Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 24, 2017, 05:19PMI think you are well aware of the traditional Christian understanding of the Fall. Do you want to discuss that here?
I'm not opposed, but the only aspect of that which is relevant to my comment is where it attempts to explain how the creation is reasonably to be held responsible for its nature as 100% the product of an omnipotent creator (or a creator of limited omnipotence ... not to worry about the oxymoronic nature of the modifier on that one--that's a linguistic problem, not a theological one--unless the believer insists upon omnipotence being a characteristic of God).
Religion Matters: Take 3
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Piano man on Jun 24, 2017, 05:26PMSure you can give thousands of examples. If you want to sow discord, you'll pick thousands of discordant examples and pretend they're typical.
I'm an atheist, but I grew up in the church and I love religious music. The atheist billboarders are indeed like the Westboro churchgoers in one respect---they aren't typical. Both are to some extent assaulting other people with their views (as do other political and religious groups who post billboards), but I think it's a lesser assault to look at a billboard during your commute than to weather the disruption of your child's funeral.
What's the point of discussing religion with JtT? He knows more about it than I do, and I learn from him. His perspective on the politically progressive roots of the Scopes Monkey Trial prosecution is something I should have known and didn't. The article he posted demonstrating that it's hard and sometimes impossible to isolate religious motives for violence was well-argued. He's clarified for me the difference, and the complicated relationship, between religious and political conservatism.
If you're on the thread only to get mad at BvB and to exclude non-believers you'll miss out on a lot of good discussion.
I post what I mean to say and ask. Nothing more. And frankly I didn't care if you think I'm trying to get anyone mad. That's your opinion and problem. You're not obliged to answer my posts.
Discussing? I think I said arguing. I'm not going to argue rocket science with a rocket scientist. I may discuss things with him but I have no standing to argue with him. BVB writes from a position of authority not on the subject but on the psychoanalysis of the poster. If he were an authority on that then have at it.
And regarding the nutty atheists and nutty Westboro's. They're out there. Except that the nutty atheists have driven some religious underground when it comes to nativity', greetings, sacred music, prayer, etc. because no one wants to pay to defend a lawsuit. Therefore you don't hear of it very often. I know at least two music teachers who are forbidden from having their school choirs sing any sacred music whether it be Christian or whatever. You don't hear about it because they want to keep their jobs.
Non believers should not be excluded. And who said I was mad. I asked a few questions.
I'm an atheist, but I grew up in the church and I love religious music. The atheist billboarders are indeed like the Westboro churchgoers in one respect---they aren't typical. Both are to some extent assaulting other people with their views (as do other political and religious groups who post billboards), but I think it's a lesser assault to look at a billboard during your commute than to weather the disruption of your child's funeral.
What's the point of discussing religion with JtT? He knows more about it than I do, and I learn from him. His perspective on the politically progressive roots of the Scopes Monkey Trial prosecution is something I should have known and didn't. The article he posted demonstrating that it's hard and sometimes impossible to isolate religious motives for violence was well-argued. He's clarified for me the difference, and the complicated relationship, between religious and political conservatism.
If you're on the thread only to get mad at BvB and to exclude non-believers you'll miss out on a lot of good discussion.
I post what I mean to say and ask. Nothing more. And frankly I didn't care if you think I'm trying to get anyone mad. That's your opinion and problem. You're not obliged to answer my posts.
Discussing? I think I said arguing. I'm not going to argue rocket science with a rocket scientist. I may discuss things with him but I have no standing to argue with him. BVB writes from a position of authority not on the subject but on the psychoanalysis of the poster. If he were an authority on that then have at it.
And regarding the nutty atheists and nutty Westboro's. They're out there. Except that the nutty atheists have driven some religious underground when it comes to nativity', greetings, sacred music, prayer, etc. because no one wants to pay to defend a lawsuit. Therefore you don't hear of it very often. I know at least two music teachers who are forbidden from having their school choirs sing any sacred music whether it be Christian or whatever. You don't hear about it because they want to keep their jobs.
Non believers should not be excluded. And who said I was mad. I asked a few questions.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 24, 2017, 02:42PMQuote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 12:32PMYou would never entertain the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction?I was a very genuine and devoted believer up through my mid 20s, so that's pretty clearly false. I've not only entertained the possibility that God is real, I believed it from childhood through a chunk of my adult life.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 12:32PMThat's just as plausible.How are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 24, 2017, 02:42PMHow are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?There's only two possibilities. Either there is a God or there isn't.That there are two (as long as we ignore various versions of many gods) doesn't make them equivalent. For example, the person you last spoke with is either alive or dead. Are those equivalent possibilities? Your car is either going to start when you next try to start it or it's not. Are the odds 50/50 every time we do that? Etc.
But this formulation is really only about atheism vs. pure, unadulterated theism anyway, and that's not really what we're talking about here, is it? When you add a given god or particular characteristics of God, much less a whole religion, that adds a whole lot of complexity to the comparison on the theism side, which is why they're not at all equivalent in practice.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWord's to validate my position?Yes ... what cogitations have you engaged in to arrive at your position? Is it the product of considered analysis, or do the words just seem to sound good as a counterattack against the words I posted?
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI used your words to suggest that you could be wrong as could I.IOW you suggested atheism and theism are equivalent probabilities (or "the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction [is] just as plausible [as that god doesn't exist]"). That's just restating what you already posted, not showing the any rhetorical work behind it.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMTo not give any weight to either is lazy.Couldn't agree more. That's why when you've given weight to both sides of the equation you can show your work. When you haven't you just tend to repeat your talking points because you don't really have any work to show.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMYo say you used to believe and then you didn't. What is the fact that you found that changed your mind? It doesn't exist. That's why it's called faith.Exactly ... heh.
For a very brief nutshell of one point that led me to accept my position on theoaseity (i.e. for as good a starting point as any) you can refer to my recent post to Driz.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhy do atheists attack believers?The real question here is why some believers find the expression of opposing views on religious matters to be attacks while they obviously don't feel at all the same about views that affirm their beliefs--and, quite frankly, why are those particular believers usually so extremely, often intensely, militantly fragile?
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhat's the point? Why does it matter to atheists that many people believe in God?Do you question why people are interested in psychology or sociology or stamp collecting or following sports ... ?
Aside from the obvious personal sensitivity to any disagreement at all on this topic which leads you to question those who disagree with you in ways that you don't question most other interests, I guess you haven't noticed that religious beliefs are kind of important aspects of psychology and sociology, and politics, and relationships, and how we get along with each other ... etc. If you don't understand religion very well, you don't understand most people very well, and as I've pointed out many times in here, I'm a huge fan of my fellow humans ... even my religious fellow humans (and that's a good thing since I'm married to such a beastie).
Is it really so hard to understand how someone could be interested in such a consequential aspect of humanity? Really? I don't think there's really any such mystery--unless you don't understand why anyone would study sociology or psychology or anthropology or linguistics or archaology ...
Here's an explanation of one reason, but it's also a pretty anti-religious angle (or at least a pretty anti-traditional/conservative religious angle), so it may be very provocative to you--sincerely.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI have never attacked an atheist except in response to an attack on my faith."An attack on [your] faith" being the known existence of an atheist (because you wouldn't know an atheist from Adam unless the atheist was so unkind as to reveal the fact that he or she is an atheist, which you would more than likely, if your pattern in here is any indication, perceive as an attack on your faith.
Frankly I think you need to take pause and consider why you're so fragile about this.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhy do atheists participate in religious discussion?Because if you're interested in humans it would be pretty strange if you're not also interested in the major aspects of how humans live and think and behave and all that.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMPost billboards depicting believers as imbeciles?Yeah, that's a solid point. It depends upon which billboards you're talking about, but we probably agree at least in general on this one. Some of those, though, aren't about depicting believers as imbeciles (though even then they still tend to take that basic tack, unfortunately), they're about letting closeted non-believers know they're not alone (imagine if you didn't know of any other believers and your society was overtly and dogmatically atheist--if you can pull off that exercise of empathy it should be pretty clear and quite understandable what's going on in those cases). But I think we agree probably a good bit more on this than you'd likely think ... or possibly be able to perceive.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI stick by my belief that atheists are genuinely concerned that they may be wrong.Of course you do.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI'm not concerned that I may be wrong because there's no consequences to my faith. But there may be consequences to those without faith.So I'm guessing you've never really considered Pascal's Wager then ... ?
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 12:32PMThat's just as plausible.How are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 24, 2017, 02:42PMHow are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?There's only two possibilities. Either there is a God or there isn't.That there are two (as long as we ignore various versions of many gods) doesn't make them equivalent. For example, the person you last spoke with is either alive or dead. Are those equivalent possibilities? Your car is either going to start when you next try to start it or it's not. Are the odds 50/50 every time we do that? Etc.
But this formulation is really only about atheism vs. pure, unadulterated theism anyway, and that's not really what we're talking about here, is it? When you add a given god or particular characteristics of God, much less a whole religion, that adds a whole lot of complexity to the comparison on the theism side, which is why they're not at all equivalent in practice.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWord's to validate my position?Yes ... what cogitations have you engaged in to arrive at your position? Is it the product of considered analysis, or do the words just seem to sound good as a counterattack against the words I posted?
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI used your words to suggest that you could be wrong as could I.IOW you suggested atheism and theism are equivalent probabilities (or "the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction [is] just as plausible [as that god doesn't exist]"). That's just restating what you already posted, not showing the any rhetorical work behind it.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMTo not give any weight to either is lazy.Couldn't agree more. That's why when you've given weight to both sides of the equation you can show your work. When you haven't you just tend to repeat your talking points because you don't really have any work to show.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMYo say you used to believe and then you didn't. What is the fact that you found that changed your mind? It doesn't exist. That's why it's called faith.Exactly ... heh.
For a very brief nutshell of one point that led me to accept my position on theoaseity (i.e. for as good a starting point as any) you can refer to my recent post to Driz.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhy do atheists attack believers?The real question here is why some believers find the expression of opposing views on religious matters to be attacks while they obviously don't feel at all the same about views that affirm their beliefs--and, quite frankly, why are those particular believers usually so extremely, often intensely, militantly fragile?
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhat's the point? Why does it matter to atheists that many people believe in God?Do you question why people are interested in psychology or sociology or stamp collecting or following sports ... ?
Aside from the obvious personal sensitivity to any disagreement at all on this topic which leads you to question those who disagree with you in ways that you don't question most other interests, I guess you haven't noticed that religious beliefs are kind of important aspects of psychology and sociology, and politics, and relationships, and how we get along with each other ... etc. If you don't understand religion very well, you don't understand most people very well, and as I've pointed out many times in here, I'm a huge fan of my fellow humans ... even my religious fellow humans (and that's a good thing since I'm married to such a beastie).
Is it really so hard to understand how someone could be interested in such a consequential aspect of humanity? Really? I don't think there's really any such mystery--unless you don't understand why anyone would study sociology or psychology or anthropology or linguistics or archaology ...
Here's an explanation of one reason, but it's also a pretty anti-religious angle (or at least a pretty anti-traditional/conservative religious angle), so it may be very provocative to you--sincerely.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI have never attacked an atheist except in response to an attack on my faith."An attack on [your] faith" being the known existence of an atheist (because you wouldn't know an atheist from Adam unless the atheist was so unkind as to reveal the fact that he or she is an atheist, which you would more than likely, if your pattern in here is any indication, perceive as an attack on your faith.
Frankly I think you need to take pause and consider why you're so fragile about this.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMWhy do atheists participate in religious discussion?Because if you're interested in humans it would be pretty strange if you're not also interested in the major aspects of how humans live and think and behave and all that.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMPost billboards depicting believers as imbeciles?Yeah, that's a solid point. It depends upon which billboards you're talking about, but we probably agree at least in general on this one. Some of those, though, aren't about depicting believers as imbeciles (though even then they still tend to take that basic tack, unfortunately), they're about letting closeted non-believers know they're not alone (imagine if you didn't know of any other believers and your society was overtly and dogmatically atheist--if you can pull off that exercise of empathy it should be pretty clear and quite understandable what's going on in those cases). But I think we agree probably a good bit more on this than you'd likely think ... or possibly be able to perceive.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI stick by my belief that atheists are genuinely concerned that they may be wrong.Of course you do.
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 03:20PMI'm not concerned that I may be wrong because there's no consequences to my faith. But there may be consequences to those without faith.So I'm guessing you've never really considered Pascal's Wager then ... ?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
It is likely that I disgree with ronkny's theology as much as with JohnTT's.
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.
How can we get past this? This is not a problem restricted to the forum, but repeats itself every day.
And no, there is absolutely NOT one Christian understanding of the "fall."
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.
How can we get past this? This is not a problem restricted to the forum, but repeats itself every day.
And no, there is absolutely NOT one Christian understanding of the "fall."
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 24, 2017, 07:03PMIt is likely that I disgree with ronkny's theology as much as with JohnTT's.
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.
How can we get past this? This is not a problem restricted to the forum, but repeats itself every day.
And no, there is absolutely NOT one Christian understanding of the "fall."
You really mean that there is any other POV about the Fall besides the traditional Augustinian/Reformed one? (PS that's humor, too)
My mentioning of the Fall was because I really wasn't sure what Byron was asking about.
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.
How can we get past this? This is not a problem restricted to the forum, but repeats itself every day.
And no, there is absolutely NOT one Christian understanding of the "fall."
You really mean that there is any other POV about the Fall besides the traditional Augustinian/Reformed one? (PS that's humor, too)
My mentioning of the Fall was because I really wasn't sure what Byron was asking about.
-
ttf_slide advantage
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 24, 2017, 07:03PMIt is likely that I disgree with ronkny's theology as much as with JohnTT's.
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.....
Rancor? In here? No way.
(both of which are completely wrong) (PS that's humor)
However, JTT seems to be able to discuss differences without rancor, though he may sometimes despair at our stupidity, whereas ronkny et al feels immediately attacked and responds emotionally.....
Rancor? In here? No way.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 24, 2017, 07:57AMI'd like to start a separate thread on God. I'd like to get some some consistent definition that we can all then work from. Something that makes sense.
cool
QuoteAs soon as Adam is created he is forbidden from learning about good and evil.
actually he was told "Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". So nearly the same if you want to be literal. If you want to make a metaphoric interpretation then you will need to justify it. Feel free
And once he had eaten, then the whole situation changed completely. see "The Fall"
How about you point it out when you see the bible prohibit education in the Read the book thread.
QuoteI have to disagree. Verse 12 specifically warns against spending too much effort on learning anything beyond the wisdom of God, and books (preumably non-religious books) are used as the example.
I disagree with your interpretation.
QuoteI'm talking about the Bible. You can barely find a chapter in the Bible where the fear of God is not wielded. In the passage I quoted from Ecclesiastes that is expressed explicitly in verses 13 & 14.
I think that you are exaggerating hugely about the frequency about the warnings about God, but yes it is sensible to fear God who has the power of life and death over us. Its like having signs at the beach warning you of sharks or rips.
QuoteSupposition: If you give all of your life to God, there will be precious else you'll have time for.
I honestly don't know any christian that thinks like that, not even the really devoted ones. I don't think that your supposition is realistic. God is god over all our lives so whatever we do we are supposed to do as a service to God, its not just special christian things that count as.
Colossians 3:23-24
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
So providing you're not doing bad stuff (like don't lie, cheat, steal ...), its mainly about your motivation and the way you do normal stuff that counts. Even talking to you guys on TTF.
QuoteHowever you are not to worry as God will provide the things you need. That sentiment is expressed numerous times in the Bible. Do you need quotes?
God will provide all things we need. But he doesn't work from Maslow's Hierarchy. And even Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his ministry so that he wouldn't have to rely on the generosity of the people he was ministering too.
QuoteIn addition, there are multiple warnings about spending much effort on anything other than the will and word of God lest you be led astray. This usually comes with a verse or 2 about the fear of God and your having to answer to him.
Having said all that, I did admit to my mistaken wording. My real quibble is with religion's and the religious' take on general education. By general education, I mean the liberty to learn anything, including things that might possibly disagree with religious doctrine.
I can see how that would be annoying from an atheist point of view or even a risk taking christian. But sometimes warnings are useful for safety: don't swim outside the flags because you might get in trouble and drown. That is so frustrating when all the little kids are swimming there and you can't get a clear wave to body surf. I can't see any reason why the study of the nature should be a problem though. And I can't see anywhere in the bible that its forbidden. But point it out to me as we go though it in the other thread.
cool
QuoteAs soon as Adam is created he is forbidden from learning about good and evil.
actually he was told "Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". So nearly the same if you want to be literal. If you want to make a metaphoric interpretation then you will need to justify it. Feel free
And once he had eaten, then the whole situation changed completely. see "The Fall"
How about you point it out when you see the bible prohibit education in the Read the book thread.
QuoteI have to disagree. Verse 12 specifically warns against spending too much effort on learning anything beyond the wisdom of God, and books (preumably non-religious books) are used as the example.
I disagree with your interpretation.
QuoteI'm talking about the Bible. You can barely find a chapter in the Bible where the fear of God is not wielded. In the passage I quoted from Ecclesiastes that is expressed explicitly in verses 13 & 14.
I think that you are exaggerating hugely about the frequency about the warnings about God, but yes it is sensible to fear God who has the power of life and death over us. Its like having signs at the beach warning you of sharks or rips.
QuoteSupposition: If you give all of your life to God, there will be precious else you'll have time for.
I honestly don't know any christian that thinks like that, not even the really devoted ones. I don't think that your supposition is realistic. God is god over all our lives so whatever we do we are supposed to do as a service to God, its not just special christian things that count as.
Colossians 3:23-24
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
So providing you're not doing bad stuff (like don't lie, cheat, steal ...), its mainly about your motivation and the way you do normal stuff that counts. Even talking to you guys on TTF.
QuoteHowever you are not to worry as God will provide the things you need. That sentiment is expressed numerous times in the Bible. Do you need quotes?
God will provide all things we need. But he doesn't work from Maslow's Hierarchy. And even Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his ministry so that he wouldn't have to rely on the generosity of the people he was ministering too.
QuoteIn addition, there are multiple warnings about spending much effort on anything other than the will and word of God lest you be led astray. This usually comes with a verse or 2 about the fear of God and your having to answer to him.
Having said all that, I did admit to my mistaken wording. My real quibble is with religion's and the religious' take on general education. By general education, I mean the liberty to learn anything, including things that might possibly disagree with religious doctrine.
I can see how that would be annoying from an atheist point of view or even a risk taking christian. But sometimes warnings are useful for safety: don't swim outside the flags because you might get in trouble and drown. That is so frustrating when all the little kids are swimming there and you can't get a clear wave to body surf. I can't see any reason why the study of the nature should be a problem though. And I can't see anywhere in the bible that its forbidden. But point it out to me as we go though it in the other thread.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 24, 2017, 05:19PMI think you are well aware of the traditional Christian understanding of the Fall. Do you want to discuss that here?
At least one flaw is apparent before The Fall. Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning. God created them so they could be tempted (the flaw) then purposely put temptation in their way and threatened them with death (or mortality) if they succumbed to the temptation. The Fall is ample evidence the threat did not work.
Given that the very first threat in the Bible did not work, why does God use threat so frequently? Another flaw, this time in the creator? I think it was Einstein that said something to the effect of - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - was a sign of insanity. I tend to agree with him, even though he was only a man.
At least one flaw is apparent before The Fall. Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning. God created them so they could be tempted (the flaw) then purposely put temptation in their way and threatened them with death (or mortality) if they succumbed to the temptation. The Fall is ample evidence the threat did not work.
Given that the very first threat in the Bible did not work, why does God use threat so frequently? Another flaw, this time in the creator? I think it was Einstein that said something to the effect of - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - was a sign of insanity. I tend to agree with him, even though he was only a man.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 24, 2017, 08:14AMYour comments show some fundamental misunderstanding of what theologians call the Cultural Mandate.
...
I would be happy to point you to some resources on this, if you would like to explore it further or perhaps we could discuss it here.You could look at it that way if you want it ignore what I've admitted about myself here. I have read some Aquinas, Calvin, Knox, Luther, Praetorius, and Temple to varying degrees. There is no real point in reading much more as there are huge fundamental difference in how I and theologians define the most important aspects of religion, such as God for example. I'm not likely to come to the same conclusions as them. Go ahead and give me some recommendations tough, if they differ or improve on those I have already delved into. Ones available on-line would be appreciated as our local library leaves a lot to be desired and don't not want to buy any more religious books.
QuoteIn the garden A and E were not told not to know anything, they were told not to eat the tree because failure at that test would give them experiential knowledge of good and evil because they had disobeyed God. It was not a command for them not to know that good and evil exists. In fact the penalty connected with the command not to eat in Genesis shows that God had told them about the existence of good and evil.You appear to be mixing literal and figurative interpretation quite freely. Is there a guide on just what you should take figuratively and what you should take literally? Or perhaps there is just a tradition learned over many years of reading theological thesis? Or is it left up to the individual so that they can argue a point as they please?
QuoteAs creature made in the image of God and given a mandate to have dominion over the earth, this mandate is full of the need to gain knowledge. Much ink has been spilled over all that this entails because it is a rather broad mandate and includes all of cultural life. Cultural life is full of the need for knowledge.As I keep saying, I choose my words badly, and what I meant to say was that religion and the religious try to put limits on education. A mistake it looks like I'll never live down.
QuoteBasically, what I'm saying is that you really should try to acquaint yourself with how these texts have been discussed in the history of theological discussions because your understanding seems unaware of many of the nuances found in the texts. You may not agree with what Christian theologians and Biblical scholars have said-- that certainly is your right-- but you need to be aware of the serious discussion of the implications of those texts rather than making conclusions that to most serious biblical scholars would look rather superficial and I don't say that to demean you, but to suggest that if you want to critique the Christian faith, you should look at it more in depth.
Those discussions you speak of can only be taken seriously from the perspective of a believer. As I said above, I disagree on most of the most fundamental tenets of religion such that much of the discussion, to me anyway, is just a waste of time.
...
I would be happy to point you to some resources on this, if you would like to explore it further or perhaps we could discuss it here.You could look at it that way if you want it ignore what I've admitted about myself here. I have read some Aquinas, Calvin, Knox, Luther, Praetorius, and Temple to varying degrees. There is no real point in reading much more as there are huge fundamental difference in how I and theologians define the most important aspects of religion, such as God for example. I'm not likely to come to the same conclusions as them. Go ahead and give me some recommendations tough, if they differ or improve on those I have already delved into. Ones available on-line would be appreciated as our local library leaves a lot to be desired and don't not want to buy any more religious books.
QuoteIn the garden A and E were not told not to know anything, they were told not to eat the tree because failure at that test would give them experiential knowledge of good and evil because they had disobeyed God. It was not a command for them not to know that good and evil exists. In fact the penalty connected with the command not to eat in Genesis shows that God had told them about the existence of good and evil.You appear to be mixing literal and figurative interpretation quite freely. Is there a guide on just what you should take figuratively and what you should take literally? Or perhaps there is just a tradition learned over many years of reading theological thesis? Or is it left up to the individual so that they can argue a point as they please?
QuoteAs creature made in the image of God and given a mandate to have dominion over the earth, this mandate is full of the need to gain knowledge. Much ink has been spilled over all that this entails because it is a rather broad mandate and includes all of cultural life. Cultural life is full of the need for knowledge.As I keep saying, I choose my words badly, and what I meant to say was that religion and the religious try to put limits on education. A mistake it looks like I'll never live down.
QuoteBasically, what I'm saying is that you really should try to acquaint yourself with how these texts have been discussed in the history of theological discussions because your understanding seems unaware of many of the nuances found in the texts. You may not agree with what Christian theologians and Biblical scholars have said-- that certainly is your right-- but you need to be aware of the serious discussion of the implications of those texts rather than making conclusions that to most serious biblical scholars would look rather superficial and I don't say that to demean you, but to suggest that if you want to critique the Christian faith, you should look at it more in depth.
Those discussions you speak of can only be taken seriously from the perspective of a believer. As I said above, I disagree on most of the most fundamental tenets of religion such that much of the discussion, to me anyway, is just a waste of time.
-
ttf_Piano man
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
I just read an article about Augustine. Apparently prior to Augustine most Christians didn't take the creation story very seriously--it was taken as an allegory or even a somewhat crude myth. Augustine made it his mission to find an explanation of Genesis as absolute literal truth, and his became the one most accepted today.
The other interesting aspect was his frustration with his own carnality--he was aggravated that his own body wasn't entirely under his conscious control. When he began work on Genesis, he sent his mistress away and took a vow of celibacy. He believed that we lost conscious control of the sex urge in the fall. He pictured an idealized reproductive sex that was without urgency or excessive excitement.
The other interesting aspect was his frustration with his own carnality--he was aggravated that his own body wasn't entirely under his conscious control. When he began work on Genesis, he sent his mistress away and took a vow of celibacy. He believed that we lost conscious control of the sex urge in the fall. He pictured an idealized reproductive sex that was without urgency or excessive excitement.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 24, 2017, 10:23PMactually he was told "Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". So nearly the same if you want to be literal. If you want to make a metaphoric interpretation then you will need to justify it. Feel free.
The literal interpretation just sounds like a silly childish taunt.
Let me try a more figurative one.
According Cyrus H. Gordon, the familiar expression "good and evil" means totality or everything. Indeed, in at least one prominent ancient language of the region, Egyptian, the juxtaposition of "evil" and "good" does mean "everything".
The use of 'eating' as a metaphor for learning is a simple and common one. They both describe means of acquisition. In fact the scriptures are fond of the metaphor of acquiring the teachings of God through oral means(Jeremiah 3:15 and 15:16, 1 Peter 2:2, Hebrews 5:12 and 5:14, John 6:51, Corinthians 10:4 - there are probably more...).
So, if both the sources above can be trusted then:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:"
CAn be taken as:
"But knowledge of everything, you shall not learn:"
Okay now, you'll probably only dismiss that, but that's okay. I'm not going to discuss it further in context of the Bible. as I have already said several times now that I originally misspoke. That I really meant to say religion and/or religious people. That I was talking about general education i.e. education including concepts and ideas that are in conflict with religion and religious ways. If you want to talk about, then no problem.
QuoteHow about you point it out when you see the bible prohibit education in the Read the book thread.Sure. I had found a couple of examples the other day while looking up passages for another argument. They are there aplenty.
QuoteI disagree with your interpretation.my interpretation was the literal one.
Quote... But point it out to me as we go though it in the other thread.
Will do, or as I come across it elsewhere too. Even in other religious texts.
The literal interpretation just sounds like a silly childish taunt.
Let me try a more figurative one.
According Cyrus H. Gordon, the familiar expression "good and evil" means totality or everything. Indeed, in at least one prominent ancient language of the region, Egyptian, the juxtaposition of "evil" and "good" does mean "everything".
The use of 'eating' as a metaphor for learning is a simple and common one. They both describe means of acquisition. In fact the scriptures are fond of the metaphor of acquiring the teachings of God through oral means(Jeremiah 3:15 and 15:16, 1 Peter 2:2, Hebrews 5:12 and 5:14, John 6:51, Corinthians 10:4 - there are probably more...).
So, if both the sources above can be trusted then:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:"
CAn be taken as:
"But knowledge of everything, you shall not learn:"
Okay now, you'll probably only dismiss that, but that's okay. I'm not going to discuss it further in context of the Bible. as I have already said several times now that I originally misspoke. That I really meant to say religion and/or religious people. That I was talking about general education i.e. education including concepts and ideas that are in conflict with religion and religious ways. If you want to talk about, then no problem.
QuoteHow about you point it out when you see the bible prohibit education in the Read the book thread.Sure. I had found a couple of examples the other day while looking up passages for another argument. They are there aplenty.
QuoteI disagree with your interpretation.my interpretation was the literal one.
Quote... But point it out to me as we go though it in the other thread.
Will do, or as I come across it elsewhere too. Even in other religious texts.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 08:19AMAt least one flaw is apparent before The Fall. Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning. God created them so they could be tempted (the flaw) then purposely put temptation in their way and threatened them with death (or mortality) if they succumbed to the temptation. The Fall is ample evidence the threat did not work.
Given that the very first threat in the Bible did not work, why does God use threat so frequently? Another flaw, this time in the creator? I think it was Einstein that said something to the effect of - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - was a sign of insanity. I tend to agree with him, even though he was only a man.
I fail to see why putting someone to the test is a flaw. I know that some of you are going to immediately respond that an omnipotent and omniscient God both knew and could have prevented the Fall, but that's a different issue from saying that they were flawed from the beginning. When the Biblical text says that God created them good that is saying that God created them without sin and gave them dominion. Part of that dominion was to keep the garden pure and the implication seems to be that they were supposed to expand the garden-- hence the command to subdue the earth, i.e make it part of the garden. The snake was obviously an evil creature in the narrative and A and E's job was essentially to "kick the snake out" which they failed to do-- that's what having dominion implied. Instead they listened to the lies of the snake, just as many generations since then have done as the Evil One has come disguised in his many forms-- the New Testament calls it disguising himself as an "angel of light." Other biblical texts give some hints as to the origin of the devil, the usual interpretation of the character of the snake, usually a fallen angel. However, the Genesis narrative itself does not at all imply that God created humanity with a character flaw.
That basically brings us back to discuss the question of theodicy. Of course unbelievers reject traditional Christian theodicy, but as I've claimed before the reasons are psychological, not really logical. We can go over this ground again if you'd like. However, the Genesis text does not lead to the conclusions you give if you read it carefully. What you are calling "literal," I would argue, would not be recognized as such by even the most literalistic interpreters that I am aware of.
Given that the very first threat in the Bible did not work, why does God use threat so frequently? Another flaw, this time in the creator? I think it was Einstein that said something to the effect of - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - was a sign of insanity. I tend to agree with him, even though he was only a man.
I fail to see why putting someone to the test is a flaw. I know that some of you are going to immediately respond that an omnipotent and omniscient God both knew and could have prevented the Fall, but that's a different issue from saying that they were flawed from the beginning. When the Biblical text says that God created them good that is saying that God created them without sin and gave them dominion. Part of that dominion was to keep the garden pure and the implication seems to be that they were supposed to expand the garden-- hence the command to subdue the earth, i.e make it part of the garden. The snake was obviously an evil creature in the narrative and A and E's job was essentially to "kick the snake out" which they failed to do-- that's what having dominion implied. Instead they listened to the lies of the snake, just as many generations since then have done as the Evil One has come disguised in his many forms-- the New Testament calls it disguising himself as an "angel of light." Other biblical texts give some hints as to the origin of the devil, the usual interpretation of the character of the snake, usually a fallen angel. However, the Genesis narrative itself does not at all imply that God created humanity with a character flaw.
That basically brings us back to discuss the question of theodicy. Of course unbelievers reject traditional Christian theodicy, but as I've claimed before the reasons are psychological, not really logical. We can go over this ground again if you'd like. However, the Genesis text does not lead to the conclusions you give if you read it carefully. What you are calling "literal," I would argue, would not be recognized as such by even the most literalistic interpreters that I am aware of.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Piano man on Jun 25, 2017, 10:34AMI just read an article about Augustine. Apparently prior to Augustine most Christians didn't take the creation story very seriously--it was taken as an allegory or even a somewhat crude myth. Augustine made it his mission to find an explanation of Genesis as absolute literal truth, and his became the one most accepted today.
The other interesting aspect was his frustration with his own carnality--he was aggravated that his own body wasn't entirely under his conscious control. When he began work on Genesis, he sent his mistress away and took a vow of celibacy. He believed that we lost conscious control of the sex urge in the fall. He pictured an idealized reproductive sex that was without urgency or excessive excitement.
PM could you tell which article you read about Augustine because some of what you've said doesn't exactly ring true to what I've read? Augustine had a somewhat unusual doctrine of creation, usually considered orthodox, but not strictly literal on the days of Genesis.
Actually other early theologians did take the creation narrative rather seriously. Irenaeus, the most important theologian before Augustine-- Irenaeus lived 150 years before A-- argued against the Gnostics because of they didn't take the material creation seriously and I's whole theology was based around Christ the 2nd Adam who restores what was lost by the first Adam. It is a theological framework that sets the pattern for the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation schema that has been so influential in historic orthodox Christianity.
Here's a link to a good summary of Irenaeus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
The other interesting aspect was his frustration with his own carnality--he was aggravated that his own body wasn't entirely under his conscious control. When he began work on Genesis, he sent his mistress away and took a vow of celibacy. He believed that we lost conscious control of the sex urge in the fall. He pictured an idealized reproductive sex that was without urgency or excessive excitement.
PM could you tell which article you read about Augustine because some of what you've said doesn't exactly ring true to what I've read? Augustine had a somewhat unusual doctrine of creation, usually considered orthodox, but not strictly literal on the days of Genesis.
Actually other early theologians did take the creation narrative rather seriously. Irenaeus, the most important theologian before Augustine-- Irenaeus lived 150 years before A-- argued against the Gnostics because of they didn't take the material creation seriously and I's whole theology was based around Christ the 2nd Adam who restores what was lost by the first Adam. It is a theological framework that sets the pattern for the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation schema that has been so influential in historic orthodox Christianity.
Here's a link to a good summary of Irenaeus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 02:11PMI fail to see why putting someone to the test is a flaw. I know that some of you are going to immediately respond that an omnipotent and omniscient God both knew and could have prevented the Fall, but that's a different issue from saying that they were flawed from the beginning. When the Biblical text says that God created them good that is saying that God created them without sin and gave them dominion. Part of that dominion was to keep the garden pure and the implication seems to be that they were supposed to expand the garden-- hence the command to subdue the earth, i.e make it part of the garden. The snake was obviously an evil creature in the narrative and A and E's job was essentially to "kick the snake out" which they failed to do-- that's what having dominion implied. Instead they listened to the lies of the snake, just as many generations since then have done as the Evil One has come disguised in his many forms-- the New Testament calls it disguising himself as an "angel of light." Other biblical texts give some hints as to the origin of the devil, the usual interpretation of the character of the snake, usually a fallen angel. However, the Genesis narrative itself does not at all imply that God created humanity with a character flaw.That sure seems like a lot of tap-dancing to try and come back around to an argument that somehow the creation is responsible for it's nature (how it was created) rather than the creator which made it. The notion that this creator is omnipotent just means the creator in this case is absolutely responsible rather than just not quite able to do better, because with an omnipotent creator there's just no way around everything in every respect being precisely how that creator wanted it to be, so it's patently absurd that there could be any judgment against any element of the creation.
If as you argue Adam and Eve had no character flaw, then how would they fail a character test--why would there need to be a test in the first place?
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 02:11PMThat basically brings us back to discuss the question of theodicy. Of course unbelievers reject traditional Christian theodicy, but as I've claimed before the reasons are psychological, not really logical. We can go over this ground again if you'd like.I'd like to see the argument that demonstrates non-believers use psychological rather than logical reasons on that one.
If as you argue Adam and Eve had no character flaw, then how would they fail a character test--why would there need to be a test in the first place?
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 02:11PMThat basically brings us back to discuss the question of theodicy. Of course unbelievers reject traditional Christian theodicy, but as I've claimed before the reasons are psychological, not really logical. We can go over this ground again if you'd like.I'd like to see the argument that demonstrates non-believers use psychological rather than logical reasons on that one.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Perhaps the most consequential measure of honesty and intellectual humility and courage is how we deal with this information.
Awareness is pretty damn important, but I'd argue that we human brain users have to invest in the process rather than in any given conclusions in order to do our best at managing this serious problem with our OS--depends of course if you have the courage to value what we can best determine to be real and true over whatever core beliefs (sacred cows) you harbor.
Awareness is pretty damn important, but I'd argue that we human brain users have to invest in the process rather than in any given conclusions in order to do our best at managing this serious problem with our OS--depends of course if you have the courage to value what we can best determine to be real and true over whatever core beliefs (sacred cows) you harbor.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 25, 2017, 03:35PMThat sure seems like a lot of tap-dancing to try and come back around to an argument that somehow the creation is responsible for it's nature (how it was created) rather than the creator which made it. The notion that this creator is omnipotent just means the creator in this case is absolutely responsible rather than just not quite able to do better, because with an omnipotent creator there's just no way around everything in every respect being precisely how that creator wanted it to be, so it's patently absurd that there could be any judgment against any element of the creation.
to 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.
So 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 himself
- 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.
- 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.
Are 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?
QuoteIf as you argue Adam and Eve had no character flaw, then how would they fail a character test--why would there need to be a test in the first place?
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?
to 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.
So 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 himself
- 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.
- 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.
Are 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?
QuoteIf as you argue Adam and Eve had no character flaw, then how would they fail a character test--why would there need to be a test in the first place?
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?
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 25, 2017, 03:54PMPerhaps the most consequential measure of honesty and intellectual humility and courage is how we deal with this information.
Awareness is pretty damn important, but I'd argue that we human brain users have to invest in the process rather than in any given conclusions in order to do our best at managing this serious problem with our OS--depends of course if you have the courage to value what we can best determine to be real and true over whatever core beliefs (sacred cows) you harbor.
So what's you WorldView Byron? your set of core beliefs?
It would be interesting to see what ours are. It would help me understand more about your point of view (I think I've got a reasonable idea but its not what you think it is). Or would that be too personal?
I've seen a couple of sets of questions that help to describe the important things about our WorldViews. Do you have a set that you think are good we could use? or don't you think that would be appropriate?
Awareness is pretty damn important, but I'd argue that we human brain users have to invest in the process rather than in any given conclusions in order to do our best at managing this serious problem with our OS--depends of course if you have the courage to value what we can best determine to be real and true over whatever core beliefs (sacred cows) you harbor.
So what's you WorldView Byron? your set of core beliefs?
It would be interesting to see what ours are. It would help me understand more about your point of view (I think I've got a reasonable idea but its not what you think it is). Or would that be too personal?
I've seen a couple of sets of questions that help to describe the important things about our WorldViews. Do you have a set that you think are good we could use? or don't you think that would be appropriate?
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 25, 2017, 03:35PM
I'd like to see the argument that demonstrates non-believers use psychological rather than logical reasons on that one.
I can't improve on the late Christian philosopher, Greg Bahsen's argument which I find compelling while I don't find your argument compelling. Here it is.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological
It turns out that the problem of evil is not a logical difficulty after all. If God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, as the Bible teaches, then His goodness and power are not challenged by the reality of evil events and things in human experience. The only logical problem which arises in connection with discussions of evil is the unbeliever's philosophical inability to account for the objectivity of his moral judgments.
The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, "why did such a terrible thing occur?" Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). We might not be able to understand God's wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.
So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.
The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem.
Therefore, it should not be thought that "the problem of evil" is anything like an intellectual basis for a lack of faith in God. It is rather simply the personal expression of such a lack of faith. What we find is that unbelievers who challenge the Christian faith end up reasoning in circles. Because they lack faith in God, they begin by arguing that evil is incompatible with the goodness and power of God. When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally."
I'd like to see the argument that demonstrates non-believers use psychological rather than logical reasons on that one.
I can't improve on the late Christian philosopher, Greg Bahsen's argument which I find compelling while I don't find your argument compelling. Here it is.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological
It turns out that the problem of evil is not a logical difficulty after all. If God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, as the Bible teaches, then His goodness and power are not challenged by the reality of evil events and things in human experience. The only logical problem which arises in connection with discussions of evil is the unbeliever's philosophical inability to account for the objectivity of his moral judgments.
The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, "why did such a terrible thing occur?" Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). We might not be able to understand God's wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.
So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.
The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem.
Therefore, it should not be thought that "the problem of evil" is anything like an intellectual basis for a lack of faith in God. It is rather simply the personal expression of such a lack of faith. What we find is that unbelievers who challenge the Christian faith end up reasoning in circles. Because they lack faith in God, they begin by arguing that evil is incompatible with the goodness and power of God. When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally."
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 08:24PMI can't improve on the late Christian philosopher, Greg Bahsen's argument which I find compelling while I don't find your argument compelling. Here it is.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological
It turns out that the problem of evil is not a logical difficulty after all. If God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, as the Bible teaches, then His goodness and power are not challenged by the reality of evil events and things in human experience. The only logical problem which arises in connection with discussions of evil is the unbeliever's philosophical inability to account for the objectivity of his moral judgments.
The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, "why did such a terrible thing occur?" Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). We might not be able to understand God's wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.
So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.
The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem.
Therefore, it should not be thought that "the problem of evil" is anything like an intellectual basis for a lack of faith in God. It is rather simply the personal expression of such a lack of faith. What we find is that unbelievers who challenge the Christian faith end up reasoning in circles. Because they lack faith in God, they begin by arguing that evil is incompatible with the goodness and power of God. When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally."
That is compelling. Thanks John.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological
It turns out that the problem of evil is not a logical difficulty after all. If God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, as the Bible teaches, then His goodness and power are not challenged by the reality of evil events and things in human experience. The only logical problem which arises in connection with discussions of evil is the unbeliever's philosophical inability to account for the objectivity of his moral judgments.
The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, "why did such a terrible thing occur?" Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). We might not be able to understand God's wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.
So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.
The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem.
Therefore, it should not be thought that "the problem of evil" is anything like an intellectual basis for a lack of faith in God. It is rather simply the personal expression of such a lack of faith. What we find is that unbelievers who challenge the Christian faith end up reasoning in circles. Because they lack faith in God, they begin by arguing that evil is incompatible with the goodness and power of God. When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally."
That is compelling. Thanks John.
-
ttf_growlerbox
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 08:24PMI can't improve on the late Christian philosopher, Greg Bahsen's argument which I find compelling while I don't find your argument compelling. Here it is.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological..."
All this argument demonstrates to me is that the psychological "problem" of the unbeliever is the refusal to adopt a slave mentality, which refusal is the necessary, if insufficient condition for the logical/scientific pursuit of truth.
"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological..."
All this argument demonstrates to me is that the psychological "problem" of the unbeliever is the refusal to adopt a slave mentality, which refusal is the necessary, if insufficient condition for the logical/scientific pursuit of truth.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 25, 2017, 08:44PMThat is compelling. Thanks John.
No, it's just silly.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
No, it's just silly.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 05:10AMNo, it's just silly.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
Actually, I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you say in your post above and most of it just seems like assertions to me. You really haven't given any compelling reason why your claims must be true. There are several there, so I'll let the group decide which ones we would like to discuss.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
Actually, I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you say in your post above and most of it just seems like assertions to me. You really haven't given any compelling reason why your claims must be true. There are several there, so I'll let the group decide which ones we would like to discuss.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Evil and Good is two sides of the same coin.
Evil is nothing more than the absence of Good.
Dark is the absence of light.
Basically, God blessed us with free will. He could have chosen to create us with no free will, or to be robotic.
It's an amazing circumstance, because with free will, we are given the chance to show our goodness, or not.
I agree with Greg Bahsen's argument, in that basically, it's just another way of expressing their rejection of God.
Evil is nothing more than the absence of Good.
Dark is the absence of light.
Basically, God blessed us with free will. He could have chosen to create us with no free will, or to be robotic.
It's an amazing circumstance, because with free will, we are given the chance to show our goodness, or not.
I agree with Greg Bahsen's argument, in that basically, it's just another way of expressing their rejection of God.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 05:41AMActually, I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you say in your post above and most of it just seems like assertions to me. You really haven't given any compelling reason why your claims must be true. There are several there, so I'll let the group decide which ones we would like to discuss.
Actually, I would say that your claim that Genesis and the Fall must be taken as literally true is the one that requires compelling support.
That claim is really only the standard one among the restricted set of very conservative denominations. Certainly mainstream theologians abandoned that centuries abo.
Actually, I would say that your claim that Genesis and the Fall must be taken as literally true is the one that requires compelling support.
That claim is really only the standard one among the restricted set of very conservative denominations. Certainly mainstream theologians abandoned that centuries abo.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 06:24AMActually, I would say that your claim that Genesis and the Fall must be taken as literally true is the one that requires compelling support.
That claim is really only the standard one among the restricted set of very conservative denominations. Certainly mainstream theologians abandoned that centuries abo.
And 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.
Niebuhr may not have interpreted Genesis 1 as more conservative theologians do-- I think he was wrong there, but then again conservative theologians have their differences on the exact interpretation of the text as well-- but his theological understanding of the text was not all that different from the theological results of conservative interpretations.
That claim is really only the standard one among the restricted set of very conservative denominations. Certainly mainstream theologians abandoned that centuries abo.
And 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.
Niebuhr may not have interpreted Genesis 1 as more conservative theologians do-- I think he was wrong there, but then again conservative theologians have their differences on the exact interpretation of the text as well-- but his theological understanding of the text was not all that different from the theological results of conservative interpretations.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 25, 2017, 02:11PMI fail to see why putting someone to the test is a flaw.
Putting 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?
QuoteI know that some of you are going to immediately respond that an omnipotent and omniscient God both knew and could have prevented the FallYou 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?
QuoteThe snake was obviously an evil creature in the narrative and A and E's job was essentially to "kick the snake out" which they failed to do-- that's what having dominion implied. Instead they listened to the lies of the snake...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 think the only way we can look at this rationally is to remove God's omniscience. Would that be fair?
Putting 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?
QuoteI know that some of you are going to immediately respond that an omnipotent and omniscient God both knew and could have prevented the FallYou 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?
QuoteThe snake was obviously an evil creature in the narrative and A and E's job was essentially to "kick the snake out" which they failed to do-- that's what having dominion implied. Instead they listened to the lies of the snake...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 think the only way we can look at this rationally is to remove God's omniscience. Would that be fair?
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2017, 06:14AMEvil is nothing more than the absence of Good.
Okay, let's look at this. This concept neatly divides the universe into two. Those things that are good and those things that are not good, hence evil. This seems to be a concept the Egyptian's and the ancient Greek's had too.
So, how do we use this? How do I look at something and see it as either good or as evil. I mean, it's nice to have that division, but it hardly seems it comes with any clarity at all.
Okay, let's look at this. This concept neatly divides the universe into two. Those things that are good and those things that are not good, hence evil. This seems to be a concept the Egyptian's and the ancient Greek's had too.
So, how do we use this? How do I look at something and see it as either good or as evil. I mean, it's nice to have that division, but it hardly seems it comes with any clarity at all.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:05AMOkay, let's look at this. This concept neatly divides the universe into two. Those things that are good and those things that are not good, hence evil. This seems to be a concept the Egyptian's and the ancient Greek's had too.
So, how do we use this? How do I look at something and see it as either good or as evil. I mean, it's nice to have that division, but it hardly seems it comes with any clarity at all.
I thought that liberals always complained about conservatives always being binary, and not recognizing the shades of grey in between.
It's very clear. With free will, that God blessed us with, you choices mirror what you're made of. Again, this whole concept is a strawman argument for those that reject God.
So, how do we use this? How do I look at something and see it as either good or as evil. I mean, it's nice to have that division, but it hardly seems it comes with any clarity at all.
I thought that liberals always complained about conservatives always being binary, and not recognizing the shades of grey in between.
It's very clear. With free will, that God blessed us with, you choices mirror what you're made of. Again, this whole concept is a strawman argument for those that reject God.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
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.
Exactly. Basically that conception of original sin is the idea that humans have the same base drives and desires as our primate ancestors, along with the same altruistic and social drives. See any number of sources I've linked to in the past.
That is a long long way from claiming we were created perfect and Fell. You're being a little slippery here, methinks.
Exactly. Basically that conception of original sin is the idea that humans have the same base drives and desires as our primate ancestors, along with the same altruistic and social drives. See any number of sources I've linked to in the past.
That is a long long way from claiming we were created perfect and Fell. You're being a little slippery here, methinks.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
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?
You 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 think the only way we can look at this rationally is to remove God's omniscience. Would that be fair?
No, not at all. Because you have assumed the very thing that Christian theologians have claimed we should not. You have assumed that God could not have any good purposes in creating a world that human beings could and indeed He knew would fall. Yet, as the Bahnsen article quoted above shows, the Bible says that He does have good purposes even if He hasn't explained them all to us. I agree with Bahnsen that your objection is simply an expression of your unbelief and not a real logical objection.
In other words you don't like the idea that God could have reasons that He doesn't explain to us so you loudly claim that He cannot exist if He doesn't fit my standards of what God must be like. Your argument is not really a rational one so much as an expression of your dislike of the Biblical portrayal of God who doesn't answer your questions.
You 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 think the only way we can look at this rationally is to remove God's omniscience. Would that be fair?
No, not at all. Because you have assumed the very thing that Christian theologians have claimed we should not. You have assumed that God could not have any good purposes in creating a world that human beings could and indeed He knew would fall. Yet, as the Bahnsen article quoted above shows, the Bible says that He does have good purposes even if He hasn't explained them all to us. I agree with Bahnsen that your objection is simply an expression of your unbelief and not a real logical objection.
In other words you don't like the idea that God could have reasons that He doesn't explain to us so you loudly claim that He cannot exist if He doesn't fit my standards of what God must be like. Your argument is not really a rational one so much as an expression of your dislike of the Biblical portrayal of God who doesn't answer your questions.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 07:14AMExactly. Basically that conception of original sin is the idea that humans have the same base drives and desires as our primate ancestors, along with the same altruistic and social drives. See any number of sources I've linked to in the past.
That is a long long way from claiming we were created perfect and Fell. You're being a little slippery here, methinks.
Nope, N's point is that humans are different from animals, although I don't think his way of getting there was necessarily all that good. The orthodox options are much better, but I'm grateful that he saw that we are deeply flawed and not just in the the same way as the animals.
That is a long long way from claiming we were created perfect and Fell. You're being a little slippery here, methinks.
Nope, N's point is that humans are different from animals, although I don't think his way of getting there was necessarily all that good. The orthodox options are much better, but I'm grateful that he saw that we are deeply flawed and not just in the the same way as the animals.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2017, 07:11AM
It's very clear. With free will, that God blessed us with, you choices mirror what you're made of.
Wait.
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
It's very clear. With free will, that God blessed us with, you choices mirror what you're made of.
Wait.
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 07:19AMWait.
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
The bible didn't make the claim of gravity either. LOL!
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
The bible didn't make the claim of gravity either. LOL!
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 07:19AMWait.
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
I depends on how you define "free will." Many theologians have pointed out that while the Bible doesn't advocate "libertarian" free will, it does fit rather nicely with what mainstream philosophers have called "compatiblistic" notions of free agency. It's a somewhat technical discussion about definitions and I'm not sure it would be profitable here, but I just wanted to "set the record straight" as they say.
Here is a very brief and therefore not completely adequate, yet still helpful discussion of the 2 concepts.
http://mzellen.com/2010/01/25/compatibilism-vs-libertarian-free-will-and-eternal-vs-everlasting/
Nowhere does the Bible claim we have free will.
That is a conclusion some people have reached, to explain the unfairness of God punishing us for temptations we couldn't resist. But it is completely extra-scriptural.
I depends on how you define "free will." Many theologians have pointed out that while the Bible doesn't advocate "libertarian" free will, it does fit rather nicely with what mainstream philosophers have called "compatiblistic" notions of free agency. It's a somewhat technical discussion about definitions and I'm not sure it would be profitable here, but I just wanted to "set the record straight" as they say.
Here is a very brief and therefore not completely adequate, yet still helpful discussion of the 2 concepts.
http://mzellen.com/2010/01/25/compatibilism-vs-libertarian-free-will-and-eternal-vs-everlasting/
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2017, 07:11AMWith free will, that God blessed us with
Given the number of times God has found it necessary to wipe out huge populations of mankind for their misuse of free will, it seems more like a curse than a blessing.
On that shades of grey thing, then there is a third division of the set of everything, those things that are neither good nor evil? I only ask because the analogy you gave earlier, dark being the lack of light, is extremely binary. At least it is to a physicist.
Given the number of times God has found it necessary to wipe out huge populations of mankind for their misuse of free will, it seems more like a curse than a blessing.
On that shades of grey thing, then there is a third division of the set of everything, those things that are neither good nor evil? I only ask because the analogy you gave earlier, dark being the lack of light, is extremely binary. At least it is to a physicist.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 07:30AMI depends on how you define "free will." Many theologians have pointed out that while the Bible doesn't advocate "libertarian" free will, it does fit rather nicely with what mainstream philosophers have called "compatiblistic" notions of free agency. It's a somewhat technical discussion about definitions and I'm not sure it would be profitable here, but I just wanted to "set the record straight" as they say.
Here is a very brief and therefore not completely adequate, yet still helpful discussion of the 2 concepts.
http://mzellen.com/2010/01/25/compatibilism-vs-libertarian-free-will-and-eternal-vs-everlasting/
Attempts at revising the Bible? This is what I was kicked out of Christian Studies for. I don't know John, half the time you demand taking the Bible at it's word, half the time you offer up other's musings about differing interpretations. I asked you about this earlier and you didn't answer. IS there some fixed guide to which parts of the Bible we are to take literally and which parts we are to take figuratively, or, as seems to be you habit, you chose based on what point your trying to get across?
Here is a very brief and therefore not completely adequate, yet still helpful discussion of the 2 concepts.
http://mzellen.com/2010/01/25/compatibilism-vs-libertarian-free-will-and-eternal-vs-everlasting/
Attempts at revising the Bible? This is what I was kicked out of Christian Studies for. I don't know John, half the time you demand taking the Bible at it's word, half the time you offer up other's musings about differing interpretations. I asked you about this earlier and you didn't answer. IS there some fixed guide to which parts of the Bible we are to take literally and which parts we are to take figuratively, or, as seems to be you habit, you chose based on what point your trying to get across?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Free will examples:
Quote
John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they cannot see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them."
Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
Exodus 7:4
"When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments.
Exodus 7:13
Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 10:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go.
Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 14:8
The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly.
Joshua 11:20
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
If it is a basic precept of Christianity that we need salvation because we're incapable of saving ourselves, then clearly free will in the relevant sin-resisting sense does not exist.
Quote
John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they cannot see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them."
Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
Exodus 7:4
"When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments.
Exodus 7:13
Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 10:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go.
Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 14:8
The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly.
Joshua 11:20
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
If it is a basic precept of Christianity that we need salvation because we're incapable of saving ourselves, then clearly free will in the relevant sin-resisting sense does not exist.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 07:16AMNo, not at all. Because you have assumed the very thing that Christian theologians have claimed we should not. You have assumed that God could not have any good purposes in creating a world that human beings could and indeed He knew would fall. Yet, as the Bahnsen article quoted above shows, the Bible says that He does have good purposes even if He hasn't explained them all to us. I agree with Bahnsen that your objection is simply an expression of your unbelief and not a real logical objection.
In other words you don't like the idea that God could have reasons that He doesn't explain to us so you loudly claim that He cannot exist if He doesn't fit my standards of what God must be like. Your argument is not really a rational one so much as an expression of your dislike of the Biblical portrayal of God who doesn't answer your questions.
No, I used logic in it's purest sense. However, you and the rest of ethological world are hiding behind the tired "God has his purposes" refrain, which is definitely a rationalization, but not very rational one at all.
This is one of the reasons I started the God thread. Perhaps we could add Divine Irrationality to God's attributes? Or is there another way you'd like that expressed?
One more point for this post. You keep throwing up the musings of theologians to atheists as supposedly compelling arguments when you must know that our position would surely put us in a position to be skeptical. Is that a rational thing to do? Another reason for the God thread. So us godless ones can have a useful tool with which to evaluate the theologians perspective.
In other words you don't like the idea that God could have reasons that He doesn't explain to us so you loudly claim that He cannot exist if He doesn't fit my standards of what God must be like. Your argument is not really a rational one so much as an expression of your dislike of the Biblical portrayal of God who doesn't answer your questions.
No, I used logic in it's purest sense. However, you and the rest of ethological world are hiding behind the tired "God has his purposes" refrain, which is definitely a rationalization, but not very rational one at all.
This is one of the reasons I started the God thread. Perhaps we could add Divine Irrationality to God's attributes? Or is there another way you'd like that expressed?
One more point for this post. You keep throwing up the musings of theologians to atheists as supposedly compelling arguments when you must know that our position would surely put us in a position to be skeptical. Is that a rational thing to do? Another reason for the God thread. So us godless ones can have a useful tool with which to evaluate the theologians perspective.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:49AMAttempts at revising the Bible? This is what I was kicked out of Christian Studies for. I don't know John, half the time you demand taking the Bible at it's word, half the time you offer up other's musings about differing interpretations. I asked you about this earlier and you didn't answer. IS there some fixed guide to which parts of the Bible we are to take literally and which parts we are to take figuratively, or, as seems to be you habit, you chose based on what point your trying to get across?
No, there isn't a "fixed guide" just as there isn't a "fixed guide" in interpreting any written text. What theologians have said is that, like any other text that is taken seriously, you start with the normal meaning of words and look for how the language is being used. Sometimes metaphors or figures of speeches are being used, sometimes not. Sometimes the genera of literature points to a certain direction-- i.e. apocalyptic literature was a genre in the period of 2nd Temple Judaism and how it is used there helps us understanding how it is being presented in the Bible-- there are portions that are apocolyptic. In some ways it's analogous to the debates over constitutional interpretations which keep legal scholars busy. You start with the "literal" but that always entails a lot of implications of what the literal is saying
I think mostly what you are objecting to is that theologians have mined the implications of Biblical texts and developed how those texts can and should be used theologically. They always start with the literal meaning-- my preferred word is normal--, but that literal meaning can have profound implications. It's called the field of hermeneutics and one of my own, now retired, professors has written a fine book on it if you'd like to read more.
Biblical scholars and theologians use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc, to mine the meaning of the text. Those tools actually help to understand what the normal-- my preferred word to literal-- meaning of the text should be.
Does this mean that one needs to be trained scholar to understand the text. Not in its basic meaning, but that doesn't mean that the untrained reader always understands the depth of what the normal meaning is. As one scholar said about the gospel of John: "it is so simple that a mouse can swim in it and so profound that an elephant can drown in it."
When the normal meaning is challenged and sometimes challenged by what scholars believe is a wrong surface level interpretation of the text, then the larger understandings must come into play, as in the interpretation of any text.
In fact, I would argue, that most of your objections are not to what the text actually says, but what you see as the implications of the texts. You are engaging in the same process as the scholars, but you just take a different trajectory with your implications, one which the mainstream of Christian interpretation sees as erroneously drawn from the text.
No, there isn't a "fixed guide" just as there isn't a "fixed guide" in interpreting any written text. What theologians have said is that, like any other text that is taken seriously, you start with the normal meaning of words and look for how the language is being used. Sometimes metaphors or figures of speeches are being used, sometimes not. Sometimes the genera of literature points to a certain direction-- i.e. apocalyptic literature was a genre in the period of 2nd Temple Judaism and how it is used there helps us understanding how it is being presented in the Bible-- there are portions that are apocolyptic. In some ways it's analogous to the debates over constitutional interpretations which keep legal scholars busy. You start with the "literal" but that always entails a lot of implications of what the literal is saying
I think mostly what you are objecting to is that theologians have mined the implications of Biblical texts and developed how those texts can and should be used theologically. They always start with the literal meaning-- my preferred word is normal--, but that literal meaning can have profound implications. It's called the field of hermeneutics and one of my own, now retired, professors has written a fine book on it if you'd like to read more.
Biblical scholars and theologians use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc, to mine the meaning of the text. Those tools actually help to understand what the normal-- my preferred word to literal-- meaning of the text should be.
Does this mean that one needs to be trained scholar to understand the text. Not in its basic meaning, but that doesn't mean that the untrained reader always understands the depth of what the normal meaning is. As one scholar said about the gospel of John: "it is so simple that a mouse can swim in it and so profound that an elephant can drown in it."
When the normal meaning is challenged and sometimes challenged by what scholars believe is a wrong surface level interpretation of the text, then the larger understandings must come into play, as in the interpretation of any text.
In fact, I would argue, that most of your objections are not to what the text actually says, but what you see as the implications of the texts. You are engaging in the same process as the scholars, but you just take a different trajectory with your implications, one which the mainstream of Christian interpretation sees as erroneously drawn from the text.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 05:10AMNo, it's just silly.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
Didn't you mention rancor? "No, it's just silly"? Seems rancorous to me.
The basis is that "God is good," but when that doesn't fit the human definition of good we assume there's some other definition that applies.
Some of this problem goes away when we don't insist on a literal fall - humans created perfect and then with one slip all of creation being doomed.
The point of the story is simply a mythological explanation for why humans are as we are (and have always been), complex creatures with faults as well as features.
In this respect we do not differ from any other mammal.
If you insist on a literal one person Fall, you have to buy the rest of the mythology - no animal or plant death until the Fall, despite an ecology of carnivores, predators, and decomposition agents; no meat eating until after the Noachian Flood in 2358, so 1600 years of tigers eating salad, etc.
Didn't you mention rancor? "No, it's just silly"? Seems rancorous to me.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Tanks for answering John. Appreciated.
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 08:15AMIn fact, I would argue, that most of your objections are not to what the text actually says, but what you see as the implications of the texts. You are engaging in the same process as the scholars, but you just take a different trajectory with your implications, one which the mainstream of Christian interpretation sees as erroneously drawn from the text.
I'd like to pint out that I too use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc. Except my approach is from what I would describe as a diametrically opposed view. The error in the eyes of theologians undoubtedly comes as a consequence.
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 08:15AMIn fact, I would argue, that most of your objections are not to what the text actually says, but what you see as the implications of the texts. You are engaging in the same process as the scholars, but you just take a different trajectory with your implications, one which the mainstream of Christian interpretation sees as erroneously drawn from the text.
I'd like to pint out that I too use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc. Except my approach is from what I would describe as a diametrically opposed view. The error in the eyes of theologians undoubtedly comes as a consequence.
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 08:44AM
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
Yes, in particular he has argued against textual criticism in other threads.
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
Yes, in particular he has argued against textual criticism in other threads.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 08:47AMYes, in particular he has argued against textual criticism in other threads.
Actually, Tim, you are confusing textual criticism with other forms of criticism, often lumped together under the rubric of "higher criticism." I have no problem with seeking to establish the most accurate text, which is what textual criticism is all about. Nor do I have any problems with using tools of literary analysis to understand the text. What I and most orthodox theologians object to is an approach to "criticism" that starts with the assumption that the text is a hodge-podge of contradictory ideas that is the product of a long chain of evolutionary development that totally rearranged the text and cut and pasted them together into an incoherent whole, which is what some forms of "literary criticism" do. I would claim that the "assured results" of such criticism has more to do with the author's starting assumptions that with what the texts actually say, when rightly interpreted by literary tools.
Actually, Tim, you are confusing textual criticism with other forms of criticism, often lumped together under the rubric of "higher criticism." I have no problem with seeking to establish the most accurate text, which is what textual criticism is all about. Nor do I have any problems with using tools of literary analysis to understand the text. What I and most orthodox theologians object to is an approach to "criticism" that starts with the assumption that the text is a hodge-podge of contradictory ideas that is the product of a long chain of evolutionary development that totally rearranged the text and cut and pasted them together into an incoherent whole, which is what some forms of "literary criticism" do. I would claim that the "assured results" of such criticism has more to do with the author's starting assumptions that with what the texts actually say, when rightly interpreted by literary tools.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 08:44AMTanks for answering John. Appreciated.
I'd like to pint out that I too use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc. Except my approach is from what I would describe as a diametrically opposed view. The error in the eyes of theologians undoubtedly comes as a consequence.
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
It depends on what you mean by looking it from both sides. Most traditional Christian scholars have gladly used the tools produced by unbelievers when they are helpful to interpret the text. I think what you may be confusing here is that traditional Christians would object to some of the implications that an unbeliever such as you sometimes draws from the text. In fact, that is just the point I was making in a previous post. We need to distinguish between what the texts says and what the implications of that meaning is for a larger framework of thought. I don't think you are always making that distinction and that is where I have offered some traditional Christian understanding as an alternative-- in my mind superior alternative.
I'd like to pint out that I too use the tools of linguistic analysis, historical backgrounds, development by parallel and later texts, etc. Except my approach is from what I would describe as a diametrically opposed view. The error in the eyes of theologians undoubtedly comes as a consequence.
Somewhere in there you seem to be suggestion that the whole subject of religion cannot withstand being looked at from both sides?
It depends on what you mean by looking it from both sides. Most traditional Christian scholars have gladly used the tools produced by unbelievers when they are helpful to interpret the text. I think what you may be confusing here is that traditional Christians would object to some of the implications that an unbeliever such as you sometimes draws from the text. In fact, that is just the point I was making in a previous post. We need to distinguish between what the texts says and what the implications of that meaning is for a larger framework of thought. I don't think you are always making that distinction and that is where I have offered some traditional Christian understanding as an alternative-- in my mind superior alternative.
-
ttf_Piano man
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
I 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.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 09:06AMWhat I and most orthodox theologians object to is an approach to "criticism" that starts with the assumption that the text is a hodge-podge of contradictory ideas that is the product of a long chain of evolutionary development that totally rearranged the text and cut and pasted them together into an incoherent whole, which is what some forms of "literary criticism" do.There is a lot out there to suggest this is exactly the case. It does not surprise me one but that the orthodoxy comes out against this. Rightly interpreted? Again this is a POV observation. I know you think the orthodox approach is the only 'right' one, and this is the crux of the problem with religion in general. Religion then becomes a construct where the devout are 'right' and everyone else is wrong. Religion in exclusive rather than inclusive. Bigoted rather than tolerant. Closed rather than open.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 09:58AMThere is a lot out there to suggest this is exactly the case. It does not surprise me one but that the orthodoxy comes out against this. Rightly interpreted? Again this is a POV observation. I know you think the orthodox approach is the only 'right' one, and this is the crux of the problem with religion in general. Religion then becomes a construct where the devout are 'right' and everyone else is wrong. Religion in exclusive rather than inclusive. Bigoted rather than tolerant. Closed rather than open.
Again, I think it is a matter of presuppositions. The texts don't present themselves as a hodge-podge and if they are to be treated that way it raises the question as to whether the editors were really as clumsy and/or stupid as some so-called modern critics think they were. If the texts make sense as coherent and cohesive wholes and the orthodox tradition of biblical interpretation believes that they do, I believe that the texts should be treated as such and not automatically be subjected to the whims of the higher critics who have left a trail of abandoned theories in their wake. Read any good history of modern biblical interpretation for the details.
Again, I think it is a matter of presuppositions. The texts don't present themselves as a hodge-podge and if they are to be treated that way it raises the question as to whether the editors were really as clumsy and/or stupid as some so-called modern critics think they were. If the texts make sense as coherent and cohesive wholes and the orthodox tradition of biblical interpretation believes that they do, I believe that the texts should be treated as such and not automatically be subjected to the whims of the higher critics who have left a trail of abandoned theories in their wake. Read any good history of modern biblical interpretation for the details.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 26, 2017, 10:13AMAgain, I think it is a matter of presuppositions. The texts don't present themselves as a hodge-podge
Sorry, but they do in a large number of cases, proven beyond a doubt by the "Read Da Book" thread in this very forum.
Sorry, but they do in a large number of cases, proven beyond a doubt by the "Read Da Book" thread in this very forum.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Piano man on Jun 26, 2017, 09:35AM 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.
It is my position that in presenting another viewpoint and illustrating that Christians don't agree on many concepts, that it possibly becomes more palatable to a nonbeliever. There are aspects of John's theology that would cause me to reject faith, were it the only allowed possibility, and he likely feels the same.
As far as Christians not understanding well themselves, not really their fault. Many traditions don't trust them with the nuances, fearing they'll lose belief (and tithes.)
It is my position that in presenting another viewpoint and illustrating that Christians don't agree on many concepts, that it possibly becomes more palatable to a nonbeliever. There are aspects of John's theology that would cause me to reject faith, were it the only allowed possibility, and he likely feels the same.
As far as Christians not understanding well themselves, not really their fault. Many traditions don't trust them with the nuances, fearing they'll lose belief (and tithes.)
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 10:31AMIt is my position that in presenting another viewpoint and illustrating that Christians don't agree on many concepts, that it possibly becomes more palatable to a nonbeliever. There are aspects of John's theology that would cause me to reject faith, were it the only allowed possibility, and he likely feels the same.
As far as Christians not understanding well themselves, not really their fault. Many traditions don't trust them with the nuances, fearing they'll lose belief (and tithes.)
I think constantly trying to acommodate the faith for it's "cultured despisers" to use the words of F. Schleiermacher, the so-called "father of modern theological liberalism" is always a dead-end road. The unbeliever will always ask for more.
The preachers and teachers in my tradition are always willing to give the nuances. It is often the "regular folks" who want the simpler version. In other words many churches actually pander to the KISS principle not necessarily because of the loss of income, but because it's just easier to please the folks. Some unbelievers also like the KISS principle because it makes it easier to attack straw men.
As far as Christians not understanding well themselves, not really their fault. Many traditions don't trust them with the nuances, fearing they'll lose belief (and tithes.)
I think constantly trying to acommodate the faith for it's "cultured despisers" to use the words of F. Schleiermacher, the so-called "father of modern theological liberalism" is always a dead-end road. The unbeliever will always ask for more.
The preachers and teachers in my tradition are always willing to give the nuances. It is often the "regular folks" who want the simpler version. In other words many churches actually pander to the KISS principle not necessarily because of the loss of income, but because it's just easier to please the folks. Some unbelievers also like the KISS principle because it makes it easier to attack straw men.