597. Like the British Church, that of Ireland 475 differed in some respects from the Roman Church of Gregory's time, the most important divergences being the form of the tonsure and the method of computing Easter Looks like they were basically in agreement with Catholic doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
475 differed in some respects from the Roman Church of Gregory's time, the most important divergences being the form of the tonsure and the method of computing Easter
Looks like they were basically in agreement with Cathlic doctrine. Of GREGORY'S time. If that is "Pope Gregory the Great" this was before the RCC even existed as such, and although the RCC has since bestowed the title of Pope on him, he was not called Pope at the time and in fact he repudiated being called "Universal Bishop" saying anyone accepting that title would be the forerunner of Antichrist. The Irish church was independent of Rome in those years both literally and doctrinally.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024