Religion Matters: Take 3

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 07:55PMto me there are a couple of aspects in being responsible for something:
- who did it and made the decisions etc
- being held accountable for it.Okay, so which one erases responsibility for having already done a given thing?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 07:55PMSo in my understanding God was completely responsible for the creation:
- he decided to create, decided how to create and what to create.
- he is only accountable to himselfHe's accountable for the fact he did the deed. That isn't somehow erased because no one can punish him or impose any kind of sanction on him. He did the deed = he's responsible for having done the deed.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 07:55PM- he evaluated it and decided that it was good.  (Question:  in what way did he think it good?  fit for purpose? unable to sin? ...)
- (or in trinitarian terms, The Son created and the Father evaluated and declared that it was good.)
 
- he created people as moral beings
- he gave them the ability to do what they wanted within their abilities.  Do you think that this is a good thing? would you want it different?
- he holds them accountable for doing what they want.He also allegedly created them with the option of acting morally or not. By choice. Intentionally. His call. Would you say we're somehow responsible for being created this way? Even we know that we have to sleep in the bed we make ... eh? Getting all upset and "punishing" things we create because they don't function the way we want is known as infantile behavior among human adults. We can just decide to believe that's true of humans, but God throws only righteous and enlightened tantrums, and also only "holds his creations accountable" in love and kindness and all that. It's a really tough sell if you haven't gotten the subject to also ingest the intellectual enzyme required to get that one into the mind though.
 
Here's an example of one problem that I'd argue doesn't get through the aforementioned filter without the aforementioned intellectual enzyme:
"Holds them accountable", according to the traditional view, is an epically sterilized euphemism for torture them mercilessly for eternity with no possible reprieve for not being perfect/up to his alleged par. I think that somewhat changes how the assessment goes--changes it from a perfectly reasonable correction, to the absolute most heinous and brutal and monstrous and extreme response. "Harsh" can't cut it no matter what the modifier. Evil may get there. More importantly, if you can actually sell it to people (best to do so when they're too young or naive or just ignorant, like even intelligent Bronze Age types) it works really well to terrorize them into falling in line and selling the notion to other people, because as a highly social species that's also highly intelligent (at least as intelligent terrestrial species go) we empathize with each other and proactively strive for the well-being of the herd, so to speak. So this is an ideal meme to undercut who we are--our strengths--and to use them against us. It was just a matter of time before we started using this meme, and almost immediately, once let loose, it would self-perpetuate. Doesn't work so well for creating a god worthy of anything but the deepest contempt though, so you have to sell the targets on self-worthlessness, but only initially, because once the meme is absorbed people will of course be desperate to ensure their own don't befall this absolute and ultimate and eternal and literal hellish fate.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 07:55PM- to my knowledge no creature has the authority to hold him to account for his creation.  they can winge about it all they like but that doesn't change anything.They can also recognize it's irrational and infantile for him to punish his creations for being the way he created them.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 07:55PMAre you able to act on your desires or are do you feel manipulated to do things that you don't want to do.  If you do then isn't it fair to hold you accountable for doing what you want?
 
You seem to imply that being able to do what you want against what God says to do is a character flaw.  Do you think that having this ability is a flaw in your character?  Don't you hold the freedom to make decisions according to your own values in high regard?  ie isn't it Good?It's a flaw in God's character according to the judeo christian model (and any other model of a god who punishes his creations). Even a rational adult human doesn't create something that does precisely what he creates it to do and then gets all Medieval on it after deciding it's undesirable (and God being perfect and all that would therefore have to have done this--otherwise it would mean he made a mistake of couldn't manage it). That's what we call petty, fickle shortsightedness, and a tantrum--rather weak character.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 10:13AMRead any good history of modern biblical interpretation for the details.
Like Richard Dawkins?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 11:55AMLike Richard Dawkins?

He's the one of the last ones any serious biblical interpreters of any camp would turn to.  He not only has no training in the field, but his whole approach is an attempt to prove his atheism, not give a history of biblical interpretation.  There are several good histories of biblical interpretation out there from a wide variety of perspectives, but read someone that knows what they are talking about. He's way out of his field when he discusses the history of biblical interpretation.

I can find you some suggestions if you like.

[ttf_BillO]

Sure, if you can find something accessible on-line.

Thanks for the offer.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 12:26PMSure, if you can find something accessible on-line.

Thanks for the offer.

Right now all I can find is several very good, but longish books-- one is a massive 3 volume composite series from a wide range of authors from various perspectives.  I'll keep poking around to see if I can find something short.  The topic is big because it is so driven by presuppositions.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 06:32AMAnd then you have "mainstream" theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr who advocated a strong doctrine of original sin-- see his Nature and Destiny of Man-- and made the claim that the Christian doctrine of original sin was the one Christian doctrine for which there was empirical proof.  I believe he said something like it was proven on the front pages of the daily newspaper.
That's an extraordinarily feeble argument though--pure emotional appeal absent the slightest critical analysis.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 26, 2017, 09:35AMI would also say that there is some use to a non-believer in finding out exactly what Christians believe. At least part of the time, people who find parts of Christianity implausible or risible might see it differently if it were explained by John or Tim, who have the benefit of reading centuries of Biblical scholarship, rather than explained simplistically by Christians who don't understand it well themselves.
Absolutely! On the flip side of that coin is when critics specifically address the popular/vulgar understanding and get taken to task over the more considered and/or scholarly. But I certainly don't discount the former problem simply because the latter one exists as well. And I'd also like to note that this is one of many reasons for which atheists are often interested in religion.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 26, 2017, 01:52PM
That's an extraordinarily feeble argument though--pure emotional appeal absent the slightest critical analysis.

Didn't say it was necessarily a strong argument.  I was simply reporting that RN made the statement.  As I said I don't think his own development of original sin was that particularly strong, but he did develop one as a "mainstream theologian."  

The statement does have a certain existential punch, though, sort of like the unbelievers' often emotional appeals to the suffering around the world as a "sure" defeater for the existence of God.  

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 02:01PMDidn't say it was necessarily a strong argument.  I was simply reporting that RN made the statement.  As I said I don't think his own development of original sin was that particularly strong, but he did develop one as a "mainstream theologian."
 
The statement does have a certain existential punch, though, sort of like the unbelievers' often emotional appeals to the suffering around the world as a "sure" defeater for the existence of God.  
Heh ...
 
Yeah--couldn't agree more. And in both cases I can't help but feel the draw of the argument while at the same time cringing over the use of that kind of cheap shot. Also in both cases there is a much better argument readily available, so if the cheap shot is left to stand on its own that makes me cringe all the more--that's when it becomes a failing as well as a perpetuation of the failing it preys upon, and there's just nothing good in all of that, except perhaps for some short term results. If the cheap shot is used in conjunction with a good one it becomes an explanation of the use of language which serves to disarm the practice of using the cheap shot as the argument, so that changes the dynamic dramatically--it's a great combination I think. The only problem is that I suspect very strongly that for many, probably most, it doesn't actually function as the kind of illumination of what's going on in the works, so to speak, that helps to disarm the cheap shot. In any case ... yeah--couldn't agree more.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 26, 2017, 02:12PM
Heh ...
 
Yeah--couldn't agree more. And in both cases I can't help but feel the draw of the argument while at the same time cringing over the use of that kind of cheap shot. Also in both cases there is a much better argument readily available, so if the cheap shot is left to stand on its own that makes me cringe all the more--that's when it becomes a failing as well as a perpetuation of the failing it preys upon, and there's just nothing good in all of that, except perhaps for some short term results. If the cheap shot is used in conjunction with a good one it becomes an explanation of the use of language which serves to disarm the practice of using the cheap shot as the argument, so that changes the dynamic dramatically--it's a great combination I think. The only problem is that I suspect very strongly that for many, probably most, it doesn't actually function as the kind of illumination of what's going on in the works, so to speak, that helps to disarm the cheap shot. In any case ... yeah--couldn't agree more.

Byron, you use a lot of words to say that you occasionally agree with me.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 02:14PMByron, you use a lot of words to say that you occasionally agree with me.
Heh ... fair statement.
 
But I often agree with you in your logic at the very least, and I do endeavor to be clear and to make sure as best I can that the nuances of such agreements are at least presented, so that they're not misleading--or at least not reasonably so, ideally, which oddly often isn't appreciated by the target audience (that last bit's about the Peanut Gallery, not you).

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Just saw this in daily book updates email that I got.  I was a bit aware of this discussion when it first popped up a few years ago, but didn't follow it much.

Has anyone read these books.  Many of the reviews seem to think that the author is fairly well respected, but it's completely out of my field.  Of course, as a theist, I'd welcome "aid" form neuro-science, but I'm always dubious of jumping on the bandwagon of things like this.

https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Wars-Scientific-Battle-Existence/dp/006207122X/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=006207122X&pd_rd_r=MG2YSH8TQ0ECXHJQ2GHV&pd_rd_w=YxYbC&pd_rd_wg=CdOqm&psc=1&refRID=MG2YSH8TQ0ECXHJQ2GHV

https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0061625981

[ttf_timothy42b]

It was mentioned in Scientific American, I'll see if I can find that copy (if I didn't purge it cleaning up).

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Just heard that Peter Berger, emeritus prof at Boston University and one of the most insightful sociologists of religion in my opinion just died a couple of days ago.

If you are not familiar with his work, here is a brief Wiki bio and a recent quote which I find typical of his insights which are many.  He is always stimulating even if I disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Berger

"I think that Evangelicals so far have resisted what has been I think the main sin—I wouldn’t call it a sin—the main mistake of Mainline Protestantism, which is to replace the core of the Gospel, which has to do with the cosmic redefinition of reality, with either politics or ­psychology or a kind of vague morality, which is not what I think the Christian Gospel is basically about. The Christian Gospel is about a tectonic shift in the structure of the universe, focused on the events around the life of Jesus. Obviously, there are a lot of implications to this. Evangelicals have not gone through this process. Luckmann many years ago called it “inner secularization.” Either it becomes politicized: What is Christianity all about? It’s some political program, which tends to be left of center, now it could just as well be right of center. That’s distortion. Or it becomes psychologized: it has to do with well-being and self-realization, Norman Vincent Peale type stuff. Or a kind of vague morality, which is usually something that most people would certainly approve of: don’t be nasty to little old ladies if they slip in the gutter. Okay, fine. But again, that’s not what the Gospel is about. And that is something that Evangelicals have retained, and I think, and I hope, will continue to retain..." -- Peter Berger in an interview with The Cresset

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 09:16 AM The Christian Gospel is about a tectonic shift in the structure of the universe, focused on the events around the life of Jesus. Obviously, there are a lot of implications to this. Evangelicals have not gone through this process. Luckmann many years ago called it “inner secularization.” Either it becomes politicized: What is Christianity all about? It’s some political program, which tends to be left of center, now it could just as well be right of center. That’s distortion. Or it becomes psychologized: it has to do with well-being and self-realization, Norman Vincent Peale type stuff.
He's left out the Prosperity Gospel people, which is a fairly large movement. 

He makes some interesting points.  But.  Is there any hint of that in Jesus's preaching?  I have trouble seeing it. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Today at 09:37 AMHe's left out the Prosperity Gospel people, which is a fairly large movement. 

He makes some interesting points.  But.  Is there any hint of that in Jesus's preaching?  I have trouble seeing it. 

The whole already/not yet teaching on the kingdom is a good example.  Jesus is saying in the Gospels that the rule of God has entered into our existence in a downpayment sort of way-- not the final wrap-up of human history, but a decisive turning point-- and will be confirmed by his striking a decisive blow against the "strong man"-- I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, etc-- and that this would be confirmed by his resurrection, which was an end-time event in both OT and inter-testamental Jewish thinking.

This sort of already/not yet has been fairly staple in NT theology from all perspectives over the last 50 years or so and is seen by most NT scholars as the "consensus" between the overly hyped eschatological views of someone like Schweitzer and the garden variety late 19th century liberal Protestant views which turned Jesus' teaching on the kingdom in the gospels into the sort of "do-good-and avoid-evil" that Berger was talking about.

Check out a serious recent work on NT theology or Jesus and the kingdom for more on that.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

I know that the issue of the historicity of the Bible has come up here several times.  I just read a short review of Richard Bauckhams's book on the gospels as eyewitness accounts.  I haven't read this particular work, but I've read other work of his and he's a top-notch scholar-- he's professor at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and a fellow of the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

He argues that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses and the scholarly reviews have described his book as a "must-read" for anyone wrestling with the question of the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives.

I believe that I've posted this link over on the Read Da Book thread, but I'm not sure all of you look there.  Here it is for those who might want to see some serious scholarly work that argues for a high historical accuracy of the Gospels.  If your reading on this subject is at least 10 years old, you might want to take a look at it.  You might be surprised.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621

[ttf_BillO]

No one would argue that everything in the Bible is unsupported by historical record.  What is supported is supported.  By the same token, much is not supported by historical or archeological record.  Writing a scholarly tome won't change that.  Especially if the author is religious, since there is little that can be done to remove the obvious bias.

There are many accounts in the Bible of God killing, or arranging to have killed, people.  Approximately 2.5M people. That's not including the flood or many other events where numbers of victims are not specifically mentioned.  Where is the historic and/or archeological proof of these?

For instance in 2 Kings 19:35 God kills 185,000 of Sennacherib's soldiers as they slept.  First, an army of 185,000 back then would have been worthy of a note in history, no?  Their all being found dead in their beds - well that would have blown the roof off the news media of the time and should certainly have made the history books, or the archeological record since, that is almost half the number of corpses to be found at Arlington!!!  But...

There is some historical account of Sennacherib's campaigns, including one on Jerusalem against Hezekiah, from both Hebrew and Assyrian sources, but no mention of 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds.  Except, of course, in the ultimate tome of fear mongering.  The Bible.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 02:40 PMNo one would argue that everything in the Bible is unsupported by historical record.  What is supported is supported.  By the same token, much is not supported by historical or archeological record.  Writing a scholarly tome won't change that.  Especially if the author is religious, since there is little that can be done to remove the obvious bias.

There are many accounts in the Bible of God killing, or arranging to have killed people.  Approximately 2.5M people (that's not including the flood) or many other events where number are not specifically mentioned.  Where is the historic and/or archeological proof of these?

For instance in 2 Kings 19:35 God kills 185,000 of Sennacherib's soldiers as they slept.  First, an army of 185,000 back then would have been worthy of a note in history, no?  Their all being found dead in their beds - well that would have blown the roof off the news media of the time and should certainly have made the history books, or the archeological record since that is almost half the number of corpses to found at Arlington!!!  But...

There is some historical account of Sennacherib's campaigns, including to one on Jerusalem against Hezekiah from both Hebrew and Assyrian sources, but no mention of 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds.  Except, of course, in the tome of fear mongering.  The Bible.

My post was about the Gospels.  Acceptance of their historical veracity has tremendous implications.

It means that the attempt to disconnect Jesus from the record we find in the Gospels, as many try to do is extremely difficult.  In other words, the Jesus who is a nice guy who went around telling people to be nice to each other doesn't fly because the Gospels paint a far more involved picture.  It will involve a Jesus who made strong claims, who believed in divine judgment, a Jesus who claimed that he would rise again, etc. if the texts are by eyewitnesses.

It means that if the Gospels were by eyewitnesses, you either have to completely discount what they claim as either fabrications or deal with the implications of what they claim which imply the miraculous, a high Christology, etc.

That's why B's book that I linked above is so important.  Some are calling it a paradigm shift in this field because he is challenging, on historical grounds, the skepticism that many have assumed about the historical accuracy of the Gospels.  He's not calling for just a few portions as historical, but that the overall narratives are by eyewitnesses and therefore accurate accounts.  It something all skeptics who claim to be really open should want to wrestle with.

[ttf_BillO]

I think it's a mistake to try to do any historical analysis of the NT at all.  I'll go along with the accounts being those of eyewitnesses.  I have no problem with that.  One guy with 12 followers is not going to make much impact on the history collected at the time, unless they were infamous in their day.  Which they weren't.

What I would put doubt in is the veracity of these eye witness accounts.  There are many reasons for this doubt and I'm sure you can point me in the direction of a bunch of books where some theologians would try to persuade me my reasons are not valid.  Of course, theologians are necessarily biased in the wrong direction, aren't they?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

[quote author=  is the veracity of these eye witness accounts.  There are many reasons for this doubt and I'm sure you can point me in the direction of a bunch of books where some theologians would try to persuade me my reasons are not valid.  Of course, theologians are necessarily biased in the wrong direction, aren't they?
[/quote]

I think that the stakes are a lot higher than you think.  As I said it shuts down the "Jesus was just a nice teacher" option because if the eye witnesses are accurate, which is a historical, not really a religious issue-- hence why the issue of historicity can't be just dismissed-- or, if they were lying through their teeth as false eyewitnesses you have to deal with 2 crucial issues.  If they were lying we then know absolutely nothing about Jesus so we can't call him either a good or bad teacher, etc.  We can't say really anything about him.  Also we have to deal with the fact that a high number of the original followers of Jesus, including virtually all of the original 12 disciples, were martyred which is not something liars do very often as far as I know.

The other option is that they were eyewitnesses who basically hallucinated about an awful lot.  The problem is that the accounts would include not 1 or 2 hallucinations, but a whole slew of them.

In a nutshell, if the eyewitness nature of the gospels is accurate as Bauckham claims, it has a lot of implications. That's why it should be a challenge for the non-believer.  You'll have to wrestle with his arguments, but they do imply a lot.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 06:35AMPutting someone to the test is not a flaw in itself.  The flaw that I was talking about was creating something that is fallible enough to be subject to testing at all.  Why would God create such a thing?

I know that this was discussed ages ago but you raised some interesting points that I wanted to think about, and then once thought about I could see no reason than to share them

I can think of a couple of potential reasons:
- tests are learning exercises: so the point of the test could include Adam and Eve experiencing the test and learning from it
- that the tests, including the failing were part of a larger purpose that was not focussed on how we think the world should be run: this included the redemption of man and God becoming human.

Could this have been done another way?  I don't know, that's above my pay grade. 

QuoteYou bring up and excellent point.  God, being omnipotent and omniscient, would never need to bother with this whole creation thing at all.  He's know from his first conception of thought on the matter just exactly how things would play out.  Why even begin?

So, you're telling us that God, despite knowing all the possible outcomes beforehand, went ahead and created a universe including a man and a woman that were susceptible to lies, and also created a lying snake fully equipped with the very lies that, when presented to the man and the woman, would inescapably lead to the Fall.

I can imagine that God didn't need to bother running a real experiment rather than just thinking a thought experiment.  But given that he wanted to bother I expect that there was a good reason.  Perhaps because he wanted to create people, and he wanted them to have actual experiences, rather then him just knowing what would happen.  I think there's a significant difference between running a thought experiment and actually doing it.  For me it means the difference between being created and living and just being imagined.  That's pretty significant isn't it?

(Alternately maybe you're right and this is all just a part of his thought experiment.  How would we tell?)

And the other factor that needs to be included in the analysis is that there's more to God's plan than just us sitting the test and failing. 

Quote
I think the only way we can look at this rationally is to remove God's omniscience.  Would that be fair?

Not at all.  I think a better way would be to look at all relevant information rather than just isolated facts.  I think its unfair to judge anyone based on 1 item in their plan and how it affects us without looking at the overall purpose, especially when we know there is much more to the plan and it has concerns other than us, our values and desires.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 26, 2017, 11:44AMOkay, so which one erases responsibility for having already done a given thing?
 He's accountable for the fact he did the deed. That isn't somehow erased because no one can punish him or impose any kind of sanction on him. He did the deed = he's responsible for having done the deed.

I think Yahweh was responsible for creating the world in both senses, he was given the task by Gof (The Father in NT terms) but has control of the process and has accountability to God (The Father) for it.  So he is accountable to God (The Father) for it.  His assessment was that it was very good.  I know you and many others disagree with that assessment but Yahweh is not responsible to you for his actions, just to God.

Quote He also allegedly created them with the option of acting morally or not. By choice. Intentionally. His call. Would you say we're somehow responsible for being created this way? Even we know that we have to sleep in the bed we make ... eh? Getting all upset and "punishing" things we create because they don't function the way we want is known as infantile behavior among human adults. We can just decide to believe that's true of humans, but God throws only righteous and enlightened tantrums, and also only "holds his creations accountable" in love and kindness and all that. It's a really tough sell if you haven't gotten the subject to also ingest the intellectual enzyme required to get that one into the mind though.

I wouldn't say that we are responsible for the way we're created, for being able to make moral choices, we are responsible for making the choices that we do.  And he's responsible for setting it all up and getting it to where he wants it.

Do you think that the choices you make are your responsibility.  If that's the case then you actually agree with the bible and not your own logic. 

Fortunately I don't have to 'sell' the concept.  I get to explain it and God does the converting.

I don't think the sleeping/bed analogy fits very well but God is still involved and working with his creation, subjecting it to his will and bringing it the the goal he has set.  Dieing on the cross is a big example of God "sleeping in his bed" and making a personal sacrifice to bring his creation to the goal he has for it.

Quote
Here's an example of one problem that I'd argue doesn't get through the aforementioned filter without the aforementioned intellectual enzyme:
"Holds them accountable", according to the traditional view, is an epically sterilized euphemism for torture them mercilessly for eternity with no possible reprieve for not being perfect/up to his alleged par. I think that somewhat changes how the assessment goes--changes it from a perfectly reasonable correction, to the absolute most heinous and brutal and monstrous and extreme response. "Harsh" can't cut it no matter what the modifier. Evil may get there. More importantly, if you can actually sell it to people (best to do so when they're too young or naive or just ignorant, like even intelligent Bronze Age types) it works really well to terrorize them into falling in line and selling the notion to other people, because as a highly social species that's also highly intelligent (at least as intelligent terrestrial species go) we empathize with each other and proactively strive for the well-being of the herd, so to speak. So this is an ideal meme to undercut who we are--our strengths--and to use them against us. It was just a matter of time before we started using this meme, and almost immediately, once let loose, it would self-perpetuate. Doesn't work so well for creating a god worthy of anything but the deepest contempt though, so you have to sell the targets on self-worthlessness, but only initially, because once the meme is absorbed people will of course be desperate to ensure their own don't befall this absolute and ultimate and eternal and literal hellish fate.

I'm not convinced biblically by the traditional view of hell and definitely not of its characterisation as a Dante's Inferno.

It seems to me that hell/sheol would be the place where the non-believers are going to spend their afterlife with each other. The only "torture" would be getting to live with each other separate from God and his providence.  Rumour has it that the gate won't even be locked.  The inhabitants just won't want to leave because its the only place where God isn't.  You'll be able to listen to Dawkins talk every night and discuss the merits of not having to listen to harps.

So if you're characterisation of our race is "as a highly social species that's also highly intelligent (at least as intelligent terrestrial species go) we empathize with each other and proactively strive for the well-being of the herd" then you will have nothing to worry about.  Hell will be a paradise and you will get eternity without any christians to annoy you. 

But if you're wrong in your assessment of people and they are really like what God says they are, then it will be hellish.  But you'd still get to hang out with your mates, just as they really are.

[ttf_Piano man]

John the Theologian:

I read this today in an article that was primarily about music, but this passage jumped out at me. It's the indie rock oddball Father John Misty visiting his Christian College and discussing his lapsed (or probably never-existent) faith.

Quote“More multicultural than when I was here, but it’s basically the same ‘Breakfast Club’ demographic,” he observed. “The ones you really gotta look out for are the fetishists of the individual. The ones with the pierced noses and dyed hair, the leather jacket or the studded belt. They’ve made the concession to rebellion. They’re the ones who go on to become pastors. They’re the real little monsters.” He kept going, in a kind of stage whisper, “Here’s the thing that drove me insane: what is it about Christianity, or this version of it, that is so compatible with late-era capitalism, the cult of the self, the commercial-humanist idea of individuality? Christianity is an adaptable avatar for these social movements. It’s very good at resembling the scenery.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/father-john-mistys-quest-to-explain-himself

 It occurred to me as I read it that he had the same concerns about Christianity as a non-believer that you have as a believer--that the hard and fast theology of the actual Bible ends up being rounded off into convenient and socially useful forms. I relate to your frustration with political (and religious) liberals who say, "Jesus' main message is to love one another" but don't have any real curiosity about actual theology. The extreme versions of this were the OT passages that were used to justify slavery and miscegenation laws, or the 'prosperity gospel', or the "Jesus Freaks" of the 70s who emphasized the personal and experiential, essentially being hippies whose desire for drugs was sublimated into a slightly shabby version of Christianity.

What interests me here is something I've suspected all along, and that you and BillO have been dancing around--is there a possibility for meaningful religious discussion and critique between Christians and non-believers? Maybe this is a good example of how it would work.

[ttf_drizabone]

Hi PM

I read the article - skimmed it really - and don't really understand how it relates to us having a better discussion.  I expect that is my fault and I'll get it if you explain it.  Or maybe its because I don't know the culture that he is describing well enough to understand the connection.

From my perspective one problem that I see in our discussions is that we seem to be talk past each other: eg assuming we know what the other person's thinks or using similar words with different meanings.  BillO is making a valiant effort to get over that that by getting an agreed definition of God.  Although I wouldn't be surprised if he's losing hope in getting anywhere there.

But I am keen to work out how we can have better dialogs.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 01:11 AMHi PM

I read the article - skimmed it really - and don't really understand how it relates to us having a better discussion.  I expect that is my fault and I'll get it if you explain it.  Or maybe its because I don't know the culture that he is describing well enough to understand the connection.

To be very specific, it's just the part I quoted that pertained to the discussion. I put the link in out of habit.

My thought is that the musician in the article, who's not a Christian, was making a similar criticism that JtT had made--that non-theologians want to put the gospels to one sociopolitical use or another (to "resemble the scenery", as he puts it) and make Christianity more pliable than it was intended to be. My interpretations of John's posts is that he is frustrated with a sort of 'touchy-feely' interpretation of Christianity that isn't rigorous with respect to theology, and the criticism from the non-believer in the article reminded me of that a little.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 01:43 AMTo be very specific, it's just the part I quoted that pertained to the discussion. I put the link in out of habit.

My thought is that the musician in the article, who's not a Christian, was making a similar criticism that JtT had made--that non-theologians want to put the gospels to one sociopolitical use or another (to "resemble the scenery", as he puts it) and make Christianity more pliable than it was intended to be. My interpretations of John's posts is that he is frustrated with a sort of 'touchy-feely' interpretation of Christianity that isn't rigorous with respect to theology, and the criticism from the non-believer in the article reminded me of that a little.

I guess I'm a bit like Martin (Drizabone) in that I don't really quite get the application of the article.  An interesting story of a cultural rebel and I can understand very much some of his criticisms of the pop-evangelical sub-culture.  Many in my conservative Christian circles have made similar critiques from the inside.

I do agree with your take on some of my complaints about a 'touchy-feely" interpretation of Christianity.  That's part of it.  The other part is that some seem to argue that you can take the historic Christian faith and with just a little bit of "tweaking" you can "modernize" it so that contemporary culture will find it very compatible.  My understanding on that is that is when the "modernizers' are done with it, not much resembles historic, orthodox Christianity, the same critique that the founder of my denomination, J. Gresham Machen wrote in his classic, Christianity and Liberalism in the 1920s during the so-called Fundamentalist-Modernist crisis.

As I mentioned before Machen was not your typical fundamentalist.  He didn't go for crazy end-times speculations and was an opponent of prohibition.  Yet he argued for a thoroughly supernatural version of the Christian faith and said that what the so-called liberal theologians were offering was a different religion, not really Christianity.

In other words, he liked his whiskey straight and his coffee black.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 01:43 AMTo be very specific, it's just the part I quoted that pertained to the discussion. I put the link in out of habit.

My thought is that the musician in the article, who's not a Christian, was making a similar criticism that JtT had made--that non-theologians want to put the gospels to one sociopolitical use or another (to "resemble the scenery", as he puts it) and make Christianity more pliable than it was intended to be. My interpretations of John's posts is that he is frustrated with a sort of 'touchy-feely' interpretation of Christianity that isn't rigorous with respect to theology, and the criticism from the non-believer in the article reminded me of that a little.

The attempted adaptiveness of christianity has a long, storied history.

Something that constantly comes to mind when I hear priests talk about how great the church is or pastors use the bible to justify their hatred of others...

It was the church that Jesus came to save that killed him. Why? They didn't like His message. And they continued to preach their own.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 06:22 AM

The other part is that some seem to argue that you can take the historic Christian faith and with just a little bit of "tweaking" you can "modernize" it so that contemporary culture will find it very compatible.  My understanding on that is that is when the "modernizers' are done with it, not much resembles historic, orthodox Christianity,
I agree with that, but I'm not sure it's either solvable or a problem.  What you are calling orthodox Christianity does not resemble some of the modern versions, either the liberal ones or I would suggest some of the more fundamental ones.  Neither does it resemble what NT era disciples practiced, nor what OT Judaism believed. 

If there is an underlying truth, it isn't necessarily fixed to a time period. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 07:52 AMI agree with that, but I'm not sure it's either solvable or a problem.  What you are calling orthodox Christianity does not resemble some of the modern versions, either the liberal ones or I would suggest some of the more fundamental ones.  Neither does it resemble what NT era disciples practiced, nor what OT Judaism believed. 

If there is an underlying truth, it isn't necessarily fixed to a time period. 

I believe that we have some fundamental differences there, but to work those out would require a lot of digging into biblical texts, patristics, etc.

BTW, here's the most recent scholarly work that argues for the fundamental continuity of the early church with core orthodoxy if you're interested in pursuing it. The so-called Bauer thesis that the early church was a giant hodge-podge of beliefs with no recognizable orthodoxy has been around for quite a while and was a topic of discussion in my graduate studies.  It has been strongly critiqued before, but this is the most recent and some would claim best critique.

https://www.amazon.com/Heresy-Orthodoxy-Contemporary-Understanding-Christianity/dp/1433501430

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 06:22 AMI guess I'm a bit like Martin (Drizabone) in that I don't really quite get the application of the article.  An interesting story of a cultural rebel and I can understand very much some of his criticisms of the pop-evangelical sub-culture.  Many in my conservative Christian circles have made similar critiques from the inside.

Again, the application was only in the section I cited. I'm surprised you 'don't quite get' the relevance, because you summed it up in the second and third sentences. I found it interesting that the non-believer in the article had a similar criticism of 'modern' Christianity to yours.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 09:16 AMAgain, the application was only in the section I cited. I'm surprised you 'don't quite get' the relevance, because you summed it up in the second and third sentences. I found it interesting that the non-believer in the article had a similar criticism of 'modern' Christianity to yours.

I thought you wanted me to see more.

Glad I got the main point you wanted me to see.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 09:21 AMI thought you wanted me to see more.


I did indeed. It wouldn't have occurred to me that 'orthodox' Christianity was insufficiently pure--I always assumed that it was the high-test stuff.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 09:26 AMI did indeed. It wouldn't have occurred to me that 'orthodox' Christianity was insufficiently pure--I always assumed that it was the high-test stuff.


'Orthodox" Christianity is a big tent if you define it by those who hold the basics of the faith such as those defined by the Apostles' and/or Nicene Creed or some modern broad statement such as that of the National Association of Evangelicals.  A large number of Christians today are "orthodox" by such definitions but they mix in a lot of "stuff" from the culture or even the evangelical sub-cultures that have developed over the years that do make it "less than pure" if we want to use that term.  Not a new problem, but rather one that the church has struggled with since its beginning.

As I might have mentioned before, one of my favorite theologians, British turned Canadian Anglican theologian J. I Packer says that the job of the theologian is to help ensure a pure water supply to the sheep and sometimes the sheep really try to muddy the water up.

[ttf_Piano man]

Here's that New Yorker article about St. Augustine.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/how-st-augustine-invented-sex

Here's the passage on St. Augustine's revival of Genesis:
QuotePagans ridiculed that story as primitive and ethically incoherent. How could a god worthy of respect try to keep humans from the knowledge of good and evil? Jews and Christians of any sophistication preferred not to dwell upon it or distanced themselves by treating it as an allegory. For Philo, a Greek-speaking Jew in first-century Alexandria, the first human—the human of the first chapter of Genesis—was not a creature of flesh and blood but a Platonic idea. For Origen, a third-century Christian, Paradise was not a place but a condition of the soul.
The archaic story of the naked man and woman, the talking snake, and the magical trees was something of an embarrassment. It was Augustine who rescued it from the decorous oblivion to which it seemed to be heading. He bears principal responsibility for its prominence, including the fact that four in ten Americans today profess to believe in its literal truth. During the more than forty years that succeeded his momentous conversion—years of endless controversy and the wielding of power and feverish writing—he persuaded himself that it was no mere fable or myth. It was the key to everything.
This is the section on the effect of the Fall on human sexuality:
QuoteBut what was the alternative that they—and we—lost forever? How, specifically, were they meant to reproduce, if it was not in the way that all humans have done for as long as anyone can remember? In Paradise, Augustine argued, Adam and Eve would have had sex without involuntary arousal: “They would not have had the activity of turbulent lust in their flesh, however, but only the movement of peaceful will by which we command the other members of the body.” Without feeling any passion—without sensing that strange goad—“the husband would have relaxed on his wife’s bosom in tranquility of mind.”
I realize the article's in a popular magazine and for a general audience, not a scholarly one, but I found it interesting. Apparently Augustine was quite a horndog, and frustrated by his own 'concupiscence.'

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 10:44 AMHere's that New Yorker article about St. Augustine.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/how-st-augustine-invented-sex

Here's the passage on St. Augustine's revival of Genesis:
This is the section on the effect of the Fall on human sexuality:
I realize the article's in a popular magazine and for a general audience, not a scholarly one, but I found it interesting. Apparently Augustine was quite a horndog, and frustrated by his own 'concupiscence.'

Thanks.  Sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

Philo was very Platonic thinking Hellenistic Jew who allegorized a lot of Scripture.  The main thing you can say about Origen is that as a Christian theologian he really marched to his own drummer.  While considered orthodox on some things, he followed some trajectories that few have followed.

Augustine did emphasize the creation account, but his own interpretation of the creation account was a bit unique.  He argued, for example, that the days of creation were a literary device and that the main creation took place all at once.  He clearly argued for a literal Adam and Eve, but was very skeptical of assigning an age to the date of creation.  Many who would claim to be orthodox have found inspiration in his writings, while others clearly have not.

Yes, sexual issues were big for Augustine, but I don't he's alone in that sense if I understand much of humanity.

Reminds me of what a Christian campus worker once told me.  He said that every time a young freshman in his Christian campus group came to him and said that he was beginning to have "troubles" with the Christian faith, that worker would ask this question:  "and who are you sleeping with now?"  The campus worker said 9 times out of 10 he got a surprised look and a response of "how did you know?"

[ttf_robcat2075]

QuoteAdam and Eve would have had sex without involuntary arousal: “They would not have had the activity of turbulent lust in their flesh”... Without feeling any passion—without sensing that strange goad—
So basically, they would have skipped ahead to what sex is like after 20 years of marriage.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: robcat2075 on Yesterday at 11:00 AMSo basically, they would have skipped ahead to what sex is like after 20 years of marriage.

I'll throw in the next paragraph, mostly for fun:

QuoteHow would this have been possible, the Pelagians asked, if the bodies of Adam and Eve were substantially the same as our bodies? Just consider, Augustine replied, that even now, in our current condition, some people can do things with their bodies that others find impossible. “Some people can even move their ears, either one at a time or both together.” Others, as he personally had witnessed, could sweat whenever they chose, and there were even people who could “produce at will such musical sounds from their behind (without any stink) that they seem to be singing from that region.” So why should we not imagine that Adam, in his uncorrupted state, could have quietly willed his penis to stiffen, just enough to enter Eve? It all would have been so calm that the seed could have been “dispatched into the womb, with no loss of the wife’s integrity, just as the menstrual flux can now be produced from the womb of a virgin without loss of maidenhead.” And for the man, too, there would have been “no impairment of his body’s integrity.”

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 07:57 AM

BTW, here's the most recent scholarly work that argues for the fundamental continuity of the early church with core orthodoxy if you're interested in pursuing it. The so-called Bauer thesis that the early church was a giant hodge-podge of beliefs with no recognizable orthodoxy has been around for quite a while and was a topic of discussion in my graduate studies.  It has been strongly critiqued before, but this is the most recent and some would claim best critique.

https://www.amazon.com/Heresy-Orthodoxy-Contemporary-Understanding-Christianity/dp/1433501430

Obviously I haven't read the book itself.  I did read the blurb on Amazon and several of the reviews.  The blurb describes analysis of the New Testament.  I find that a bit troubling - we're going to ignore the other 16 gospels, the Essenes, and the Gnostics, and declare Christianity monolithic from the beginning?  Actually it isn't that easy to get a consistent theology from the four canonical gospels. 

I'm sure you are aware of the Baptist claim that they existed from the very beginning, overshadowed a bit by the success of the Roman Catholic heresies but never influenced by them, coexisting under the radar the entire time. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 11:41 AMObviously I haven't read the book itself.  I did read the blurb on Amazon and several of the reviews.  The blurb describes analysis of the New Testament.  I find that a bit troubling - we're going to ignore the other 16 gospels, the Essenes, and the Gnostics, and declare Christianity monolithic from the beginning?  Actually it isn't that easy to get a consistent theology from the four canonical gospels. 

I'm sure you are aware of the Baptist claim that they existed from the very beginning, overshadowed a bit by the success of the Roman Catholic heresies but never influenced by them, coexisting under the radar the entire time. 

If you are talking about the so-called Landmark Baptist-- i.e Trail of Blood-- POV, yes, I've heard of them and read a bit of their stuff, but I know that the majority of orthodox Baptists would argue that it is a wrong claim and rightly see that the modern Baptist movement is a development out of Anglo-American Puritanism.  In fact the best refutations of that POV are by orthodox Baptists.

Kostenberger and Kruger are aware of the Pagels, et al claim about the Gnostic gospels, etc.-- all traditional Christians scholars are-- and they have been discussed.  I'm not sure how much they discuss it in this book but Kruger is an expert on the issue of canonicity and has discussed it in his book on the canon and will discuss it I'm sure in his soon-to-be-published book on Christianity in the 2nd century.

Here's a link so that you can keep up with what the orthodox scholars are doing.  It might surprise you that their research is far more extensive and aware than you have thought.

https://michaeljkruger.com/books/

https://michaeljkruger.com/about/

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Read the article in the New Yorker on Augustine.  Overall, pretty insightful and only occasionally comes close to lapsing in into armchair psychologist, which is a temptation for everyone who reads Augustine.  I think perhaps the author overstates a bit that all educated early Christians were embarrassed by the Genesis accounts-- cf. my earlier reference to the key theologian, Irenaeus-- but overall a fair and interesting article

BTW, Tim's friends, the Gnostics, with their Platonic worldview, often saw all material things as evil, so they sometimes argued that the body was so inherently corrupt that it didn't matter what it did anyway as long as the "pure" soul was allowed to escape it.

Irenaeus spilled a lot of his ink refuting what he considered the serious errors of the Gnostics in his work, Adversus Haereses  I don't think I need to translate that title for most of you.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Some reviews of the Kostenburger book:

https://diglotting.com/2011/06/29/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-i/

https://diglotting.com/2011/06/30/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-ii/

https://diglotting.com/2011/07/01/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-iii/

These make sense to me, based on some of the other material I've read.  In part II he quotes Kostenburger as saying you can only do historical analysis if you assume the supernatural first, and that the canon was selected not by the church but directly by the Holy Spirit.  

In particular I think the fact that of the gospels only John is unambiguous about the deity of Jesus points to a lack of a cohesive orthodoxy early in the church.  

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:29 PM
In particular I think the fact that of the gospels only John is unambiguous about the deity of Jesus points to a lack of a cohesive orthodoxy early in the church.  

I disagree with you on the claim about John's gospel. Would take a bit to hammer that out with you, I think, but we can go there if you want.

What I do find interesting is that the Bauckham book that I mentioned yesterday claims that it is John's gospel that is the one that is the most clearly showing itself to be based on eyewitness testimony.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:29 PMSome reviews of the Kostenburger book:

https://diglotting.com/2011/06/29/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-i/

https://diglotting.com/2011/06/30/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-ii/

https://diglotting.com/2011/07/01/review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-part-iii/

These make sense to me, based on some of the other material I've read.  In part II he quotes Kostenburger as saying you can only do historical analysis if you assume the supernatural first, and that the canon was selected not by the church but directly by the Holy Spirit.  

In particular I think the fact that of the gospels only John is unambiguous about the deity of Jesus points to a lack of a cohesive orthodoxy early in the church.  

Glanced over the reviews he sent me.  Yes, the author disagrees with K and K's claims about a supernatural starting point, but overall his review was far more appreciative of them than I had expected you to send to me.  In fact he admits Bauer got a number of things wrong and that Ehrman who is a follower of Bauer is quite wrong on a number of issues, especially textual criticism. I do appreciate that he gave them a "fair" read from his perspective, because sometimes that is lacking.  I personally think Ehrman is so reacting to his conservative upbringing that he often doesn't give conservative scholarship a "fair read."

[ttf_robcat2075]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 11:31 AMI'll throw in the next paragraph, mostly for fun:


Someone should send the snake a fruit basket for torpedoing that plan.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMI wouldn't say that we are responsible for the way we're created, for being able to make moral choices, we are responsible for making the choices that we do.  And he's responsible for setting it all up and getting it to where he wants it.The ability to make moral choices is the way we were created according to the Creator model though. How can you separate that special case out?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMDo you think that the choices you make are your responsibility.  If that's the case then you actually agree with the bible and not your own logic.You should probably show your work on that one.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMI don't think the sleeping/bed analogy fits very well but God is still involved and working with his creation, subjecting it to his will and bringing it the the goal he has set.And, allegedly, punishing his creations eternally for not overcoming the way he created them ... or will be, or whatever you believe about that ... if anything specific or definite (don't want to put words under your fingers).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMDieing on the cross is a big example of God "sleeping in his bed" and making a personal sacrifice to bring his creation to the goal he has for it.Apparently that didn't take though ... eh? Turned out to be more of an extreme, three day flu. The beating and hanging parts would certainly have sucked pretty seriously though--can't just ignore that. But the "dying" part is hardly a sacrifice to a god who can't actually die--eh?
 
By the way. I think perhaps the best illustration of that is when Aslan "dies" in The Chronicles of Narnia ... he dies, all are terribly sad, and then he gets right back up.
 
At any rate belief is also a rather bizarre and highly questionable way to decide who merits living in bliss vs. who suffers unbearable pain for eternity--almost like Bronze Age types came up with it, or maybe somewhat later types who decided to use the biggest stick they could find to get people into the fold for whatever ends. It's getting more and more important to get that stick sold to children, before they have the apparatus and tools to really consider the veracity of the info they assimilate and internalize though. But that's getting to be a less popular notion of Hell--good to know we're making that progress (not at all surprised you're onto that).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMI'm not convinced biblically by the traditional view of hell and definitely not of its characterisation as a Dante's Inferno.Yeah, that's kind of an important question.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMIt seems to me that hell/sheol would be the place where the non-believers are going to spend their afterlife with each other. The only "torture" would be getting to live with each other separate from God and his providence.  Rumour has it that the gate won't even be locked.  The inhabitants just won't want to leave because its the only place where God isn't.  You'll be able to listen to Dawkins talk every night and discuss the merits of not having to listen to harps. So if you're characterisation of our race is "as a highly social species that's also highly intelligent (at least as intelligent terrestrial species go) we empathize with each other and proactively strive for the well-being of the herd" then you will have nothing to worry about.  Hell will be a paradise and you will get eternity without any christians to annoy you.As I expect you've heard it said--Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company ... heh.
 
As much as I miss the climate back home in Petaluma (it's described as very Mediterranean), I'm definitely much more a people person.
 
Besides just not buying any of this of course (I'd miss my entire family in Hell according to this version, but of course I'm not real worried about all that--actual death sucks quite badly enough ... which suggests a relatively convenient out, if sellable, would be a pretty big success, eh?).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 29, 2017, 09:38PMBut if you're wrong in your assessment of people and they are really like what God says they are, then it will be hellish.  But you'd still get to hang out with your mates, just as they really are.I'd say people are the way they actually are, and we're improving ... very slowly, although it seems to be accelerating (not sure about that though).

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 02, 2017, 05:25PMThe ability to make moral choices is the way we were created according to the Creator model though. How can you separate that special case out?
I don't think we have a "special case".  I'm saying that :
1. God gave us the ability to make moral choices (good and bad) and tells us to make good ones.
2. He holds us accountable for the choices we make (thus making us responsible for our choices).

My point is that we are validly accountable for our choices because we make them voluntarily, they are the choices that we want to make.

How is that a special case?

I think that your argument is that
1. because God gave us the ability to make moral choices then
2. he shouldn't or can't decide to hold us accountable for those choices.

Is this right?


Quote You should probably show your work on that one.

(this refers to my statement "Do you think that the choices you make are your responsibility.  If that's the case then you actually agree with the bible and not your own logic.")

It seems to me that you do hold people as being responsible for specific choices and that implies that you think that they are in principle responsible for their choices. Which is the biblical position.

1. we agree that people are (in general) responsible for the choices that they make,
2. Looking at some specific examples we do this when we credit people for their acheivements and hard work and good trombone playing (society doesn't normally credit God for this)
3. we hold them responsible when they murder, abuse choldren, are corrupt, aren't honest ... (or this)
4. so in these specifics we hold people responsible for their actions and choices
5. that should prevent you from arguing that, in principle, we can't be held responsible for our choices. 

That's probably redundant and imprecise but that's what I'm thinking.  Feel free to tighten up my logic.


Quote Apparently that didn't take though ... eh? Turned out to be more of an extreme, three day flu. The beating and hanging parts would certainly have sucked pretty seriously though--can't just ignore that. But the "dying" part is hardly a sacrifice to a god who can't actually die--eh?

I'd be speculating because I don't know what it would be like for a God to die.  I don't even know what it would be like for a person to die, but I think that would be the correct comparison because Jesus was human as well as God.  But one thing that would have been significant from his God-nature would ahve been the separation from God The Father who he had had a loving relationship with for all of his existence.  This is a trinitarian consideration so not possibly not on your list of concerns.  But the physical suffering was pretty extreme too.
 
QuoteAt any rate belief is also a rather bizarre and highly questionable way to decide who merits living in bliss vs. who suffers unbearable pain for eternity ...

Its faith aka trust in God that is the determining factor not belief (in the existence of God).

And trust is still considered valuable in this day and age isn't it?

QuoteIt's getting more and more important to get that stick sold to children, before they have the apparatus and tools to really consider the veracity of the info they assimilate and internalize though.

Most kids are quite happy rejecting what they are taught at Sunday School and choosing more fun with their friends.

QuoteBut that's getting to be a less popular notion of Hell--good to know we're making that progress (not at all surprised you're onto that).

Its still the general understanding in the orthodox/conservative side.  I go for annihilation, but its very much in the minority.

QuoteBesides just not buying any of this of course (I'd miss my entire family in Hell according to this version, but of course I'm not real worried about all that--actual death sucks quite badly enough ... which suggests a relatively convenient out, if sellable, would be a pretty big success, eh?).
 I'd say people are the way they actually are, and we're improving ... very slowly, although it seems to be accelerating (not sure about that though).

What fun another contrast.  Who was right? Golding: Lord of the Flies or Ballantyne: The Coral island?  My answer could be considered ironic given that The Coral Island extolled the virtues of the influence of Christianity.

I'd say people are really the way they actually are when there are no consequences to their actions and they think that they are anonymous.  Sounds like the internet.  Trolls anybody?  Piracy? Porn? Pedantry?

How about we get some data on whether people are improving? I guess you mean morally?  Can we measure the quality of the leaders they choose? Obviously some countries are improving more then others?

I'm interested in what might be driving this improvement?  I guess it would have to be evolutionary.  What pressures would be causing that?  How would that increase the chance of the improved models surviving?  Nicer people have more babies?  How do you measure the improvement? 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PMI don't think we have a "special case".  I'm saying that :
1. God gave us the ability to make moral choices (good and bad) and tells us to make good ones.
2. He holds us accountable for the choices we make (thus making us responsible for our choices).

My point is that we are validly accountable for our choices because we make them voluntarily, they are the choices that we want to make.

How is that a special case?

I think that your argument is that
1. because God gave us the ability to make moral choices then
2. he shouldn't or can't decide to hold us accountable for those choices.

Is this right?Not quite. I think the catches are "accountability" and the fact that your understanding doesn't include the rather extremely problematic element of ultimate, eternal punishment (unless I'm mistaken it does still seem to include punishment though, which is still problematic). That's not a problem, but a loving parent figure doesn't punish for errors for which the parent is actually responsible in some way. A loving parent corrects such errors, absolutely, but not with punishment, and certainly not with harsh punishment, much less the most extreme, harsh and extended punishment Bronze Age types would have found compelling.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PM(this refers to my statement "Do you think that the choices you make are your responsibility.  If that's the case then you actually agree with the bible and not your own logic.")

It seems to me that you do hold people as being responsible for specific choices and that implies that you think that they are in principle responsible for their choices. Which is the biblical position.

1. we agree that people are (in general) responsible for the choices that they make,
2. Looking at some specific examples we do this when we credit people for their acheivements and hard work and good trombone playing (society doesn't normally credit God for this)
3. we hold them responsible when they murder, abuse choldren, are corrupt, aren't honest ... (or this)
4. so in these specifics we hold people responsible for their actions and choices
5. that should prevent you from arguing that, in principle, we can't be held responsible for our choices. 

That's probably redundant and imprecise but that's what I'm thinking.  Feel free to tighten up my logic.You seem to be forgetting a rather important detail ... I don't think a god created us. That's the problem with the theistic formula of creation and punishment, not that we're actually responsible and accountable for our actions.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PMI'd be speculating because I don't know what it would be like for a God to die.  I don't even know what it would be like for a person to die, but I think that would be the correct comparison because Jesus was human as well as God.  But one thing that would have been significant from his God-nature would ahve been the separation from God The Father who he had had a loving relationship with for all of his existence.  This is a trinitarian consideration so not possibly not on your list of concerns.  But the physical suffering was pretty extreme too.
 
 --
 
Its faith aka trust in God that is the determining factor not belief (in the existence of God).I don't think you can separate the two. It's faith that allows for this belief (and/or early, pre-developed meme filtration programming, in which case I guess faith is still the key factor, just retroactive).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PMMost kids are quite happy rejecting what they are taught at Sunday School and choosing more fun with their friends.I'm talking about socialization--could well be that it's nothing at all in your neck of the woods like it is in the US, and probably most of the West.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PMHow about we get some data on whether people are improving? I guess you mean morally?  Can we measure the quality of the leaders they choose? Obviously some countries are improving more then others? We can measure violence and crime that produces victims, and we're doing far better than we have historically on both counts, but I'm not sure we can get beyond that sort of crude metric without major problems with any real consensus.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 02, 2017, 09:39PMI'm interested in what might be driving this improvement?  I guess it would have to be evolutionary.  What pressures would be causing that?  How would that increase the chance of the improved models surviving?  Nicer people have more babies?  How do you measure the improvement?It's kinda sketchy to go with evolution on this one, unless you mean that in the general/descriptive sense rather than applying the actual theory. As a social species our nature is to get along. We're also the smartest social species we know of as yet, so it seems we should expect to get better at it over time, though with plenty of fluctuation along the way.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 03, 2017, 02:10PMNot quite. I think the catches are "accountability" and the fact that your understanding doesn't include the rather extremely problematic element of ultimate, eternal punishment (unless I'm mistaken it does still seem to include punishment though, which is still problematic). That's not a problem, but a loving parent figure doesn't punish for errors for which the parent is actually responsible in some way. A loving parent corrects such errors, absolutely, but not with punishment, and certainly not with harsh punishment, much less the most extreme, harsh and extended punishment Bronze Age types would have found compelling.

I agree possibly.  Eternal conscious punishment doesn't seem to fit with my concept of God's character.  And I'm not convinced that we are innately immortal either.

But on the other hand, the sentence to hell is not given for lacking faith its given for sin.  Faith gets you out of the sentence.
 
QuoteYou seem to be forgetting a rather important detail ... I don't think a god created us. That's the problem with the theistic formula of creation and punishment, not that we're actually responsible and accountable for our actions.

No actually I thought about it.  My point is that we hold people responsible for their choices regardless of our belief or not in God.  Therefore belief in God doesn't matter to the hypothesis.

Quote I don't think you can separate the two. It's faith that allows for this belief (and/or early, pre-developed meme filtration programming, in which case I guess faith is still the key factor, just retroactive).

I think you need to believe that God is, before you can trust him.

And I know people that believe that God is and don't trust him.


Quote It's kinda sketchy to go with evolution on this one, unless you mean that in the general/descriptive sense rather than applying the actual theory. As a social species our nature is to get along. We're also the smartest social species we know of as yet, so it seems we should expect to get better at it over time, though with plenty of fluctuation along the way.

So you're saying that we're learning to behave better, to higher standards. Is that right?

I'm not sure that human nature is always 'to get along'.  The record of history is that our nature involves lots of not getting along too.  Aren't they both survival mechanisms?  We get along with our tribe in order to survive better, and fight with other tribes to maximise our tribes chance of success?

So if it came to a crisis: would our survival instinct over-ride our learned niceness?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

See Langdon Gilkey's Shantung Compound for a very interesting study of how people's survival instinct can cause them to go against their stated moral codes.  It's an account of a very heterogeneous group in WWII internment camp.

Here's a link:

https://www.amazon.com/Shantung-Compound-Story-Women-Pressure/dp/0060631120