The Bible encourages questioning

[Tiassa]

That post of yours almost didn't make any sense; I'm guessing on most of it

Dan--

So then you have to posit that a true god would accept all religions and/or be "bigger" than religion, so we can do whatever we please and some god will just pat us on the head and say everything we did is okay--or maybe this god would make sure that all the "really bad" people get punished, but not too badly or long.

So, why do I have to posit anything?

But, more to the point: Given that I accept as a definition for the word God, that which is greater than anything we can conceive; essentially, that God is all there is, what need have I to assign personality attributes to the idea of God? God will no more pat us on the head than punish people; it is a limitation of Biblical faith that God has the personality he does, and the dancing around the question of Heaven and Hell that we see among Sciforums' Christian posters is about on par with what we see in the rest of American society at least.

God is. This is a fine statement, as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing in the Universe that says God must have a personality. By declaring that God is something, what of those things then that God is not? (Consider it rhetorical; I expect no better an answer today than I got here a couple of years ago.)

Take the Bible: its sense of contradiction, vagary, or whatever you choose to call it that has resulted in the one way to God being interpreted in such a diverse manner, with such a consistent pattern of human detriment, is exactly what happens when you start limiting God. As God has a personality, people scramble to get on his good side. If the choice is free will, then why does God raise one, Judge one, and then reject one? If the choice was free will, God would simply raise those who accepted his gift and not bother with Judging those who didn't. Such is the nature of a poorly-limited deity.

Or maybe if no god exists at all, then what does it matter what happens after we die because we're dead.

That generally seems to be the point.

And we can't really believe that there really is a god or more gods because if there was, we would see some giant person in the sky running around and telling people to be good, right?

Ummm ... no? I don't understand why it would have to be that way, but you're welcome to give it a shot. The Greek gods of mythology were limited in their own way; the principal idea that limited them had no notable personality, nor was it particularly visible.

A god couldn't possibly let us make up our own minds about him/her/it, because then god would lose the power or authority of people worshipping him/her/it--and we just know that any god would need us to worship him/her/it to give him/her/it any power.

This is a stretch, at best. Before such an assertion is acceptable, one must establish that god has and requires dominion over humankind. And, frankly, it seems quite silly to create something just to have it praise you. Would you raise a child merely to praise and worship you? Don't get me wrong, I'm under the impression that most people I know who have children shouldn't have, all three (or four) of my parents included; and this for a number of reasons. But simply to worship the parent? It's pointless, desperate, and indicative of a self-conscious being that has something to compare itself against.

The problem is, that if God wants to reveal Himself in a way that still keeps with the ability to choose Him or not, your posit goes right out the window, because He would necessarily have to reveal Himself to the earliest people, and re-reveal Himself as each time past was forgotten--hence the structure of the Bible.

Umm ... answer my first question before telling me my posit goes out the window. I appreciate your attempt to ... well, it appears you're trying to view this from what you assume to be my perspective, but the result is kind of comical and, well ... whatever. Even as such, that God should need to reveal itself over and over and over again speaks volumes about God's relationship to its creations.

Wouldn't it be stupid to create a people who desired to worsip, and make them unable to know anything about who they were worshipping?

Yes. But you're forgetting how much of religion I attribute to human creation, so the only way to avoid the "desire" to worship is to eliminate fear; fear happens to be exceptionally useful in individual, social, and species advancement.

And the Bible doesn't put forth a god that needs us for anything.

Although I know a handful of preachers and faithful from across the Christian spectrum who would disagree with you, I always found their reasons quite silly, so I'm not going to argue the point.

So why would some god who had no need for us, want to throw people into hell as an eternal punishment?

As I understand it, it's an act of infinite love and goodness. Beyond that, it makes as little sense to me as it seems to make to you.

People run to hell because they don't want to be under any authority--especially an all-encompassing authority like God is described as in the Bible.

That's one way of looking at it. People reject God, generally, because God doesn't make any sense, and neither do the religions assoiciated with God.

Finally, if God exists, wouldn't He not enjoy people worshipping cats or trees or the sun and placing these objects as equal to Him?

If God is all there is, you're still worshipping God if you worship a cat; you're merely worshipping an aspect of God that is somehow relevant to you. Shouldn't God be a little upset about crucifixes, Bibles, and wooden crosses? Were I God, I would at least want the people worshipping a living part of me.

Wouldn't that be the same as not wanting Him as an authority and running to hell?

No. As I noted,if God is all there is ....

And a question for you: Why would God design life so that perpetuity of species is the primary function of all life except those that worship God? You do realize, don't you, that Judgement Day is it ... that when God comes home and Judges the living and the dead, it means the end of the human species?

Unless, of course, one would like to assert that God has a new human body waiting for you in Heaven ... that, incidentally, would be a first in my experience.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[FA_Q2]

" So then you have to posit that a true god would accept all religions and/or be "bigger" than religion, so we can do whatever we please and some god will just pat us on the head and say everything we did is okay--or maybe this god would make sure that all the "really bad" people get punished, but not too badly or long. "

Yes god would be bigger than religion in such that he would not send 90% of his creation to hell for no other reason than they did not believe in Jesus. What about all the other religions. Why are all of them sent to hell? Do you realize that 80% of children grow up as their parents religion? This speaks of exposure. It matters not what religion is correct apparently. It only matters whether mommy and daddy are of that religion. What Christianity fails to take in to account is that God is not just because he is allowing billions to go to hell for no other reason than they were prevented from believing in him and his son. Weather it is due to family country or time it does not matter. They all go to hell.

Notice I did not use the word punish. God allows them to experience hell for eternity. He turned his back on the uninformed. How just a god.

" And the Bible doesn't put forth a god that needs us for anything. "

Yes it does. As the bible goes, god apparently needs worship.

" Finally, if God exists, wouldn't He not enjoy people worshipping cats or trees or the sun and placing these objects as equal to Him? Wouldn't that be the same as not wanting Him as an authority and running to hell?"

Actually a loving god would probably chuckle at how naive his creation was being and then teach them the truth. Your god kills them. What a loving god.

 

[dan1123]

it is a limitation of Biblical faith that God has the personality he does

What is more complex, an electric motor or you? One works through blind forces, and the other is a being capable of thought, emotion, and personality. So is it more limiting to assume that God is a being capable of thought, emotion, and personality or less? I think the answer is obvious. And just because He isn't like <i>you</i> think He should be, that really doesn't have any bearing in the situation. Someone else might prefer God to kill everyone but himself, but just because someone thinks that doesn't mean that God has to be that way or He does not exist. I think modern people in the U.S. have a pretty poor view about what is "fair" and what isn't. The assumption is that if you get away with one thing now, you should get away with it forever--and if you're finally caught, then it's "unfair". Unfair is doing something wrong and not getting caught--finally getting caught is when things get more fair.

Why would God design life so that perpetuity of species is the primary function of all life except those that worship God?

Maybe becuase He made humankind differently? Maybe just being able to think in abstract ways and design complex machinery isn't the only thing that separates us from other living organisms. Maybe God made us to worship Him, and gave us abilities to do so in abstract thought and creative abilities of our own so that we would be able to worship Him better. And maybe He didn't force the issue, but let us choose whether or not to worship Him.

Unless, of course, one would like to assert that God has a new human body waiting for you in Heaven ... that, incidentally, would be a first in my experience.

1 Corinthians 15 talks about this
"And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven."
So in heaven we are like Jesus described in His post-resurrection state--and I guess He must have looked human:
"At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.... Thinking he was the gardener, she said, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.'" (John 20:14-15)
So that settles it, we all will look like Jewish gardeners .

He turned his back on the uninformed. How just a god.

He informs people all the time. You're very familiar with Christianity and Christians for instance.

What Christianity fails to take in to account is that God is not just because he is allowing billions to go to hell for no other reason than they were prevented from believing in him and his son.

I don't think they were "prevented" from believing anything. The Bible states that God allows into hell people who <i>reject</i> His son. In other words, they don't want God as represented in the Bible being in authority above them. Well, they can have what they want.

Actually a loving god would probably chuckle at how naive his creation was being and then teach them the truth.

And if after God "chuckles" at them and "teaches them the truth", people turn around and say "I don't like your truth, I'm going to believe what I want." What then? God keeps chuckling? I don't think so.

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by dan1123

And if after God "chuckles" at them and "teaches them the truth", people turn around and say "I don't like your truth, I'm going to believe what I want." What then? God keeps chuckling? I don't think so.

Too bad God made the mistake to give human the ability to think. He has every right to get rid of his mistake by burning his creation in Hell. Nothing wrong with that. Destroying the evidence is a great way to hide mistake.

Free will = 50% chance to go right, 50% chance to go wrong.

God was gambling his creation in front of Satan.

The creation went wrong.

God got angry because he lost the bet.

 

[dan1123]

God got angry because he lost the bet.

Satan was part of the bet. And even if <i>everyone</i> chose to go to hell, would it be better for God to force people into heaven? Heaven is where God is, and where everyone there is in His presence all the time. If someone doesn't want to be there, they don't have to. I fail to see how this is "mean".

 

[Tiassa]

It's obvious that we see it differently, Dan

But I thought on this one for a minute or two:

If someone doesn't want to be there, they don't have to.

Okay, so God who blesses our births does so that we might be born into a state of separation from Him. We are then supposed to accept a way of life which will bring us back to God. However, this way of life has proven itself for ages to be detrimental to everyone, including the faithful, though they behave as if they aren't aware of the damage, or as if it doesn't matter at all since God is coming to bring us out of separation soon. In the meantime, as I understand it, a host of faithful have it wrong, creating an evangelical atmosphere that drives away the very infidels the evangelism is supposed to be targeting. So that in the end, one is promised a free gift if they have faith not only in the reward, but that a certain set of beliefs that are not entirely defined since it's just walking in the Way of Jesus will bring them to the free gift even though the conduct they perceive to be required of them seems to contradict the precepts of conformity required to receive the free gift. But one is not supposed to perceive it this way, but to accept on faith that these apparent sins are not sins, for we can say what we want about having faith and walking as Jesus walked, but the simple fact is that the faithful aren't quite puliing it off. Hmmm, could this be the Devil that doesn't make sense even though it's apparently real and whose evil is something we have faith in? Trying to convince us that something that doesn't look quite like it is really it?

Truly, no matter what religion one chooses, it takes a great deal of time and effort to comprehend the paradigm chosen. The only problem with the Christian cosmology is that one is somehow penalized, denied, or annihilated if they don't figure it out in time. Yet they can only work with what God gives them.

Do you really think the millions of Christian hypocrites destroying Jesus' work all through the United States, at least, choose Hell? Yet they act as if that's where they want to be.

I'm pretty sure those people think they're accepting the free gift of Heaven. And when you disagree with them, should they think you are choosing Hell?

Just a quick thought ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

However, this way of life has proven itself for ages to be detrimental to everyone, including the faithful,

In many ways, "this life" has proven quite the opposite--both in ending mass human sacrifice and other horrible acts put forth by ancient pagan religions, and by restraining governments in modern times to have to submit themselves to moral codes higher than the whims of the ruling class.

So that in the end, one is promised a free gift if they have faith not only in the reward, but that a certain set of beliefs that are not entirely defined since it's just walking in the Way of Jesus will bring them to the free gift even though the conduct they perceive to be required of them seems to contradict the precepts of conformity required to receive the free gift.

It isn't stated that it is a certain set of beliefs or a certain set of actions that bring you into heaven. There is only one qualifier, accept Jesus taking on whatever you did wrong so you can stand in the presence of God, or don't and you are banished from His presence. That's it. You could be a Nazi or mass murderer and still make it into heaven. However, God judges those who actually make it to heaven according to what they do in life. (So you don't get away with anything)

The only problem with the Christian cosmology is that one is somehow penalized, denied, or annihilated if they don't figure it out in time.

God judges you by what you have heard and understood--if you don't understand, or haven't heard, then He doesn't hold this against you. However, those who have heard and refuse to understand have shown their rejection and will be separated from God.

Do you really think the millions of Christian hypocrites destroying Jesus' work all through the United States, at least, choose Hell? Yet they act as if that's where they want to be.

Who in your mind is a Christian hypocrite? Someone who fails to act in every way like Jesus? Someone who puts forth their faith before all others? Someone who does something "unchristian"? People will do things wrong, make mistakes, and fail at one time or another. One real question would be, how would they act if they were not a Christian? How much has Christianity restrained them or helped them to make better choices?

 

[Tiassa]

This life, and other notions ....

In many ways, "this life" has proven quite the opposite--both in ending mass human sacrifice and other horrible acts put forth by ancient pagan religions, and by restraining governments in modern times to have to submit themselves to moral codes higher than the whims of the ruling class.

So we replace one form of murder with another? Great solution And I still see influential "ruling classes", even in the great "democracies". It's a nice theory, but it doesn't play out as simply as you present it. You are, of course, operating on the assumption that Christians don't take part in the ill governance of people. Check our US presidents, check out our legislators. When we speak of corrupt federal politicians, a clear majority of them claim Christianity as their guiding principle. Did you miss the prayer-a-thon of the last election? One could almost forget Liebermann was Jewish by the look of things

There is only one qualifier, accept Jesus taking on whatever you did wrong so you can stand in the presence of God, or don't and you are banished from His presence. That's it. You could be a Nazi or mass murderer and still make it into heaven.

Aaah, the life of sin and debauchery and profit followed up by the deathbed confession ... it sometimes seems to be the American dream.

However, God judges those who actually make it to heaven according to what they do in life. (So you don't get away with anything)

So there is only one quaifier? Is that what you said? But then I'm told there's another? Consistency, please. Is it faith in Jesus' counsel on your sins, or is it the sins themselves? It's a nice way around the deathbed confession scheme, I admit, but it makes your espoused philosophy of redemption inconsistent.

God judges you by what you have heard and understood--if you don't understand, or haven't heard, then He doesn't hold this against you.

Yet another qualifier?

However, those who have heard and refuse to understand have shown their rejection and will be separated from God.

That's trite, but it speaks nothing applicably. You could counsel me toward my salvation and accidentally convince me to understand an improper interpretation, thus fostering a faith not truly in Jesus ... the human experience seems to be a puzzlement to God, the way you're explaining it.

Who in your mind is a Christian hypocrite?

Well, you noted arrogance of faith, so there's one. I think what Jesus said in Matthew 6 applies:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. (Matthew 6.5, KJV)

I tend to think all sorts of wailing done by Christians in pursuit of their social goals qualifies. Christian censors, ostracizers, accusers, ad nauseam. The most part of American Chrisitanity seems to qualify by this standard. Blasphemers, as well: we know people are imperfect, but when one exploits the faith to justify their sins against other people--and therefore against God--they are being hypocrites. People sin, but the prevailing trend of not fixing those patterns of sin and the prevailing justifications of individual correctness pretty much constitute hypocrisy against God's word and will.

One real question would be, how would they act if they were not a Christian?

Like the next person. I tend to focus on the potential for progress when one abandons a restrictive set of precepts like we find in Christianity and sets about determining morality experientially; it's not like one has to commit murder before you can understand what's wrong with it. But it's pretty dumb to take it that murder is wrong simply because God says so. It's a constant learning endeavor.

How much has Christianity restrained them or helped them to make better choices?

Depends on the individual, and the context of "better". I know people who look at their improved financial standing as evidence of Jesus' work in their life; and this can be constituted as true: the focus and dedication they learn in their faith can definitely be beneficial. Yet I see poor choices elsewhere; as an example I will mention my cousin's ex-husband, a solid born-again with miracle stories to explain his conversion and a bent for accepting of Christians what he would not of others: psychology is bad, but Christian psychology is good, and if that Christian psychology disagrees with what he already believes, then that Christian is possessed by demons. This is all well and fine until you watch him apply Dr Dobson in some obscure form; discipline or no, the guy smacked his kids just a little too often--a whack on the butt was proper punishment for the child transgressing an instruction he was never given. Whether he was reading Dobson correctly or not, he would have benefitted some from respecting diversity of ideas as related to his parental methods; perhaps he would have understood the damage of employing violence as the front line of behavior modification--now the kids are nice enough, but don't obey until the violence comes. So yes, Christianity has helped him become "better" financially, but it damaged his family so badly that his wife took the kids and set out across the country to find a better life for the youngsters. She's back home with the family now, and her new beau delights in the fact that the children have learned to adopt respect by example as the Pavlovian effect of violence wears off, but it's a subjective version of better that her first husband achieved. It's an American "better", which reinforces the idea that American Christians are Americans first and Christians second, and that might be the bulk of the problem right there.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

So we replace one form of murder with another?

We replace a philosophy of murder with a philosophy of love. People will follow the philosophy to different levels, but having the philosophy in place at least provides a goal to strive for.

You are, of course, operating on the assumption that Christians don't take part in the ill governance of people.

No I'm not. I don't understand why it seems to you that I argue that Christians are somehow perfect or better than other people. I don't argue that at all. What I argue in this case is the Biblical philosophy that the United States was founded on provided for the inclusion of everyone to believe as they wished--which is the foundation of the freedom of speech. Politicians will do what they will, but it is the Bible that provided for the basis of the freedoms that Americans take for granted today.

So there is only one qualifier? Is that what you said? But then I'm told there's another?

Okay, here's how the Bible says it works. <i>Even after</i> you get into heaven or hell, you are judged for what you do in life. You're still in heaven or hell, but the rewards differ between people.

One last thing:

Did you miss the prayer-a-thon of the last election?

I was sickened by this grandiose hypocrisy as well. Politicians should be elected based on their character--not their stances on a couple of issues or whatever religious claims they make. If they have no character, what do issues and religion mean to them anyway? They could just change what they said the instant they think it's out of style. The sooner people ignore these claims at the voting booth the better.

 

[Tiassa]

I always thought it was a Christian expectation of the self

Dan--

I don't understand why it seems to you that I argue that Christians are somehow perfect or better than other people.

We might accidentally have arrived at one of my sticking points with the faith. Is a Christian lifestyle an improvement over others? That is, does Christianity advance life in any unique way? Yes, I keep jabbing at Christians for settling on the standard that it is good enough to be as good or bad as the infidels, but the reason for that is that I always thought that to be the point. If Christianity claims to do nothing to improve the quality of the living endeavor, then it seems to me that God's morality is merely flaming hoops to jump through in quest of the redemptive prize. Compassion and charity: great--you only respect someone enough to feed the hungry because it gets you a ticket into the eternal afterlife? This is a recent development in the Christian expression; hitherto, Christians were afraid to admit this aspect of their faith, that all of the goodness they advocate is merely their personal accumulation of Redemption Points until they have enough to buy admission. So the question becomes Do Christians aspire to a better method of living in this world? Or are they just putting on a dog-and-pony for the Ultimate Audience Who Judges? Sure, I'm willing to accept that Christian charity is actually greed on the part of the giver, but to remove that aspiration of a higher standard of living suddenly reduces the Christian bender for human dominion to sheer arrogance, and restricts claims that the faith is valuable to humanity. Without that aspiration to a better way, Christianity is merely a nuisance. It has never occurred to me that my standard for Christian unity and charity was externally imposed; it was the very principle ignored in the Christian hypocrisy of my own experience as a member of the flock that made me opt out. I mean, I can't understand why I've run across this concept that walking in the way of Jesus is a better way than others in every corner of the Christian experience I've directly engaged. It is only at Sciforums that people excuse Christians from what I learned to be their own standards and reasons. To point back to the savage history of the faith: Someone accepted Jesus as savior, and interpreted the Bible in a manner that compelled them to believe that the execution of those who disagreed doctrinally with them was an act of Christian mercy. That this happened there is little doubt, and that infinitesimal slice of denial comes from staunch members of the faith who cannot stomach that their chosen tradition may be built on repugnant sins. However, is the conclusion of the Christian who saw murder as an act of mercy correct? I, personally, don't think so. However, if merciful murder for doctrinal disagreements is correct, then I feel my point about Christianity being detrimental is strongly reinforced. If that principle of merciful murder is wrong, then how did it come about? Does its motivating device still exist? What are Christians doing about that? How does it affect their faith? I do feel, based on my experience as a member of the flock, and also on my observations since my separation from the faith, that the motivating device--that self-superiority--does still exist. I also feel that your claim that Christians merely need to be as good as the next guy is a lazy load of crap. To claim such a principle reduces Christian charity to mere greed.

What I argue in this case is the Biblical philosophy that the United States was founded on provided for the inclusion of everyone to believe as they wished--which is the foundation of the freedom of speech.

The Bible talks about the founding of the United States? Or is this one of those Christian/Deist usurpations? Either way, an American Christian has two choices: Constitution or Bible--which is the supreme law? Now, just because the law of mankind--e.g. the Constitution--allows humans certain liberties does not necessarily mean that the Bible does. For instance, the hypocrites of Matthew 6--sure the Constitution allows you to stand on the street corner and harass people about God, but what about the Bible? Is it suddenly second-fiddle to the liberty of human law? (I know the Bible says this, but the Constitution says otherwise. Well?)

Okay, here's how the Bible says it works. Even after you get into heaven or hell, you are judged for what you do in life. You're still in heaven or hell, but the rewards differ between people.

What, another standard? What about that one qualifier? That's one of the things I like about Christian flexibility: if the process described doesn't make sense, it must be another process that applies. So just to make sure I have this clear:

* There is only one qualifier in salvation: accepting Jesus.
* And then there is a second qualifier: what you have done on Earth.
* And then there is a third qualifier: whether God thinks you understood or not. (This speaks against diversity of faith among Christians; many are being taught the wrong way, but their Christian neighbors who believe differently are allowing their brethren to continue living according to this wrong way ....)
* And then the fourth qualifier (did someone say something about one qualifier?): whether or not you accepted what may have been the wrong message (in essence, a restatement of the first and only qualifier ... you're confusing me with four, only one, and all that stuff.)

And now, you're explaining how the Bible works because what, the only one-cum-four qualifier(s) were ... what, pulled from your ...?

I was sickened by this grandiose hypocrisy as well. Politicians should be elected based on their character--not their stances on a couple of issues or whatever religious claims they make. If they have no character, what do issues and religion mean to them anyway? They could just change what they said the instant they think it's out of style. The sooner people ignore these claims at the voting booth the better.

You'll find my agreement here, but it's kind of beside the point of the example. But again we touch on the idea that Christians set themselves a higher standard by striving to walk as Jesus walked. It has paid off so well with government that the idea doesn't exist anymore, so you may be right about that.

But if you're right that Christians have no obligations to God to behave any better than the people God condemns, then what is the point of the hateful divisiveness Christians bring in their political quest? Why, in other words, bother?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

* There is only one qualifier in salvation: accepting Jesus.
* And then there is a second qualifier: what you have done on Earth.
* And then there is a third qualifier: whether God thinks you understood or not. (This speaks against diversity of faith among Christians; many are being taught the wrong way, but their Christian neighbors who believe differently are allowing their brethren to continue living according to this wrong way ....)
* And then the fourth qualifier (did someone say something about one qualifier?): whether or not you accepted what may have been the wrong message (in essence, a restatement of the first and only qualifier ... you're confusing me with four, only one, and all that stuff.)

Qualifier one is the only one that affects a person getting into heaven or not. That was my point. You were talking about what in Christianity qualifies people to get into heaven right?

So the question becomes Do Christians aspire to a better method of living in this world?

The ones I am around do. But not for the reason that they need points to get into heaven. The reason is that they love God, so they do what He says in the Bible. It isn't out of fear, coersion, getting on His good side, etc. This probably sounds nuts to you, but you might agree that if people really loved God with all their heart, mind, and strength, then they would do the things like giving to people who stole from them, or going the extra mile for someone who doesn't ask. The fact that this is not demonstrated among many Christians shows how little they think of God--not how little God is.

 

[Tiassa]

Hmmm ....

Qualifier one is the only one that affects a person getting into heaven or not. That was my point. You were talking about what in Christianity qualifies people to get into heaven right?

So what are the other conditions of judgement you've described? Method of determining rank of servitude in Heaven?

So the question becomes Do Christians aspire to a better method of living in this world?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The ones I am around do.

Now, what happens if that sincere attempt to make life better actually is detrimental?

But not for the reason that they need points to get into heaven. The reason is that they love God, so they do what He says in the Bible.

This I understand to be the perception of the faithful. But I often wonder what happens when the faithful are so focused on God that they merely assume their actions to be of benefit of others? When I hammer on, say, the hypocrisy that I perceive in charity, and attach to that an extended argument about political choices, this is part of what I'm after. One wants to do well for others in the world, but in their pursuit of God they foster conditions which require more charity. (The naked example is abortion: I fault Christianity when I see anti-abortionists opposing conditions that will help reduce the number of abortions taking place by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies ... ad nauseam, ad nauseam ...) With charity, one should primarily strive to reduce the need for charity. That sort of thing.

This probably sounds nuts to you, but you might agree that if people really loved God with all their heart, mind, and strength, then they would do the things like giving to people who stole from them, or going the extra mile for someone who doesn't ask.

That's not nuts ... the strangest thing about it is that it was only after I had shed Christianity as a primary influence on my decisions that I came to realize the necessity of what you describe.

The fact that this is not demonstrated among many Christians shows how little they think of God--not how little God is.

I accept this if humans create their gods. But the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God of All advocated by Christianity has apparently not accommodated the smallness of humans in His attempts to communicate his Will and message to our elective nature. This is God's own fault, as it is by His own Will.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

So what are the other conditions of judgement you've described? Method of determining rank of servitude in Heaven?

I don't think it is ever made that clear. Many references are made to "storing up treasures in heaven", but as to what those treasures are I really haven't found any specifics.

The naked example is abortion: I fault Christianity when I see anti-abortionists opposing conditions that will help reduce the number of abortions taking place by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies

The same way, you don't want the method of restricting unwanted pregnancies to help spread STDs and such. It's all about balance. 19th century feminists made abortion illegal because they saw it as harmful to women. I bet they'd be surprised when 20th century feminists overturned what they worked so hard on.

Now, what happens if that sincere attempt to make life better actually is detrimental?

Do you mean detrimental as in, people get so annoyed with these Christians that are trying too hard that Christianity loses its positive effect? Or detrimental in that some 13 year old has a harder time finding porn on the library internet connection?

...has apparently not accommodated the smallness of humans in His attempts to communicate his Will and message to our elective nature. This is God's own fault, as it is by His own Will.

I believe the fault lies in the fruit which gave us the ability to create our own gods. We are so apt to making gods in our own image, that when God as described in the Bible comes around as not as human as we would like, we try and reduce Him to more human standards. I don't think this was by design.

 

[Tiassa]

Hmmm....

I don't think it is ever made that clear. Many references are made to "storing up treasures in heaven", but as to what those treasures are I really haven't found any specifics.

I think it lends toward a different method of judgement. What that is, I've no clue, but it does belie the simplest "faith in Jesus" salvation. All I was poking after was the idea of only one versus the several you had listed.

The same way, you don't want the method of restricting unwanted pregnancies to help spread STDs and such. It's all about balance. 19th century feminists made abortion illegal because they saw it as harmful to women. I bet they'd be surprised when 20th century feminists overturned what they worked so hard on.

I'm starting to like your book review thing:

[size=small]What was the point, then, of making abortion a crime? Reagan argues that its main effect was to expose and humiliate women caught in raids on abortion clinics or brought to the hospital with abortion complications, and thereby send a message to all women about the possible consequences of flouting official gender norms. Publicity -- the forced disclosure of sexual secrets before the authorities -- was itself the punishment. Reagan's discussion of "dying declarations" makes particularly chilling reading: because the words of the dying are legally admissible in court, women on their deathbeds were informed by police or doctors of their imminent demise and harassed until they admitted to their abortions and named the people connected with them -- including, if the woman was unwed, the man responsible for the pregnancy, who could be arrested and even sent to prison. In 1902 the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association endorsed the by then common policy of denying a woman suffering from abortion complications medical care until she "confessed" -- a practice that, Reagan shows, kept women from seeking timely treatment, sometimes with fatal results. In the late 1920s some 15,000 women a year died from abortions. [/size] (Katha Pollitt, Abortion in American History)

* http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortion.htm ... A review of When Abortion Was A Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973, by Leslie J Reagan.

[size=small] The first statutes governing abortion in the United States, James Mohr has found, were poison control measures designed to protect pregnant women like Grosvenor by controlling the sale of abortifacient drugs, which often killed the women who took them. The proliferation of entrepreneurs who openly sold and advertised abortifacients may have inspired this early legislation, passed in the 1820s and 1830s. The 18 Illinois law, which prohibited the provision of abortifacients, was listed under "poisoning."[/size] (Leslie J Reagan, When Abortion was a Crime)

* http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortex.htm

I bet those 19th century feminists would also be real impressed with modern medical technology. Nonetheless, I fail to see your point. What you're responding to is about education, not superstition.

Do you mean detrimental as in, people get so annoyed with these Christians that are trying too hard that Christianity loses its positive effect? Or detrimental in that some 13 year old has a harder time finding porn on the library internet connection?

In history, we might think of the detriment Christians brought to the tribes of this continent. In the modern times we might think of women not knowing how to prevent pregnancy through birth control. In modern times we might look at the grander picture where we see large bodies of faithful, while charitable in their charity, vote for public policies that create larger numbers of poor, disenfranchised, and persons otherwise in need of charity. I mean, really, consider those Christians who worry about rock and roll--believe it or not, loose-morals music somehow ties into their sentiments on abortion. History indicates that abstinence was an impractical solution for people long before rock and roll, or television, or internet porn. So why not educate people about their bodies? It's not the school's job? Well, for many Americans, it's not the family's job, either, so these people end up popping out the li'l ones who require the charitable consideration of their neighbors. Now, this charity is not a problem, but wouldn't it be nice if children were planned, and people could afford to raise them? To solidify the family, Christians need to take a good hard look at economy, finance, and labor. Parents' work lives are the first wrinkle that needs to be worked out. Stronger families would reduce the number of times we hear, "I can't go to graduation ... I'm showing!" (Well, it will.)

I believe the fault lies in the fruit which gave us the ability to create our own gods. We are so apt to making gods in our own image, that when God as described in the Bible comes around as not as human as we would like, we try and reduce Him to more human standards. I don't think this was by design.

To be honest, Dan, this makes almost no sense to me through the first ten readings of it, so I'll let it stand without further comment.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

19th century feminists and abortion

I did a little research at Britannica.com, and found this in their <a href="http://www.britannica.com/magazine/article?content_id=138733&query=abortion">History Today Magazine</a>
Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote this about on the estimate that 400 abortions annually occurred in Androscoggin County, Maine, alone:

There must be a remedy for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?

Elizabeth Blackwell was a feminist and the first woman medical doctor in the United States.

She wrote this of abortionist Madame Restell in her diary:

The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term 'female physician' should be exclusively applied to those women who carry on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women... I finally determined to do what I could to 'redeem the hells'; and especially the one form of hell forced upon my notice...

I don't think they would be impressed by "medical advances".

To be honest, Dan, this makes almost no sense to me through the first ten readings of it, so I'll let it stand without further comment.

I was responding to your statement that placed the blame of humanity creating and following other religions on Him. You said, "[t]his is God's own fault, as it is by His own Will. " I pointed out that the forbidden fruit's influence on humanity gives humanity the capability and desire to worship things other than God. Therefore, this was not God's will.

 

[FA_Q2]

" Do you mean detrimental as in, people get so annoyed with these Christians that are trying too hard that Christianity loses its positive effect? Or detrimental in that some 13 year old has a harder time finding porn on the library internet connection?"

More like detrimental in the suppression of others. Christian groups are consistently suppressing others without even a second thought to the consequences of their actions. In Utah A Catcher in the Rye was banned because of the use of profanity in it. When the demonstrators were asked if they had ever read the book the answer was no, I don't need to. All I need to know is it uses profane language. What kind of bullshit is that. Banning a classic book without even reading it. The same goes for music as well. It is all about forcing their beliefs and moral codes on others. The Christian moral code is twisted in itself. It has no regard for the consequences of its blind actions. You say that it has had a positive effect in that it has made it harder for a 13 year old to look up porn. The fact is it is not due to religion that it is hard for the kid to look up the porn at all. What religion did was make it harder to make the adult look up porn. Pornography has been banned in some places in this country yet there is no real negative affect that this stops. Why ban it then, it offends them. Well keep you F*#&*@ nose out of my S&@*. Go look at the way England treats its porn. If you want to see some porn there just pick up a damn newspaper. Because of how lax it is, people do not want porn as much and kids don't care. All you have to do to make a kid get something is tell them they cannot have it. Suppress it from them and hide it. Once you do that the kid is hooked. Why do you think porn is so rampant here.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
the Christian posters are dodging the issue that the utmost question--the existence of God and therefore the credibility of the Bible itself--should not be brought into question.*
It's only a question for you.
We have the answer.

*it was a tough, military and political fight that made so much of the world accept the Bible--that in itself is an interesting historical facet.*
Nice whitewashing of the Catholic Church.
You're forgetting that they did all that fighting to keep people AWAY from the Bible.

*Originally posted by dan1123
When someone yelled at Jesus to not kill "us" and that they knew who he was, it was said he was under the influence of a demon. A reasonable claim for anyone at the time.*

Of course, that would be a reasonable claim at any time.

An example of an unreasonable claim would be that it is not the influence of demon, and the problem could be solved by chewing some leaf extract and talking for hundreds of hours at $200 per hour with somebody who is contemplating suicide.
That would be unreasonable.

*No infinites mean no chance could have brought us here.*

Excellent point in view of the fact that tiassa said he has faith he (or we?) will see the end of the universe, while at the same time claiming that infinity is what is required to produce a universe without God.

("I could easily say that the intricacy of the Universe is wholly possible given the infinite potential"
and...
"We can't see the end of the Universe; I have faith that we will.")

BTW, tiassa, it's tough to remain coherent when arguing against the existence of God, isn't it?

*Originally posted by tiassa
Here's a question: What is infinity minus one? It must necessarily be a finite number, right? Because it's not infinity? *
You should try to stay away from math questions.
Infinity minus one is still infinity.
Just like infinity plus infinity plus infinity is infinity.

*If the choice is free will, then why does God raise one, Judge one, and then reject one?*

A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
(Proverbs 29:23, KJV).

* If the choice was free will, God would simply raise those who accepted his gift and not bother with Judging those who didn't. *

Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee.
(Job 15:6, KJV).

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
(Matthew 12:37, KJV).

*Aaah, the life of sin and debauchery and profit followed up by the deathbed confession ... it sometimes seems to be the American dream.*

The trick would be in the timing.
A person would have to know when they are going to die ahead of time, in order to plan that.

*This is a recent development in the Christian expression; hitherto, Christians were afraid to admit this aspect of their faith, that all of the goodness they advocate is merely their personal accumulation of Redemption Points until they have enough to buy admission.*

There is that Christian/Catholic confusion, again.
Christians aren't collecting Redemption points.

Catholics are, by suffering, although there is the option of the first-class ticket, the indulgence.

*Originally posted by dan1123
Okay, here's how the Bible says it works. Even after you get into heaven or hell, you are judged for what you do in life. You're still in heaven or hell, but the rewards differ between people. *

Your Bible must be very, very different from mine, because mine says no such thing.

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
(Psalms 37:20, KJV).

Unless the smoke is colored differently, there doesn't appear to be much distinction there.
Of course, that is assuming that when you say "hell," you mean "lake of fire."

*Many references are made to "storing up treasures in heaven", but as to what those treasures are I really haven't found any specifics. *

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
(Ephesians 1:18, KJV).

*Originally posted by tiassa
To solidify the family, Christians need to take a good hard look at economy, finance, and labor.*

Actually, non-Christians need to look at those things to solidify their families.

 

[Tiassa]

Christianity--Uncle Jesus wants YOU

Aah, Tony1 ....

It's only a question for you.
We have the answer.

Such a powerful argument, indeed. Have I not mentioned in the past what a sterling example you are of the power of the Christian intellect? If only they could all be like you ...

Nice whitewashing of the Catholic Church.
You're forgetting that they did all that fighting to keep people AWAY from the Bible.

I'm actually going to take a page from your book, Tony1, and mention that at the surface what they were trying to prevent was the kind of ludicrous, irresponsible theology espoused by self-serving glory-seekers such as yourself. In the end, it backfired, and I'm aware that we agree on the negative result, but it still doesn't excuse you from explaining how it is God delivered the Word to you through time if it wasn't for those Catholics He found so holy and pious. You're still hung up from our original debates when you refused to accept the sins of Christians past as having any influence on the presence of the Word in the modern day in which you received it. To be specific, you have an answer, and like most Christian answers, it seems to be the one most psychologically reassuring to yourself once you've made the leap to believing in the Bible and it's god.

Excellent point in view of the fact that tiassa said he has faith he (or we?) will see the end of the universe, while at the same time claiming that infinity is what is required to produce a universe without God.

Even though you then demonstrate that you have missed the point, you managed to land fairly close to the mark: Specifically, Tony1--it is asserted that Hubble sees 95% of the way to the "edge" of the Universe; this figure will, of course, be revised by later findings. However, at some point, our capability to see that 100% of estimate will be realized, and we will find out exactly what's there. Of this, my faith is justified by the standard of scientific progress.

Regarding the infinite Universe and humanity's place in it, The only way to find out the answer is if humanity itself is ensconced in the Universe. If the human race lasts until "the end of time" (or infinity, or whatever that may be) then we will know how the event unfolds. This is where we find God, no matter what it is called. To make it simpler: if God is as you describe in your interpretations of the Bible, then His coming will be "the end" and we will know the answer. If, however, we continue to thrive in the Universe, and spread out across the stars and become permanent fixtures as the Human Species, then we will, indeed, come as close as we can to seeing the "all there is" aspect of the word "god". Either way, we find the answer. I would have thought your great theological brain, what with its cultural context of nine languages and its philosophical lessons from the religion of medicine would have figured out the simplicity of the statement. Really, a bright, Christian mind like yours ...

You should try to stay away from math questions.
Infinity minus one is still infinity.
Just like infinity plus infinity plus infinity is infinity.

Not really ... it's one less or one more than the next number in the sequence; hardly the same thing.

The trick would be in the timing.
A person would have to know when they are going to die ahead of time, in order to plan that.

Yeah, cancer and AIDS are ideal for that, eh? Do you have a legitimate, worthwhile point? Didn't think so.

There is that Christian/Catholic confusion, again.
Christians aren't collecting Redemption points.

Catholics are, by suffering, although there is the option of the first-class ticket, the indulgence.

That kind of spew makes a whole lot of sense Coming from someone who is more assured of his own salvation than what that salvation is in practical, definable terms ... well, what credibility do you think you're resting on? Certainly there's the credibility of the bad joke, but I don't think that's what you're shooting for.

Actually, non-Christians need to look at those things to solidify their families.

Tony1 that was just downright stupid. Do you have a worthwhile point?

Didn't think so.

Thankfully you have no obligation to God to spread His Word. The image you paint of the faith is woefully puerile. I would hate to think you were going forth on a commitment to your God and blaspheming him by the very nature of your myriad, hateful bigotries.

,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Here ya go, Danny!

Dan--

Consider methods. Eh? Try that. Used to be when you had a combat wound, it was automatic procedure to hack off the limb against the potential of gangrene. Modern medicine has made combat sugery a little more civilized. Sure, we still have many combat amputees, but it's a little less desperate.

Likewise, modern medicine has made the abortion process safer. Do you think that it is at all possible that what these women were objecting to was the mortality rate associated with abortion at the time? The disfigurement and reproductive ruin it could bring?

Similarly, is it possible that maybe, just maybe, these women and I share a common sentiment: that the goal is to eliminate the need for abortion? Asking people to commit to abstinence is like asking people to stop dying. Sexual intercourse is something we humans enjoy. People do it whether they're looking to reproduce or not, and we do not see any real period of civilization in which excess sexuality was not a strong cultural factor.

But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?

So here in the quote you provided, we see a possible approach to solution. Of course, this seems to be a little bit contrary to the Bible. The complete enfranchisement and elevation of women would regard them as intellectual, spiritual, and functional equals; a woman who cannot do "man's work" for lack of physical strength is no different from a man who is not strong enough to handle that jackhammer or whatnot.

The complete enfranchisement of women would lean toward the common pro-choice slogan, "Every child a wanted child". That is, women would be educated about their bodies, would have access to birth control, and silly religious sentiments would not disrupt and pervert this process along the way. "Wives submit to your husbands," would go out the window entirely, including its balance, and the idea of the marital unit would become a mere curiosity. I like your earlier thing about the feminists wanting abortion banned because it was "harmful to women". Well, if the harm is reduced, there goes that part of the objection. There is, of course, the utter degredation we submit women to in society. Sex objects? Why not? If something's beautiful, admire it. But you can't own it, control it, or otherwise spoil it. One doesn't have a right. So what is the harm of abortion to women?

* The medical harm, which the feminists pointed out.
* The emotional harm, which comes from the whole of misogynist culture.
* The spiritual harm, which comes from emotional deprivation.
* The communal harm, when women are reduced to breeding factories, sex slaves, and servants.

Perhaps the harmful abortions would not have been so necessary if it wasn't for stupid rules against birth control, stupid social ideas that wives are subservient to their husbands, ad nauesam.

Getting back to the point of this digression, I quote myself:

The naked example is abortion: I fault Christianity when I see anti-abortionists opposing conditions that will help reduce the number of abortions taking place by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies

So we find you responding to an example; are you avoiding the primary point? This example was provided as a comparison to the following:

* One wants to do well for others in the world, but in their pursuit of God they foster conditions which require more charity.
* With charity, one should primarily strive to reduce the need for charity

Have you any comment on this, or is the focus on abortion based in the idea that the medical harm is the only one at issue? The enfranchisement and elevation of women involves much more than this mere consideration.

The example in question refers to the Christian method of eliminating abortion by eliminating sexuality disagreeable to modern interpretations of Scripture; in other words, eliminating abortion by force of arrogance. Birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies; education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. As Spooner wrote, parents often keep children in a state of ignorance in order to protect them from what is seen as vice. Yet that ignorance, in the case of sexuality, fosters unwanted pregnancies. In other words, there would be less charity required surrounding unwanted pregnancies if there were less unwanted pregnancies. Yet that seems to run counter to the Bible, as we've argued about misogyny in recent days.

I was responding to your statement that placed the blame of humanity creating and following other religions on Him. You said, "[t]his is God's own fault, as it is by His own Will. " I pointed out that the forbidden fruit's influence on humanity gives humanity the capability and desire to worship things other than God. Therefore, this was not God's will.

Which indicates the lack of God's perfect knowledge, the mutability of His will, and the ability of God to make mistakes.

The scenario with the apple only happened at all because God willed it. Christians have much work to do to reconcile notions of free will with the power of God. It's like saying that God sees all ... oh, except this ... oh, and this. Yeah, and then there's this. And how do Christians respond to their own myths? By denying or evading them.

Is God limited in his knowledge? Is God's will limited by that limitation of knowledge? It takes away the goodness and rightness of God to do so, because then God can make mistakes, and God can make wrong decisions based on that limited knowledge. This would explain a lot, to be honest, but it would sort of undermine the salvation racket.

God "could have" made things work differently, but chose not to. Or else God could not have made things differently, and is thus limited. To the first, God wills the fall of man; to the other, God's right to judge at all is only declaratory and thus haughty.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

last thing first:

God "could have" made things work differently, but chose not to. Or else God could not have made things differently, and is thus limited. To the first, God wills the fall of man; to the other, God's right to judge at all is only declaratory and thus haughty.

These both imply that God made every choice for people Himself. Did God make you write that post? If God chose to make people so that they had the capability either to obey Him or to disobey Him, and gave them a real choice at the beginning with the fruit, it does not make God any lesser if those people chose to disobey. Further, if there were no real consequences, then there would be no real choice--only the illusion of one.

The only way that you would believe that God is good is to make people puppets of God. You submit this either by saying that God should have made people internally unable to choose anything that would cause harm, or have no capability of harm exist in the first place. Maybe God should have made the entire world like a modern playground, with rounded corners and soft plastic so we would never be able to hurt ourselves or others--certainly not billions of progeny down one's lineage. However, you must accept that people hurting other people is a fact of life, and if a religion is going to be honest, it has to deal with this. People can hurt others for generations. Someone could shorten another's life--or make it painful for the rest of their days.

God judges people at the end out of the necessity of being good. If there is no justice on earth, a perfectly good God would <i>have</I> to judge all the wrongs that people did to others. What else would be fair? Should everyone be able to get away with everything forever? That wouldn't be fair to the victims and to others who worked hard to be their best. Maybe God should just lower the standards so more people would make it. God did just that. He put in only one standard--out of mercy--that anyone has the capability of choosing. It is very similar to the choice of the forbidden fruit--except in reverse. The forbidden fruit was there all the time and one could choose to eat it at any point to disobey God, and be subject to hell. The choice of Jesus is similar--it is there for your entire life, and you can at any point choose him and obey God, and be subject to heaven.

Perhaps the harmful abortions would not have been so necessary if it wasn't for stupid rules against birth control, stupid social ideas that wives are subservient to their husbands, ad nauseam.

While more use of birth control may help in lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies, it does not help in the lessening of the spread of many sexually transmitted diseases. If society was structured around the idea that it is okay to have sex any time you wanted if you just used birth control (Huxley's Brave New World?), then nothing would deter the spread of many lifelong or life-shortening STDs. Pregnancy isn't the only reason to not have plenty of sex with different people. The ideal, both in dealing with the spread of STDs and the fact that birth control isn't 100% effective, is to only have sex in a lifelong relationship (aka marriage).

"Wives submit to your husbands," would go out the window entirely, including its balance, and the idea of the marital unit would become a mere curiosity.... Sex objects? Why not? If something's beautiful, admire it. But you can't own it, control it, or otherwise spoil it.

Why don't you just throw boys into prison right after they're born then? For men to stay in a lifelong relationship, society has created the family unit and held the father responsible. Without such societal pressures, many men would just go from woman to woman, and never stay around when things got tough. Many fatherless boys then wind up in prison because the male role-model they found was in a gang instead of at home. This whole process has been exhibited in many inner cities throughout the U.S. for decades now.

Also, without the basis of a family that is intact, there will be no stopping a myriad of unwanted pregnancies because after seeing their parents go from one partner to another, many children will follow, and won't have the responsibility in place to keep up with birth control even if it is widely available.

So what is the harm of abortion to women?

* The medical harm, which the feminists pointed out.
* The emotional harm, which comes from the whole of misogynist culture.

Did you read those quotes carefully? They were talking about the <i>destruction of motherhood</i>, not simple harm to a woman's body. Early feminists held motherhood as a high honor--not as an impediment to succeeding monetarily as modern feminists do. Emotional harm comes not only from society, but from the rending of the emotional connection a woman has with her unborn child. I have heard testimony from women who have had abortions and are now emotionally torn apart because of this. Downplaying the effect of destroying the connection of a woman and her unborn child is the worst thing, in my opinion, that feminist organizaitons do to other women.

So we find you responding to an example; are you avoiding the primary point? This example was provided as a comparison to the following:

* One wants to do well for others in the world, but in their pursuit of God they foster conditions which require more charity.
* With charity, one should primarily strive to reduce the need for charity

The question is, do you want to have to donate more to crisis pregnancy centers or do you want to have to give more to STD research? The solution you offer, if successful, only creates another problem. The solution the Christian community offers, if successful, solves the problem entirely. Reducing someone's exposure to sex outside of a lifelong commitment is beneficial to society in reducing unwanted pregnancies, affairs, and the spread of STDs.