Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Reply to Philip - In Adam All die.

Firstly, as with any book, sentences can be pulled from any passage to suggest one thing or another. The true test of understanding requires careful study of the texts, the languages used, the culture in which it was written and most importantly, the context (of which the previous items are part of.) I believe if you were to study the passages (not I didn't post single verses but chunks that express the immediate context) you'll see that at least in what I posted, my viewpoint is supported.



Now you've posted a few snippets of the text, with very limited commentary. You don't really interact with the text except to show your hostility toward God yet again and simply prove what He states in His word that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them" (1 Cor. 2:14).

You state that you find the Bible "difficult to accept anything it says because I don't trust its origins or content", but have you actually studied the text and its history? And even if the history, context and content was evident and perspicuous (which I believe it is, but your commitment to your worldview precludes your ability to accept that), would you find it satisfying enough?

Do you realize that there is more evidence (if indeed evidence were sufficient to change your mind) for the historicity of Scripture than for the existence of Plato, Archimedes and even Shakespeare? But I doubt you're really tell anyone that you distrusted the possibility that they existed and did what has been said about them.

So, before committing yourself to a presupposition as you have, you should do the research in critical scholarship regarding the text we call Scripture. Also, it might behoove you to understand the context of the various passage you (and others) often appeal to in order to support your dislike of God.

As to the specific verses you quoted, we can look at them on at a time, but it requires lengthy discussion, which I suspect you'll dismiss out of hand. Also, consider for a moment that unlike the Qu'ran or other texts, the Bible is generally (apart from certain poetic and/or wisdom literature) not intended to be taken one verse out of context.

To understand the context of Deut 28:20, you would do well to at least read the entire chapter. I won't post that here, I expect you to go do some home work on your own.

Consider firstly that God has delivered the people to whom He speaking to from slavery in Egypt. He's brought them, as a people, safely through seas, deserts, dangerous animals and enemies. He's fed them, provided them with shelter, water and even visible evidence of His ongoing presence in their midst. Then He states, in v1 of the chapter... "If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today..." and He goes on to enumerate the many, many blessings to which the people of Israel would receive if they followed Him in entirety. At v15, however, we find Him explaining what would happen if they disobey: "However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you..."

Seems to me that given all that God had done for this people that obedience to what He commanded wouldn't be that out of line with expectations. Of course, there is much deeper meaning here, of which I may touch on later. But the fact of the matter is that God expects the people He saved from slavery to screw up, and has planned ahead for it. So while He promises curses, many of which are simply what we'd call a "natural result" of their actions (if you're busy doing wrong you're not doing what you should and everyone in the community suffers), I would suggest that all of it is a direct result of God's curse upon all mankind firstly because of Adam's sin and because of their own.

So God, who has provided life, freedom, health, food, shelter, comfort, families and other numerous blessings to these people expects obedience and warns about the results for disobedience. I realize in this modern unjust age where we don't believe in punishing anyone (except those who wish to live morally), this seems harsh. But the fact stands, if we take it for its word, this is the Creator of the Universe talking, and what he dictates stands.


One of the most difficult concepts for people to understand, even (especially?) typical evangelical Christians, is that God owes no one salvation, or even the benefit of the doubt. For, as Scripture
explains, all have sinned, and fallen short of God's commands.

These laws, in fact, that He is providing to the people He brought out of Egypt are not intended to save them. God even explains that He fully expects them to fail. The reason is that man is tainted by the fall, and will reject God's sovereignty over him. I could post passage after passage to show this to be true. Romans chapters 1~3 seems to be the most succint expression thereof, sorta a summary of all of the historical account to that point:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better?
Not at all! We have already made the charge that
Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10As it is written: There is no one righteous,
not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,


This is the normative state of all mankind. God's intent in providing the Law then is to provide an even clearer means for this fact to be expressed.

Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

The intent therefore of law that you read in Deut and elsewhere, firstly is an expression of the nature of God, but is primarily a means by which we humans become conscious of wrong doing against a completely holy, righteous and infinite God.

You then quote Matt 5:17-18. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

You should now have a better understanding of this passage. Sin, against God's Law is that which causes the separation from God that we're all suffering from. Therefore, since we're all sinners and fall short of that Law, someone needs to fulfill it in our stead. Jesus just got done in the earlier part of Mat 5 (1-11) expressing what a life lived after God looks like in the so-called "beatitudes", notice there is mourning (for sin) in there, as well as a hungering and thirsting for righteousness and finally... persecution, like that the poster of the original blog article is undergoing right now as people contact the UK child protective services simply because she believes she needs to raise her child in love and fear of God rather than a selfish love of self.

In the verse right after the one you quote, Jesus states, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." This raises the bar far above that anyone should consider, and if that's not enough, the end of the chapter he states: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Now, notice he doesn't say "try"? If there is any doubt that Jesus and Paul were talking about the same things, this should clear it up. Only one person was able to keep this law in perfection as Jesus demands... that is the God-man himself.

You then quote Luke 14, and here again Christ is establishing the complete demands required of those who are to be called followers of Christ. Notice he even mentions a cross, something he has yet to go and die on, noting that followers of Christ will be despised, hated and even persecuted unto death.

If nothing else, by now you should be able to acknowledge that the woman who wrote the original blog post is acting consistent with the demands of Christ. ;)

Matt 15, Christ is quoting the Law, and if you were to have actually read the passage you'd notice that there is context wherein Christ is conflicting the actions of the Pharisees with the Law they claim to support:

v3-7 "... why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.;' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!..."

This is a fantastic passage! Here Jesus nails the Pharisees for teaching others to not support their parents in their old age and to instead use that money to support the temple and the Pharisees themselves! (Where is this being taught in today's evangelical church?!)

Yes, I realize your intent was to focus on the quote of the Old Testament. But consider that this was within the theocracy of the people of Israel, lost in the wilderness, in constant danger and in need of community unity are commanded to execute rebellious (not just disobedient, btw, the language used is that of willing, intentional, family-destroying rebellion.) The Israelites were a people at war, and rebellions against one's parents in this manner was tantamount to traitorous action against God himself. Again, I don't expect someone living in the a 21st Century, unaccustomed to the concepts of fidelity to one's country and family in the face of a mortal enemy to grasp this, it is, as Paul stated, spiritually discerned. I can only hope that God uses the words I am stating here to supernaturally open your heart and mind to the truth.

Finally you quote, yet again, completely without the surrounding context, as if it makes some point on its own apart from it, Matthew 10:34-36. The context of course demands that this be realized in the view that one who becomes a follower of Christ should expect persecution from not only outsiders but even people within their family. Moments before in v18 Jesus had stated: "On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.." thus establishing partial context for this passage. Again in v28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Jesus explains that not only will people despise believers (as has come to be the norm, as seen in the past days on that other blog) but even people of one's family will revile them. But the believer is not to fear them, even though they may put us to death, as was done during that time, during the days of Rome, during the many regimes of Muslims, apostates and atheists... and will occur again soon, but to fear God instead.

You state: "I studied History and English at university and after reading the Bible a few times I have seen too many inaccuracies and contradictions for me to trust its authenticity."

I tell you this, given your few quotes in this post, and lack of understanding of the context of the passages, I'd try to get my money back if I were you for your education. I'm not trying to be rude here, I simply think that if you truly value interaction with others, you'd attempt to understand their position properly.

You write: "Even saying that the content on its own shows truly barbaric and violent practices that I would not dare inflict upon others let alone condone the atrocities committed in its name."

You haven't provided a single passage which condones any "barbaric" practices. Certainly there are things that, in this age of seeming blessing wherein wars are fought with computers and execution done by lethal injections, seem barbaric, but thousands of years ago? How can you anachronistically apply your standard of morality upon a people and culture which, in times of antiquity fought for its very survival? Also, in the cases of the commands of God, what basis do you, a mere creature have the right to challenge that which God has declared. As Paul writes, "what right does the pot have to say to the potter, "Why have you made me like this?"

You write: "Should Jean kill her daughter if she ever speaks back to her? Jesus and God both demand it according to the Bible so is it right to trust its wisdom?"

Again, showing your ignorance of the Biblical texts with such comments does nothing to support your case. Christians, firstly, do not live in the theocracy of Israel prior to the death and resurrection of Christ. Secondly, the verses you might appeal to for such a claim do not teach what you intend them to. I highly recommend that if you intend to interact with Christians you come to understand the context and scholarship related to the passages you're quoting. It is impossible to take seriously someone who so easily dismisses the context of passages to attempt to support an untenable claim.

Finally, consider that my quotes of Scripture are intended to do two things. Firstly, and most importantly, to provide the Holy Spirit of God means to work within your heart and mind so as to cause you to be born again. Believers such as I do not accept the ignorant-christian idea that being born-again is something a person does, rather being born again is something God does to those whom He has chosen through their hearing/reading of the Word of God. Thus when I quote Scripture, (contextually, mind you) it is in sincere hope that God will regenerate you and bring you to faith. Secondly, I don't quote random verses to that end, but intend to support my claims with relevant texts. There are many atheistic websites out there where you can go and find supposed "contradictions", but I contend that none of them are based upon sound exegetical principles or contextually relevant.

I realize you might dismiss my contextualization, but I ask that you at least check it out for yourself.

You write: "I completely and utterly doubt she would ever wish harm to come to her daughter or anyone else but I was hoping to illustrate my point by using the writings of the Bible as an example."

Yes, and as believers we know that a high view of self-worth apart from a basis in the person and work of Christ is ultimately a root of sin. Like Adam, we all want to be "like God" but want to do so on our own terms. The Pharisees had high self-esteem, and yet they were condemned.

I also apologize for the length of this post, however, it is impossible to discuss these things in one or two sentences. Historical and textual criticism of the text of the Bible is a big subject and there is much written out there on both sides. You would do well to read up on it.

Now to address your first questions:

Why do you have to be damned?

Because God has demanded obedience and we have all failed to obey in perfection. Regardless of one's feelings of right/wrong on this matter (as if we creations can tell that which created us what is right and wrong), He is God, and His demands are just.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism answers the similar question:

Q. 19. What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever.


Why do you need a saviour?


Because of our sin, God's wrath is kindled against us. We're all in the same boat, (or lack thereof if you consider the flood/ark concept.) God's wrath would damn us all if He did not condescend to save some of us for the purpose of providing a people to reign with His Son in eternity.

The catechism again:

Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.
Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
What possible heinous and disgusting crime did you commit, before you were even born it seems, that justifies such persecution and self loathing?
Too many to number, but, that aside, any transgression against a truly holy, righteous and infinite God who has provided a standard that we fail to achieve is sufficient. The proper attitude therefore is like that of the tax-collector:



Luke 18:10-14"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Is this passage not sufficient to at least show that I and the blogger are acting consistent with what Jesus taught?

The recognition that one is sinful, and rightly deserving of God's wrath is part of what it means to believe. Hence, the psalmist writes: "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." And of those who are evil it is written, "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Finding your worth and value under the threat of eternal damnation from an invisible presence of which the evidence for its not existing vastly outweighs the evidence for its actually existing is something I can never understand or would ever subject myself or others to.

Of course not, you are a sinner, dead in your sins and as such you rebel from even that sliver of truth that God has placed in you called a conscience wherein His Law is hammering against you day-after-day is insufficient to cause you to repent. This is why Jesus said in John 6 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." Therefore unless God chooses to change your heart by bringing you to life anew in Christ, you will remain dead in your sins and unwilling to do anything about it. I will pray for the opposite of course. ;)
Since we are all sinners, and by our very nature seek to rebel against God continually, we as believers note that there is nothing in us, that is of us, that is truly, completely good. In fact we are in are whole being tainted by the sin of Adam and our own transgressions. (Another concept lost to the "modern era", when a king or governor declares war, the whole nation is at war. Our governor, Adam, declared war on God.)
This little tune will help you understand perhaps:



In Adam All Die - Shai linne

This may sound shocking and offensive, apologies if it is, but being so scared of such an authority figure who tells you that you are so wretched and worthless at the same time demanding your worship and love, no matter what he/she inflicts upon you, sounds so much like some of the dictatorships I have studied in History classes.

Consider for a moment that in your every deed you in some way shake your fist at God. You stand in constant and willful rebellion against him. Even the most 'moral' likewise argue their case against Him day after day. And yet, he not only provides you with life and breath, but music and movies and food and wine and cheese and dogs and cats and family and beautiful sunsets and the like...

He even went so far as to send His only Son to die in the place of those who would believe. No dictator has ever done this for his people, so self interested are most of us, that few would consider laying our own lives down for our enemies who hate us and curse us daily.

If you die, face judgment and are condemned of rebellion against God, it is only justice. If you rather come to faith and receive life eternal, it is only grace.

14 comments:

  1. Lockheed

    Thank you for this post, you have made some interesting comments all of which I hope to address at some point.

    First off though, please do not underestimate my knowledge of history or how to gather meaning from what I read, I have been studying History and English since I was about 11 years old, I am now 30 years old and have a degree in it. I did not waste my time and got good marks for my work.

    I don't doubt for a second you know more about the Bible than I do but the small pieces of ancient and 1st century history I have studied have provided me with a lot of insight in to the origins and related myths that help create its stories.

    You want me to understand the meaning of the Bible but claim I have to to be a Theologian before I can do it properly? What about the 30,000 + different denominations of Christianity, each with their own scholars and normal worshippers - who is getting it right? There really is no definitive answer to Shakespeare or Keats but any person can read it and understand the basics of it.

    I have indeed read the entire passage from Deuteronomy 28 and if you want later we can go through step by step and I am always open to being shown new ways in which to read it. At the moment I am convinced that passage is a good example of God's bellicose and irracible and, dare I say it highly insecure, character. Blessing those that are servile and submissive to his rule - you dare question or fail to live up to these expectations and he starts with the curses.

    Secondly

    I want you to understand my position, I am not wanting to take your religion away, you are an adult and that is your decision alone, nothing to do with me. The only person who can stop you believing is you.

    Please do not think for one second you can convert me, I ask you to get that idea out of your head now.

    You typed:

    Believers such as I do not accept the ignorant-christian idea that being born-again is something a person does, rather being born again is something God does to those whom He has chosen through their hearing/reading of the Word of God. Thus when I quote Scripture, (contextually, mind you) it is in sincere hope that God will regenerate you and bring you to faith.

    You can hope all you want, God will do no such thing, I promise you that. I equate your God with that of all the others created by humans down the ages - an easy way to understand my view of it all is to think about how much you believe Odin to be real and you then can see how real or authoritative Yahweh/El/Elorim is to me.


    Besides, I have publicly committed the unforgivable sin anyway so God, if he was real, would hate me anyway.

    See here

    http://teafueledmadness.blogspot.com/2008/07/please-do-not-pray-for-me.html


    What I am hoping for is understanding between us - I want you to understand why I think the way I do about the Bible and the Christian God. I saw on Jean's thread that people were at odds as to why people were commenting as they were.

    I came here to understand why you have to think of yourself in such a horrible way, I think you have more worth and significance than that. Even if I don't agree with it I would have thought understanding why would be a good thing.


    My purpose in posting is to question this horrible notion that you are born a bad person. I have been an atheist all my life, through no coercion from anybody. I have tested and tested religion to provide me with good reasons to believe in it but it has always failed to convince me about even the simplest of things.


    Very quick example - I was 8 years old, in school - Church of England - it was prayer time as per usual and I wondered what it would be like to not pray, I wondered if other people's lives would change for the better because of God and their prayers to him as opposed to me not praying to him.

    Nothing happened, I sat up during prayer time and thought my own thoughts, nobody's lives changed, the people who were being prayed for - I think it was for the children starving to death in Ethiopia - kept on dying. These were innocent children, babies being born and being killed by hunger and disease - surely God should have intervened? He didn't do a damn thing and I realised then that something was wrong with religion even at that young age. It didn't work how it should have done, people like the local Reverend kept telling me about all the good things that would happen if people believed enough, but they never did.

    I am frequently told about how it all would have worked if I did believe but when I saw that other people believed and still got nowhere, what I ask you was the difference?


    But, I digress completely - my first and proper question and indeed with reference to the title of this thread is about the Sins of Adam and Eve and how it is apparently something that you and your fellow human beings should bear responsibility for.

    So, I am going to start at the beginning, Genesis.

    I want to talk about the fall of Adam and Eve as it seems to be a deciding factor in your insistence of being wretched.

    I don't for a second think this story is in any way original,previous religions that arrived way before Christianity tell similar stories - the Epic of Gilgamesh is a good place to start looking. Furthermore is it not compatible with the modern scientific evidence of how the Earth was formed or how human beings arrived on the Earth - the Earth was formed over millions of years not over a few days. In the first few days nothing could have survived the heat and radiation, it would have been killed instantly.

    But for the sake of this discussion I simply want to look at the story and its meaning.


    In my humble opinion God set them up to fall and gave them no choice to do otherwise. The set of events that lead up to their fall is essentially God's own fault yet he punishes them and then subsequently you a good 10,000 years later - I have a big problem with that as you will see.

    I am going to quote from the New International Version of the Bible as shown on the website http://www.biblegateway.com, they have all the known versions on there so if you want me to be reading what you think is the correct version which is not this one, let me know. (Why there have to be so many versions in the first place baffles me, but that is for another discussion!)

    So, here goes nothing!

    Genesis 2 - God creates Adam out of dust and breathed life into him via his nostrils - I hope he brushed his teeth before :)

    Genesis 2:9

    And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Here is God's first mistake/part of his plot - why did he put the tree here within VERY easy grasp of the humans? Why not put it out of reach? Didn't it occur to him that putting the tree there was going to cause problems? Why even bother putting it in there unless its provocation?

    Moving on, he puts Adam in the Garden and says this:

    16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

    My next big question of the day - how would Adam and soon, as we are about to see, Eve have known what good and bad was? What possible indication have we been given so far that Adam is in anyway cognisant of the consequences of his actions? He does not know good and bad yet, he has been given a few farming skills and shown a few rivers - but no knowledge of what is right and wrong.

    Through 18 to 25 we get our naked couple together and all is well, still no teaching of right or wrong, but we have Adam's helper.

    Then, Genesis 3 and suddenly there is a talking serpent in the garden speaking to Eve - I take this serpent is in fact Satan or have I been reading too much Dante?


    So lets hold aside talking serpents for a second, which is completely impossible and go directly to my third quibble with this passage - why did God create that serpent? (Genesis 3:1 says God did this)

    God, in all his omniscience and omnipotence has created a serpent which is going to ruin the lives of Adam and Eve - what am I to think here, is a mere talking serpent more powerful than God? Is God not able to detect a serpent in his garden and get rid of it before it causes trouble?

    I get the impression he cannot detect all that is going on because he strides into the garden and asks where Adam is. (Genesis 3:9)Does that not sound odd that the God who just created the universe doesn't know where everything is?


    So surprise surprise, he flies into a rage (3:14) and curses Adam,Eve and the snake and the story moves swiftly on.

    (BTW,If this story is meant to be true how many dust eating snakes do you know of?)

    Why is this such a surprise to him, what possible justification has he got for cursing Adam and Eve?

    He places a tree in the middle of a garden that his poor credulous creations CANNOT have any iota of a clue as to what they have done wrong until after they become knowledgeable and he curses them for it! He creates a snake that is able to talk them into it and doesn't bat an eyelid when this snake does turns up to ruin it - how much more does he have to do to get them to break the rules and fall?


    Now on to the more important part - nowhere in this story do I see you or I involved in this so how is it then wise to claim you are born a sinner because of this?

    What possible justification can you attribute the mistakes of God in messing up his creations and then cursing them for it?

    The message in this story is essentially - gaining knowledge of good and bad is frowned upon, to remain in God's favour ignorance is the best option. But not actually having the capacity to understand it means you will end up getting cursed by God anyway for doing something that is not your fault or in your control.


    When you say that we are all born in sin it makes me question why that HAS to be the case.

    You say that God has demanded obedience and we have all failed to obey in perfection - I say God has failed you to live up to the lofty standards that he imposes himself. If he makes humans in his own image, by definition he is just as fallible as a human. By your definition as a new born baby you start life by failing - I find that too pessimistic and downright vindictive. If he wants his creations more perfect then he should have designed them better rather than curse and get angry when it all goes wrong.

    It seems to me far too cruel and vindictive to impose such a horrible thing on an innocent child who hasn't got a chance or choice to defend or understand that accusation.

    It seems just as bad to me that an adult would dare think that too but as I said earlier, that is your choice because you are old enough to think it over.

    This however is all completely unnecessary if you stop taking the Bible as evidence of God's existence but that is me provoking more than I want to and want to stick with the idea of original sin.

    I am sorry for the long post, I hope this provokes good discussion (remember this is a discussion and I have not come here to purposefully offend you or your fellow believers despite most of what I say is blasphemous) and I honestly look forward to hearing more from you.

    All the best

    Philip

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You want me to understand the meaning of the Bible but claim I have to to be a Theologian before

    I can do it properly? What about the 30,000 + different denominations of Christianity, each with

    their own scholars and normal worshippers -"


    Firstly, I never claimed you had to be a "theologian", I do however expect people who intend to

    use Scripture to prove a point do so while acknowledging the textual issues therein. A person who misquotes Shakespeare is laughed at, but it seems in this day that any person can pull a Bible verse in support of whatever claim that want to make. I see this in Christian circles as much as anywhere else. My point is that words have meaning and we determine the meaning by examining the context, culture and
    content. One doesn't have to be a theologian, in the academic sense of the word, to understand what is being said in any given passage.

    The 30,000 number is one often claimed by Roman Catholic apologists in opposition to Protestantism. The truth is that if one were to narrow one's focus to those groups considered historically orthodox, you'll have a much smaller number. Also, the differences between most groups with in that smaller number is usually minor. For example, I am a Reformed Baptist, yet I attend a Dutch Reformed church. We differ with their denomination basically only regarding baptism and the proper subjects thereof. This does not prevent me from worshiping with and even placing myself under the authority of that church. The overarching themes, concepts and intent of Scripture remains, regardless of the disagreements thereof. God expects believers to read it and holds them accountable to it.

    "There really is no definitive answer to Shakespeare or Keats but any person can read it and understand the basics of it. "

    Sure, but disagreements over specific meanings and interpretations within even those works of fiction remain. Scholars disagree even over the identity of the author of Shakespeare's works. If questions of historicity nullify the potential usefulness of a document, then there are many things we claim for certain that should not be.

    "At the moment I am convinced that passage is a good example of God's bellicose and irracible and, dare I say it highly insecure, character. Blessing those that are servile and submissive to his rule - you dare question or fail to live up to these expectations and he starts with the curses."

    Again, you miss the forest for the trees. Had God not delivered Israel from the bondage of Egypt they'd have remained slaves and not had a home of their own. But, still, the overarching theme of God's Law is that it is impossible, for sinful man, to keep in perfection. Yet He did provide all these blessings to Israel graciously (undeservedly). Likewise, if you look back, into the book of Genesis and see how God treated Abraham, providing him a son even though he was disobedient and rebellious but none-the-less repentant.

    Also, I must point out once more that if God is truly who He claims to be, obedience to Him should be obvious. Firstly, since He is sovereign over all things, His Word is law, regardless of the opinions of his creation. Secondly, given all the blessings we as humans enjoy, enumerated in part in my post, what possible reason would we have for rebelling against him?

    "I want you to understand my position, I am not wanting to take your religion away, you are an adult and that is your decision alone, nothing to do with me. The only person who can stop you believing is you."

    Go back to the original post that started this, wherein Jean speaks of how her child recognized her own sinfulness and inability to will to do what was right on a consistent basis. Consider the kinds of responses she received, people threatening to contact governmental child protective services and the like. While you may not be interested in "taking my religion away", folks like these and men like Dawkins, if they had their way, most certainly would.

    "Please do not think for one second you can convert me, I ask you to get that idea out of your
    head now."


    No human being converts another to saving faith in Christ. As I stated in my previous post, conversion is a supernatural work of God, which will happen to you whether or not you're currently wanting it. My discussion with you here is intended to point you back to that which can convert, the Word of God, which is used supernaturally by the Spirit of God to convert the soul. I have no intentions of converting you, I hope, and pray that God will. ;)

    "You can hope all you want, God will do no such thing, I promise you that. I equate your God with that of all the others..."

    And yet you still speak of him as if he exists. Strange. ;)

    "an easy way to understand my view of it all is to think about how much you believe Odin to be real and you then can see how real or authoritative Yahweh/El/Elorim is to me."

    Yes, I'm sure that the historicity of the Bible and the textual critical work you've done has shown you all the connections between Odin and YHWH. (Just kidding). I hope you'll understand that I find such connections without basis, other than they're "religious" in nature. When God speaks (in Scripture) about the nature of man and the universe, it is accurate, and you prove this, how?

    "Besides, I have publicly committed the unforgivable sin anyway so God, if he was real, would hate me anyway."

    What you believe to be blasphemy against the Spirit is not. Simply saying rude things about the Holy Spirit is not what it entails. The context of the passage (drat, there's that context thing again) found actually in the fuller description of that event explains what it means one to blaspheme the Holy Spirit:

    Mark 3:22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[c]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

    This is speaking of those with an understanding of Scripture (which the Pharisees had), an acceptance of the Law of God, (which the Pharisees did), and knowledge of the goodness of Jesus and the miracles he performed (again, the Pharisees did), claiming that the good Jesus was doing was not by the Spirit of God but rather that of Satan.

    This is not speaking of rank pagans like yourself, who though you have a pre-existing commitment to a metaphysical worldview, do not know God nor claim to worship Him.

    Simply put, no atheist can commit the "unforgivable sin". Sorry that you've been duped into believing their propaganda.

    Also, why in the world would you consider committing such a sin, if indeed you don't believe in YHWH? Have you sought out the "unforgivables" of other religions and earnestly attempted to commit them to? Why only YHWH? What is it about the demands of the God of the Bible that so churns you to seek to, yet again, shake your fist in His face? If you truly didn't believe in God, if you truly felt this was a waste of time, what logical reason would you have for doing such things?

    I think Scripture answers that question.

    Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

    Using that same passage Paul writes in Romans:
    Romans 1:21
    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    Seems to be the exact pattern you're walking down. Shaking your fist and cursing the God who you claim doesn't exist. How is that rational?

    "What I am hoping for is understanding between us - I want you to understand why I think the way I do about the Bible and the Christian God. I saw on Jean's thread that people were at odds as to why people were commenting as they were.

    I came here to understand why you have to think of yourself in such a horrible way, I think you have more worth and significance than that. Even if I don't agree with it I would have thought understanding why would be a good thing."


    Firstly, because of a supernatural transformation within me caused by a God who is outside of me. After that there are reasons, but that is the first and primary reason. It is not because I'm more spiritual, smarter or better morally, or any other reason in-and-of-myself that I've come to believe in the God of the Bible, but because He was gracious and merciful and provided me with faith. Now that I have faith, I find that what the Bible says about the condition of human kind is true.

    God provides blessings to mankind, things we take for granted all the time supposing they're "natural", we come to worship them and serve them. We see this all the time. God created sex and gave it to mankind as a blessing, and yet sex has become a curse to many, being either an addiction or a means for them to contract illness, God provided food and yet many of us overeat. God provided wine and yet we drink to drunkenness... the list goes on. Read this:


    Romans 1:18
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
    Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    Seems to be exactly what I witness on a daily basis, and something I believe you've proven in our discussion, especially with your blasphemy challenge bit.

    "My purpose in posting is to question this horrible notion that you are born a bad person. I have been an atheist all my life, through no coercion from anybody. I have tested and tested religion to provide me with good reasons to believe in it but it has always failed to convince me about even the simplest of things."

    In the world's way of thinking, I'm not "bad", depending on how bad is defined right now. The problem with the world's thinking is that it is always subjective and dependent on the swaying opinions of the masses which today may believe murder wrong, but may condone it tomorrow if they see fit. By God's objective standard everyone is bad, and is born that way, because they're born at war with Him from the beginning.

    "Nothing happened, I sat up during prayer time and thought my own thoughts, nobody's lives changed, the people who were being prayed for - I think it was for the children starving to death in Ethiopia - kept on dying. These were innocent children, babies being born and being killed by hunger and disease - surely God should have intervened?"

    There are two issues here, firstly what is prayer, and secondly the problem of evil.

    Consider firstly that, as a non-believer, God doesn't hear (listen) to your prayers. He only listens to the prayers of His people. Also, the Bible does not present the concept of prayer as a means to make things spontaneously happen that would not have otherwise. Rather, the Scripture paints a picture of prayer as communication with God in agreement with His will.

    There are people all over the world praying for various things, many of them believe that their prayers will somehow change the mind of God. But that is not what Biblical prayer is about. Biblical prayer is communication which God uses as means to do things on accomplish things on Earth. The point was never to pray and hope God does something, but to prayerfully consider the overarching plan and purpose of God. This is why Jesus taught "Your Kingdom come, Your will be done..."

    You say "nothing happened", apart from the fact that you don't know that for certain (that is, the prayers of believers may have prompted a missionary or organization to go and help the starving children, which eventually many did), what did you do to help? God doesn't expect believers to pray without engaging.

    AS to the question of evil: You must admit that you have no way of knowing what good came of certain horrible events. You judge God on the basis of the suffering of people you don't know, in a country you have no intention of going to in order to help, for the suffering they're enduring at that moment in time. God however has a plan and purpose that spans many of your lifetimes and with omniscient knowledge and omnipotent ability that knows that, for instance, because of a catastrophe somewhere a nation will repent and be brought to faith. The story in Scripture of Joseph, the patriarch, who is sold into slavery by his brothers and ends up in prison and the like... he ultimately ends up saving the Jewish people from famine. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20)

    Just because you, with your limited knowledge and view cannot understand how a good God could allow such things, doesn't mean that God doesn't have an intention and plan within the events to bring about something much better, much greater than you could imagine. For "God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

    "It didn't work how it should have done, people like the local Reverend kept telling me about all the good things that would happen if people believed enough, but they never did."

    Your local Reverend was full of poppycock! God never promises subjectively-judged "good things" to those who "believe enough". Firstly, the Bible promises persecution and death for those that follow Christ. The Bible specifically states that the immoral will, in this life, seem to be successful while the righteous will often be destitute, that injustice will be the norm until sin is abolished. We are to remember that unbelievers hoisted Jesus on a cross and not expect less.

    Secondly, what does it mean to "believe enough"? I realize in today's media-infused-christianity
    that "believing" is akin to hoping you'll win the lottery, but the faith described in the Bible is quite different. It's not belief that God will do something, or that something will happen if you just conjure up the right spark, rather, the faith in Scripture is trust and belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ who by a sacrificial death on the cross saved you from the wrath of God. Ultimately faith is trust in God, no matter the circumstances.

    "I am frequently told about how it all would have worked if I did believe..."

    This is not what the Bible teaches, and anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't read theirs.

    Isa 46:9-11
    "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
    Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
    I have planned it, surely I will do it."

    It doesn't matter if you believed, everything is as it was planned to be. Everything happens exactly as the God of the Bible declared it to be.

    "my first and proper question and indeed with reference to the title of this thread is about the Sins of Adam and Eve and how it is apparently something that you and your fellow human beings should bear responsibility for..."

    I alluded to this in my post. As Shai Linne states, they were our representatives, chosen by God. You may attempt to claim unfairness, but the fact of the matter is that God made the choice of representative and He's the judge.

    "...,previous religions that arrived way before Christianity tell similar stories - the Epic of Gilgamesh is a good place to start looking..."

    Apart from the fact "originality" has no effect on truthfulness. The Epic of Gilgamesh is, in all truth, not even similar to the creation story. Anyone can read the text for themselves and decide. From that bastion of truth, ;) , wikipedia:

    "The story starts with an introduction of Gilgamesh of Uruk, the greatest king on earth, two-thirds god and one-third human, as the strongest King-God who ever existed. The introduction describes his glory and praises the brick city walls of Uruk. The people in the time of Gilgamesh, however, are not happy. They complain that he is too harsh and abuses his power by sleeping with women before their husbands do, so the goddess of creation Aruru creates the wild-man Enkidu...."

    Oh yeah, I can see how you can confuse that with Genesis... ;)

    "Furthermore is it not compatible with the modern scientific evidence of how the Earth was formed or how human beings arrived on the Earth - the Earth was formed over millions of years not over a few days."

    No one was there. Simply put. The Biblical position states that all men deny God in their natural state, it is no surprise therefore that scientists find no evidence (though it truly abounds) for a Creator. It is no surprise, given the Creation account of adult animals, men and plants created that the evidence would show an adult universe and an adult planet. We do not believe God created an embryo of Adam and allowed him to grow and the like.

    "In the first few days nothing could have survived the heat and radiation, it would have been killed instantly."

    Really? Are you an expert on supernatural universe creation and can define what the all-powerful God of the universe can and cannot do?

    "In my humble opinion God set them up to fall and gave them no choice to do otherwise."

    And I agree with you 100%. For, as was stated in Isa 46, God has declared the end from the beginning. Adam's fall was part of God's plan and purpose.

    "...their fall is essentially God's own fault yet he punishes them and then subsequently you..."

    I don't disagree, except to say, that there was real choice in Adam's decision, but for God's plan and purposes it went exactly as intended.

    "(Why there have to be so many versions in the first place baffles me, but that is for another discussion!)"

    There really aren't that many versions, however, as time passes language changes. The 1611 King James Version was based on a language that has change dramatically over time. Few know all the archaic words therein. The other translations depend on methods of translation, whether you want to translate "thought to thought", or word for word. I prefer the NASB and/or ESV which vary basically only in punctuation.

    "Here is God's first mistake/part of his plot - why did he put the tree here within VERY easy grasp of the humans?"

    For the purpose of allowing them to fall that He might provide salvation for their posterity through the sacrificial death of His Son, thus providing a people to reign with Him in eternity... that about sums it up.

    "...how would Adam and soon, as we are about to see, Eve have known what good and bad was?"

    They know good and are about to learn what evil is. They know good because He dwells with them and has commanded them to do what is good. God has called Adam to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

    This is good. Doing the opposite is wrong.

    "talking serpents for a second, which is completely impossible"

    Of course, its a supernatural event. I realize you have problems assuming the supernatural, so let me help you. Christians believe in the supernatural. Assume it when reading the text.

    "God, in all his omniscience and omnipotence has created a serpent which is going to ruin the lives of Adam and Eve - what am I to think here, is a mere talking serpent more powerful than God?"

    Of course the serpent is not, a few verses later it is cursed and a promise that the offspring of Eve would crush the serpent's head. We Christians take this to be the first promise of the second Adam, Christ. Again, you must understand everything within the context already stated. As Isa states: "Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass."

    Many of your questions, ie "Does that not sound odd that the God who just created the universe doesn't know where everything is?" are rhetorical. I'm going to ignore them unless they have truly theological significance. Consider two things therefore moving forward, in describing God and His actions, the authors have to use anthropomorphic and poetic language. Of course God knew where Adam was, but the intent is to show how different things are after the fall. Adam who would have come running to see his friend, now hides.

    "He places a tree in the middle of a garden that his poor credulous creations CANNOT have any iota of a clue as to what they have done wrong until after they become knowledgeable and he curses them for it!"

    They knew it was wrong beforehand, He told them it was. It is true that the intent was for the fall, but they knew that it was wrong to partake of it. You're assuming too much, or too little from the text. Adam and Eve apparently could understand God's commands, and to a point, followed them. But the woman is is lied to by the serpent and "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate."

    They knew the command of God, they knew the result, but they chose to worship and serve a creation... sound familiar?

    "What possible justification can you attribute the mistakes of God in messing up his creations and then cursing them for it?"

    Firstly God is God, you nor Adam have any right to judge Him. Secondly, God made no mistakes, everything occured exactly as was intended. Thirdly, Adam and Eve made a real choice in the garden, surely we could (but won't) debate how "real" choices in a predestined system are, but Adam and Eve chose to partake.

    "The message in this story is essentially - gaining knowledge of good and bad is frowned upon..."

    Not at all, rather, the intimate knowledge of evil (by doing it) is. You missed that, the snake lied.

    "When you say that we are all born in sin it makes me question why that HAS to be the case."

    We are the federal sons of Adam. We're born under his name and patronage. Again, similar to being born in a city at war with another city, we in the city of Adam are born in a state of hatred and war with God.


    "If he makes humans in his own image, by definition he is just as fallible as a human."

    Presupposition without evidence is not an argument. Scripture tells us that "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." The image of God, in creation, prior to the fall is "very good", after the fall the image is tainted by sin, like looking "through a mirror darkly."

    "It seems to me far too cruel and vindictive to impose such a horrible thing on an innocent child who hasn't got a chance or choice to defend or understand that accusation."

    With our limited scope of understanding, I can see how that might be. But if you accept the premise that God is omniscient and omnipotent, than you can understand that God knows, if he allows the child to take but a breath, it will begin to lie and curse. Surely, that is nearly impossible for a mind that is so darkened by sin to comprehend. But Scripture tells us "in sin I was conscieved" and "from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

    "This however is all completely unnecessary if you stop taking the Bible as evidence of God's existence..."

    Of course, but since we believe it to be God's Word of special revelation to mankind, we cannot do that. I have to, as a believer, rest my case not on what the sinful mind can see or conceive but what has been revealed to me by the God of Scripture.

    Philip, I really appreciate your demeanor and intent. It is rare to meet a self-proclaimed atheist who doesn't embellish every comment with curse-filled speech directed at a God they deny exists. You have not been blasphemous, apart from your failure to bow your knee to God, but certainly no more than I have been in my life. You remain in my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Lockheed,

    I am reading your discussions with Philip with interest. Not sure if you would like comments here from others but I felt I have to express my own view on one matter you wrote about.

    ”While you may not be interested in "taking my religion away", folks like these and men like Dawkins, if they had their way, most certainly would.

    I don’t actually know what comments you are referring to, so maybe they are from idiotic baboons that I am more than happy to argue against – and this is an atheist talking here.

    Could you perhaps link and quote the comments that offend you so much.

    As for Richard Dawkins, I cannot recall any speeches where he said religion should not be taught, maybe he has, but he would be wrong in my view – and I will be happy to name him as a 'fool'.

    He has of course stated that he believes religion is wrong in a scientific sense, but that is something else.

    I suspect Dawkins views are closer to that of Dan Dennett who wrote “Breaking the Spell” (please read this book if you wish to understand my views better) – that the teaching of religion is likely to be a benefit to society, so long as it is not restrictive to just the one religion. (Of course, backed up with science and more science)

    The only comment I recall from Dawkins that was a definitive on your religious matter was that labelling children as “Catholic”, “Protestant” or “atheist” when they are too young to understand what that label means is wrong – and uses the phrase “Child abuse” I believe.

    I think also Dawkins questions whether teaching children that they will burn in Hell if they do not love Jesus (or whatever) could cause psychological distress, and questions whether this is abuse. He does not assert it.

    I think I could be argued that it is abuse, but this is very different to what you asserted to about ‘taking away religion’ from people. Dawkins just says he wants people to 'grow up' which is different

    OK... carry on, carry on.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell." (The God Delusion, page 318)

    "...and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds." - Richard Dawkins, richarddawkins.net, " Religion's Real Child Abuse"

    ""What Shall We Tell the Children?" by the distinguished psychologist Nicholas Humphrey is a superb polemic on how religions abuse the minds of children... Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions that, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them. He is right, and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds. "“ Dawkins, Free Inquiry, Vol. 22, Fall 2002


    "His answer was a resounding no to such censorship in general: "Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with." But he then went on to shock his liberal self by advocating one important exception: to argue in favour of censorship for the special case of children …... "... we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.” - (Quoting Nicholas Humphreys What Shall We Tell the Children? ([Quoted in] The God Delusion, pp. 366-7)

    Note to those supporting Mr. Dawkins, I see you coming, I have no intention of turning this into a Dawkins-support column. Your posts will not be published.

    Dawkins' canard regarding labeling is simply a subversive attempt to repeat Mr. Humphrey's claims without outright endorsing them. Of course, he sleeps well at night because, in his system, lying is not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lockheed

    Thanks again, this is the sort of discussion I am looking for and I thank you for your honesty.

    I also thank you for your kind words in your last paragraph - my philosophy is to be as kind as I can, even far too forgiving sometimes, until somebody goes out of their way to be wilfully abusive or horrible to someone I care about or me. That and the fact that I drink copious amounts of Tea keeps me out of trouble! :)

    You will find that atheism is just a title, a word to describe my lack of belief in all gods and the supernatural - it has nothing to do with the person I am. The person who I am is the person brought up in the environment that I was with good family and friends to be there for me and I for them. You have mentioned Richard Dawkins, he likens gathering atheists into on solid group of opinion is like herding cats - if you have ever owned a cat in your life you will understand what I mean! The only true thing that possibly unites atheists is the lack of faith after that you are going to have a whole spectrum of people with opinions galore, you can expect people like me or the more ferocious ones.

    Sorry, going to have to digress for one tiny second longer - prayer - please do not pray for me, I would be ever so grateful if you didn't. I don't quite know what you hope to accomplish by praying for me but I really don't need you to. If you do get the chance please look at that post I put a link to, it outlines all the reasons why I think prayer is not useful.

    "Consider firstly that, as a non-believer, God doesn't hear (listen) to your prayers."

    I wasn't the one doing the praying, the believers were - the people who were acting according to Jesus's teachings Luke 11:9-10 and John 16:23-24 ( I absolutely hope I have not misread these verses!) They both claim that if you ask God in the name of Jesus it will be done, I see people praying all the time just as I saw people praying when I was 8, nothing happens.

    You said the Reverend was talking poppycock (I see we agree hehhehe) but hang on, he was a man of God was he not? He had his own parish, he claimed to speak to God just as much as you do, how come God told him the wrong things? I seem to remember him knowing an awful lot about the Bible too, was he not holy enough?

    Look at it this way - 6.5 billion people on this planet - think about the vast number of religious people who are all asking their particular deity to suspend the natural laws of the universe for a certain purpose - I rather think that is too complex a task - especially with conflicting prayers - who gets the special treatment?

    Right, enough digressing!

    Yikes, you actually think God was being fair when he set up Adam and Eve?

    That's pretty harsh of God isn't it?

    How could that possibly paint a good picture of God? Or have I completely missed the whole ideal of a loving caring God? Is he supposed to be this cruel?

    What a horrid thing to do, reminds me of a Shakespeare quote, King Lear, Act 4, scenes i-ii:

    As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.


    Actually, while I am thinking about it, I am going to hurl something past you and see what you think.

    Since you preferred the NASB I will use it as well, I love the internet! :)

    Isaiah 6

    Now, here I go again possibly butchering the true teachings of the Bible but I will tell you what I think of this passage and somehow make some sort of argument out of it...I hope :)

    Isaiah's vision

    A bit scary to start with - can't have been fun kissing a burning piece of coal to feel worthy enough to speak to God but I guess its only a vision.

    This quote from verse 9:

    9He said, "Go, and tell this people:
    'Keep on (P)listening, but do not perceive;
    Keep on looking, but do not understand.'
    10"(Q)Render the hearts of this people (R)insensitive,
    Their ears dull,
    And their eyes dim,
    (S)Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    Hear with their ears,
    Understand with their hearts,
    And return and be healed."

    Am I correct in assuming that this is all rather metaphorical and that my heart is insensitive, my ears dull, my eyes dim because God has made this so? In failing to see, hear and feel God I won't be healed and I am off to the fiery pit lest I repent my sinful ways?

    See, I don't like the idea of someone manipulating my life so much that not matter what I do my apparent "destiny" is to ultimately to screw up. The only person who can possibly correct that outcome is the git who set it all up in the first place.

    I mentioned Stockholm Syndrome a while back and I think I will expand on it here.

    Since you use Wiki, I shall too mwhahahhaha! :)

    "Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed."

    God is the hostage taker.

    A pretty brutal one at that, creating Adam and Eve just to suit his own nefarious purposes to get his son nailed to a cross to supposedly justify everybody else's need to be saved. Despite the fact Adam and Eve did nothing wrong, you admit they were set up by God so that humans would HAVE to feel sinful.

    There are many reasons why I don't believe in any gods but this one really is high up the list as I think its positively dreadful.

    This is how I see it - he is playing with me as he played with Adam and Eve.

    Makes it all too easy for me NOT to believe in him (the invisibility, the rather complex issue over how he gained the intellectual property rights to the universe despite there being a whole hypermarket of other Gods to choose from,the contradictory, historically inaccurate 1st century book that is supposed to be evidence of his divine influence etc etc) - somehow I am not using my eyes, ears, nose, feet enough- you name it, I am destined to screw up unless I go with the "faith".

    He also rigs it so despite my having absolutely NO involvement in any of his past atrocities, I am still to blame for some "you didn't look in the small print" kind of error which means I need his help to get out of this - essentially through the use of fear and misery I have two choices - love him or burn.

    Great.

    Woo Hoo!

    Well, I would rather burn quite frankly if that's how its going to be.

    That's not free will is it? The alternative choice to not believing in Yahweh aka God, El or Elorim is to be punished for it, what kind of a choice is that?

    You quoted earlier

    Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

    I take great exception to that, I strive very hard in life to be the person I am, I go out of my way to be kind and polite. If my deeds in life are so vile and corrupt please explain to me how my deeds are any more or less vile that God's deeds in the Bible alone?

    I haven't killed anybody, I have never condoned rape - God has, if we are supposed to taking the Bible to be true, God commits mass genocide, kills innocent children, encourages rape on a frequent basis. He even sends his own son on a suicide mission to be a scapegoat to somehow exonerate his deeds in the Old Testament, plus somehow clearing up the mess of original sin that HE created.

    You go through all the vile things God permits and organises in the Bible and then show me just exactly how much worse I am in comparison.

    But somehow its ok because its God and he is allowed to do these vile deeds and I am supposed to cheer him on for it?

    I am confused again, each time I get accused by God for not being good enough, which somehow is my fault, but he gets away literally with murder, rape and genocide and is supposed to be the moral bastion of the universe?

    He fills the world with fear and misery by making innocent babies sinners and yet it is the human race's fault?

    That's like calling Stalin cuddly!


    I hope that didn't come off as too ranty, bits of it were I suppose but could not be helped - its hard over the internet to get my message across, if you could see me now the only thing that is steaming is my cup of Tea and not my ears! :)

    If I have time today I will respond to your other questions, I just wanted to keep this post entirely on the subject of sin for now.

    Cheers

    Philip

    ReplyDelete
  6. use Scripture to prove a point do so while acknowledging the textual issues therein.

    I actually agree - particularly with context. This is why I reject every prophecy that jesus supposedly fulfilled. Read Micah 5:2 or Isaiah 7:14 in context and they are clearly not about jesus. This to me makes the NT look like a total fabrication.

    Your biggest problem however is demonstrating that god actually wrote the bible - perhaps the devil did - or even man.



    Again, you miss the forest for the trees. Had God not delivered Israel from the bondage of Egypt they'd have remained slaves and not had a home of their own.

    Historically, there is no evidence this actually happened. However, we do know that Egypt occupied Caanan at the time the hebrews supposedly took the promised land. However, on the issue of morality, a closer look at Ex 11 clearly shows that god hardens the Pharaoh's heart. This prevents him changing his mind? How is this moral?

    If you are going to claim it is moral because god did it, then you are going to have a hard time showing it. You will have to show moral absolutes exist and then your god is responsible for them. However, if you claim god's ways are beyond understanding, then you are not logically justified in making any claims about the morality of your god. Your god could even be a morally evil one who is spreading as much harm as possible, but since you dont understand his ways, you have no case that can be made either way.


    As for Dawkins, I have heard him say that he would not want to take away the hope of a dieing man - please stop spreading lies.

    Billy

    ReplyDelete
  7. Micah 5:2 and Isa 7:14 are prophecies, since when are you the best qualified to decide what is and is not a fulfilled prophecy? As a Christian, we look at the Old Testament through the lens of the New. The New Testament writers therefore have a Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the prophecies of the OT. You might not like how the New Testament writers saw those prophecies fulfilled, but that doesn't mean they weren't.

    Micah 5:2
    "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

    Sure sounds like a Messianic prophecy. As far ass Isa 7:14 - again this is a prophecy, on what basis can you declare it doesn't apply to Jesus? Consider Isa 53, most folks, when reading it for the first time, assume it was written after the death of Jesus.

    Historically, there is no evidence this actually happened.

    What "evidence" are you looking for? And why don't you take the Old Testament as evidence? What reason do you have to dismiss it? It seems that those who argue against the historicity of the Bible often find themselves backtracking as new archeological evidence is unearthed. Regardless, the discussion was focused on whether or not the God of Scripture was just and/or good in commanding and threatening the Israelites as He did. Thus the basis of the commands and warnings is rooted in what He already had done for them.

    However, on the issue of morality, a closer look at Ex 11 clearly shows that god hardens the Pharaoh's heart. This prevents him changing his mind? How is this moral?

    I'm glad you asked.

    Romans 9:16-21
    So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
    For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
    On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

    You seem to think that God cannot use sinful, rebellious men for His own purpose and glory. Pharaoh's intent was to relent, and yet as he had before he would have gone after Israel just as he did, all God did was speed up the process, and since He is the potter and Pharaoh the clay, He can do that.

    You ask, as the antagonist in Paul's letter here asks: "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

    Paul's answer is: "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

    God has the right to do with rebellious pots as He wishes.

    You will have to show moral absolutes exist and then your god is responsible for them.

    As opposed to showing that moral absolutes don't exist? Do you really want to be in that position, defending the right of anyone to do anything at anytime?

    However, if you claim god's ways are beyond understanding, then you are not logically justified in making any claims about the morality of your god.

    God's ways are beyond our understanding, yet He has provided us general and special revelation by which we can know His ways. Through His Word we can know what is right and wrong, moral and immoral.

    Your god could even be a morally evil one who is spreading as much harm as possible, but since you dont understand his ways, you have no case that can be made either way.

    Well, the God of the Bible stands in opposition to murder, lying, stealing, adultery, abortion, and the like... You can stand in opposition of that, declaring moral that which He's declared immoral but you'll only prove Him right in doing so.

    As for Dawkins, I have heard him say that he would not want to take away the hope of a dieing man - please stop spreading lies.

    I posted quotes, you come back with subjective hearsay. And yet even if Dawkins said this, and I don't doubt he did, it only proves that he contradicts himself whenever convenient.

    And, what does an atheist care about someone spreading lies anyway? Why is a lie morally wrong in your system?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the reply

    when are you the best qualified to decide what is and is not a fulfilled prophecy?

    Now Lockheed, that is the ad hominem fallacy - not a good start I'm affraid.

    The New Testament writers therefore have a Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the prophecies of the OT

    Unsustantiated claim fallacy! Can you argue the case that they are indeed insired?

    Sure sounds like a Messianic prophecy.

    You seem to be distorting my claim here. It is messianic in the sense that the writer is talking about someone who has been "anointed" to do a job for god. It is not messianic in the sense that it is talking about where jesus will be born. Now, you mention the need for context, but you ignore it here. This verse refers to a ruler who will defeat the Assyrians. I most definately is not about jesus.

    As far ass Isa 7:14 - again this is a prophecy, on what basis can you declare it doesn't apply to Jesus?

    Context! On what basis do you claim it is about Jesus? It refers to events ocurring around 724 BCE that were directly relevant to Ahaz.

    What "evidence" are you looking for? And why don't you take the Old Testament as evidence?

    I will have to be brief, it is a big topic. No mention of the hebrews in Egypt, anachrionisms in the biblical narrative, contradictions in the regional geopolitics at the time etc. "histories" are also written with a spin, and an obvious one in the OT is jewish imperialism.

    It seems that those who argue against the historicity of the Bible often find themselves backtracking as new archeological evidence is unearthed.

    It is my experience that those arguing for the bible have to deny new evidence - like the fact that Jericho had no wall when Joshua was happily killing men, women and children for god. If evidence, does appear that supports the bible, then that is fine, please dont use your prejudices to form an "argument". As it stand, there is No evidence that this happened.

    Regardless, the discussion was focused on whether or not the God of Scripture was just and/or good in commanding and threatening the Israelites as He did.

    And your evidence is?


    I'm glad you asked.....

    I'm affraid this does not argue about the morality of the situation. It is jus saying god is right and you expect me to believe that. If I said to you the same about some other god, what would you require as evidence? I presume you wouldn't just say - "oh yeah,you've got me there!"

    You need to show absolutes exist and are attributable to your god.

    As opposed to showing that moral absolutes don't exist? Do you really want to be in that position, defending the right of anyone to do anything at anytime?

    It is always sad that a christian should think that I am defending any position. I see morality as more practical. If it hurts others, we should not do it (although there is no reason why I should have this view, and others dont). You still need to show absolutes exist to have a case

    God's ways are beyond our understanding, yet He has provided us general and special revelation by which we can know His ways. Through His Word we can know what is right and wrong, moral and immoral.

    Dont you find that statement somewhat contradictory?

    Perhaps he has then revealed to me that he doesn't exist or is immoral. You still have not shown that it is moral.

    Why dont you try and convince me homosexuality is wrong in an absolute moral way. This would be a good way of showing the problem of your position. (I know christians make assumptions when this is mentioned, but just to let you know, I am not gay and have no axe to grind, but my experience is that cheistians project. I dont see how it should make a difference to the arguments if I was)

    Well, the God of the Bible stands in opposition to murder, lying, stealing, adultery, abortion, and the like... You can stand in opposition of that, declaring moral that which He's declared immoral but you'll only prove Him right in doing so.

    You have commited another fallacy here. You assume that these should be accepted as moral absolutes. I challenge that they exist. As for not condoning these, have you read about joshua killing children, or moses orgering the murder of midianite women and children (except the virgins of course). The problem is that you seem to think it is not murder if your god orders it. If he did in deed order it, then he does condone murder.

    I posted quotes, you come back with subjective hearsay.

    Only if you consider a quote from Dawkins himself hearsay - which I dont.

    it only proves that he contradicts himself whenever convenient.


    Read his work in context :-)
    He is nt forcing anyone, and has repeatedly said so. He is on the attack, because religion is partly responsible for 9/11. He also has a problem with creationists denying science and trying to force their world view on everyone through the courts - a problem that I share.

    ReplyDelete
  9. that is the ad hominem fallacy - not a good start I'm affraid.

    No, there was no attack therein, it is simply the truth. By what authority are you able to declare what is and is not a fulfilled prophecy? You can only state that something wasn't fulfilled based on your subjective viewpoint. I noticed you didn't answer the question.

    Unsustantiated claim fallacy! Can you argue the case that they are indeed insired?

    I can only argue from the text that they are. By inspired I mean what the text states about them, their words are "God-breathed".

    It is always sad that a christian should think that I am defending any position. I see morality as more practical. If it hurts others, we should not do it

    You haven't given a basis or reason for morality. There are many things that "hurt others" which must be done. A doctor can often hurt a patient in the treatment of a disease, should he refrain from doing so because it "hurts"? And who are you to decide what does and does not hurt? Some people enjoy pain, does that make them immoral given your standard?

    See therein is the problem, your standard is ultimately a amorphous subjective concept that cannot be defined at any given time. Ultimately it relies on someone to make a subjective judgment call for others. In reality therefore, you replace God with yourself, or some other authoritative body.

    (although there is no reason why I should have this view, and others dont). You still need to show absolutes exist to have a case

    You are correct, there is no reason in a naturalistic worldview for a judgment call of this nature whatsoever. You have no basis to determine, in your worldview, what is/is not immoral given that humans are merely animals like the others. You cannot consistently apply your standard to humans without applying it to other animals and vice versa. Thus in order to determine what is moral/immoral you have to borrow from my worldview, that is, you have to assume that if something hurts (do unto others...) it is immoral.

    So you either appeal to a different authority, and all the questions you ask me are rightly posed in reverse to you, or you end up in my worldview but ignoring the consequences thereof.

    My position is this, you argue for a kind of absolute, "that which hurts is immoral", I appeal to a different, older, more authoritative source on the basis of the declaration therein that God has spoken clearly and has defined what is and is not moral. And on that basis we can know what right and wrong is. I don't need to show that absolutes exist, since you have already stated my case in belief that "what hurts is immoral", that is, you already accept such a standard.

    Perhaps he has then revealed to me that he doesn't exist or is immoral. You still have not shown that it is moral.

    It is inconsistent with the nature of God to "reveal to you that he doesn't exist", you're talking nonsense here. God either reveals truth or allows one to remain in darkness. Given that He is God, there is no question otherwise. If you presume that God is not good, then you can allow for the rest, but since we're talking about a omniscient, omnipotent being, it wouldn't matter either way.

    Why dont you try and convince me homosexuality is wrong in an absolute moral way.

    Because there is no such thing as an "absolute moral way" apart from God, and that being the God of Scripture. Someone might be able to show that something is immoral in some neutral way, but they're going to either assume some authority, be it their own, a governing body, a god or majority rule. In the end we're back to a question of authority and subjective vs objective viewpoints.

    I present that the God of the Bible has revealed to all mankind that He exists and that all mankind willingly suppresses that fact and rebels against it. God has shown His case to be true by providing prophets, apostles and finally His Son whom He sent to die on a cross for the sins of His people and proved all of it by raising him from the dead as witnessed by many.

    Therefore it is upon that authority, and that alone that I can present my case. That God has provided to all mankind a guide for what is and is not moral. This guide which you have appealed to, albeit subjectively without knowledge thereof, and I tell you that by acknowledging that "something that hurts is immoral" you therefore stand in agreement with God's Law and are therefore subject to it.

    You have commited another fallacy here. You assume that these should be accepted as moral absolutes.

    No fallacy, I've simply stated my presuppositions. Surely I believe them and accept them as true. I don't expect you to do likewise apart from a supernatural change within you wrought by God.

    have you read about joshua killing children, or moses orgering the murder of midianite women and children

    Yes, so what? How can you stand in judgment presupposing a naturalistic worldview?

    Are not millions of insects killed and eaten by other insects on a daily basis? What difference is there between the insects and the people mentioned in the Old Testament? Are you imply some inherently different standard when it comes to men versus insects? And if so... on what basis?!

    See, from a Biblical perspective we could argue the morality of killing during warfare and the like. But you've already presented a worldview in which that cannot matter. Sure, you are inconsistent in your view by allowing for some "it hurts therefore its immoral" viewpoint, but you neither have reason nor authority to declare it to be.

    Only if you consider a quote from Dawkins himself hearsay - which I dont.

    You didn't present a quote, you presented a personal, subjective experience.

    He is nt forcing anyone, and has repeatedly said so. He is on the attack, because religion is partly responsible for 9/11. He also has a problem with creationists denying science and trying to force their world view on everyone through the courts - a problem that I share.

    Again, the quotes I provided speak volumes as to the true intent of Mr. Dawkins. Anyone doubting this should visit NPR.org and listen to the interview with Teri Gross in the Fresh Aire program.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lockheed-

    "I present that the God of the Bible has revealed to all mankind that He exists and that all mankind willingly suppresses that fact and rebels against it."

    Incorrect. There are still uncontacted tribes in the Amazon who have never interacted with the outside world. They have not been made aware of the existence of the God of the Bible, and therefore cannot suppress or rebel against a fact of which they are ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Incorrect. There are still uncontacted tribes in the Amazon who have never interacted with the outside world. They have not been made aware of the existence of the God of the Bible, and therefore cannot suppress or rebel against a fact of which they are ignorant.

    Romans 1:18-20
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lockheed-

    "Romans 1:18-20
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

    Except that doesn't help.

    Even if, for the sake of argument, uncontacted Amazonian tribes were aware of the existence of a creator god, there is no way that they could be aware that said god is specifically the God of the Bible. How could they, when they have never read the Bible? How can they be in rebellion against a specific deity when they could not have the knowledge necessary to know of that specific God?

    All they could be aware of was that a god existed, and that would not be enough to save them. In your original comment you said:

    "I present that the God of the Bible has revealed to all mankind that He exists and that all mankind willingly suppresses that fact and rebels against it. God has shown His case to be true by providing prophets, apostles and finally His Son whom He sent to die on a cross for the sins of His people and proved all of it by raising him from the dead as witnessed by many."

    Using your own argument: none of these prophets, apostles or Jesus ever reached the uncontacted tribes. Therefore, how could they ever become saved?

    This has been shown in the past: tribes have been contacted by Christian missionaries, and these tribes had no inkling of anything to do with Jesus. They knew nothing of his sacrifice on the cross, and could not therefore be expected to know to ask him for forgiveness.

    From this it is logical to assume that the uncontacted tribes that remain will also know nothing of Jesus, or the specifics of the Biblical God. Therefore they cannot be said to be in willing suppression and rebellion against him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Even if, for the sake of argument, uncontacted Amazonian tribes were aware of the existence of a creator god, there is no way that they could be aware that said god is specifically the God of the Bible.

    Paul says otherwise: "that which is known about God is evident within them", in them is a conscience and on their heart God's Law in part there written.

    "...for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

    Nature itself is sufficient to provide enough knowledge of the Creator that all mankind is culpable.

    How can they be in rebellion against a specific deity when they could not have the knowledge necessary to know of that specific God?

    The gods of men are like those that the Israelites created in the wilderness when Moses delayed on the mountain, mute gods of metal and stone fashioned in the shape of creatures. From that same passage in Romans: "25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

    Using your own argument: none of these prophets, apostles or Jesus ever reached the uncontacted tribes. Therefore, how could they ever become saved?

    They could not, nor is God responsible to provide extraordinary means to save them, rather, as Paul presents in his argument in Romans, the conscience and nature is sufficient witness to God to cause men to be culpable of their sins.

    God saving any of rebellious mankind is grace not what is due. All men deserve wrath, but God graciously saves some rebellious sinners by graciously raising them from spiritual death to life in Christ, not because of who they are or anything they did, but for His purposes and glory alone.

    This has been shown in the past: tribes have been contacted by Christian missionaries, and these tribes had no inkling of anything to do with Jesus. They knew nothing of his sacrifice on the cross, and could not therefore be expected to know to ask him for forgiveness.

    God does not owe anyone salvation, thus they didn't need to know about Christ, rather, in their conscience and in nature they had sufficient knowledge to condemn them of failing to worship God.
    The message of the cross is a gracious one, that is, God chose to send His Son to graciously and mercifully save some of those wrath-deserving rebellious sinners.

    The message of the cross is God's means of repairing that rift for those whom He has chosen to save, it is not a wage everyone on earth is due.

    From this it is logical to assume that the uncontacted tribes that remain will also know nothing of Jesus, or the specifics of the Biblical God. Therefore they cannot be said to be in willing suppression and rebellion against him.

    Paul states otherwise, however, I appreciate you bringing this up since most evangelical Christians have not thought this through.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lockheed: Paul says otherwise: "that which is known about God is evident within them", in them is a conscience and on their heart God's Law in part there written.

    Paul says otherwise, but what makes whoever wrote that correct?

    Lockheed: Nature itself is sufficient to provide enough knowledge of the Creator that all mankind is culpable.

    What part of nature provides evidence of your creator?
    Large parts of observed nature seem to contradict the existence of the Christian god as presented in the bible. Since you're fond of the words of Paul, why don't you accept the god whose "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" - which would get you to Deism at best.
    Cosmology, geology, archaeology, biology etc all provide results which contradict the claims of your bible god.
    You accept Paul's words, but not the conclusion those words lead to. Seems inconsistent.

    Lockheed: The gods of men are like those that the Israelites created in the wilderness when Moses delayed on the mountain, mute gods of metal and stone fashioned in the shape of creatures.

    I never understood this. The Israelites had just seen their god part a sea and then drown the Egyptian army. Yahweh lead them to the mountain as a pillar of smoke during the day and fire at night. According to the story, Yahweh had revealed himself to them in power and glory (I'll leave comments about freewill alone for now).
    Now Moses goes away for a short time, and suddenly they start worshipping a statue which I think we'll both agree had no power at all. It seems the Israelites couldn't tell the difference between the power of Yahweh and a statue. Even in his own propaganda, this god you worship doesn't seem very impressive.

    Lockheed: God saving any of rebellious mankind is grace not what is due. All men deserve wrath, but God graciously saves some rebellious sinners by graciously raising them from spiritual death to life in Christ, not because of who they are or anything they did, but for His purposes and glory alone.

    I thought Yahweh was supposed to be Just. How does Jesus death take away your responsibility for your sins? It seems it's simply a ploy to try to avoid justice.

    Lockheed: The message of the cross is God's means of repairing that rift for those whom He has chosen to save, it is not a wage everyone on earth is due.

    As I think Philip has pointed out above, the rift in Eden was Yahweh's responsibility, the punishment is from Yahweh for something which is due to him.
    If you hold to Yahweh being "good", then it is surely his responsibility to repair the rift he created, or forgo the punishment he dishes out for the sins he let loose.
    If you don't hold to Yahweh being "good", then I see no reason to worship this being.

    Lockheed: Paul states otherwise

    The statement attributed to "Paul" (whoever that was) only makes sense in the ANE, and then only to a small number of people. The Greeks could make the same statements regarding nature and attributing it to Zues. Same goes for Hindu's etc.
    Today, due to scientific knowledge, studies of comparative religion etc, the statement makes absolutely no sense.

    ReplyDelete