Why do we need a God?

[lightgigantic]

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation." - Rev 5:7

Christian's don't really claim to know exactly how God went about this, but not being privy to the details is not a legitimate reason to doubt that it happened, not according to the Christian viewpoint anyway.



You misunderstand. The Christian fundies are saying that about the people who have been exposed to the truth. People such as you.

I am talking about the 99% who haven't. They automatically acquire whatever is to be obtained from austere obedience to scripture (even though there seems to be a suggestion that they are not worthy).

IOW far from strengthening the definition of god, the more clauses one adds in order to move it in that direction, the more unwieldy it becomes.

Kind of like the stream of theories that came to the fore in order to keep the heliocentric view standing on four legs for as long as possible.

I can see where this is going - eventually its going to culminate in fideism ... which is the weakest most problem besieged epistemological system one can draw up in the name of religon

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

Romans 1:19-20

" because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."

This scripture is very often interpreted, by fundies and moderates alike, as signifying that nobody has an excuse not to believe.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

Romans 1:19-20

" because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."

This scripture is very often interpreted, by fundies and moderates alike, as signifying that nobody has an excuse not to believe.

I don't see how they can cite that as referring to the whole jesus/christian thing since its plainly obvious that for 99% of the population, christianity and its related precepts was not known to them

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

The scripture plainly says that god's power and divine nature have been clearly seen though his creation. The argument goes that since everyone has seen his creation, everyone has seen evidence of his power and divine nature, thus people who reject what the scripture says is self-evident have no excuse.

I, personally, don't buy it(of course) but that doesn't stop it from being a valid interpretation of the scripture. That it can be interpreted other ways doesn't change this.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

The scripture plainly says that god's power and divine nature have been clearly seen though his creation. The argument goes that since everyone has seen his creation, everyone has seen evidence of his power and divine nature, thus people who reject what the scripture says is self-evident have no excuse.

I, personally, don't buy it(of course) but that doesn't stop it from being a valid interpretation of the scripture. That it can be interpreted other ways doesn't change this.

But how does that affect the plight of say australian natives 10AD or residents of india or even Jerusalem 1BC (all of whom, along with 99% of the population who were presented from submitting to Jesus for reasons of chronology, culture and geography)?

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

I'm pretty sure that by anyone's standards the creation was around well before 10CE, so the evidence, according to the bible, was there. If they "chose" not to heed it then they must face the consequences.

 

[Rav]

I am talking about the 99% who haven't. They automatically acquire whatever is to be obtained from austere obedience to scripture (even though there seems to be a suggestion that they are not worthy).

See Matt 20:1-16. The passage demonstrates that people who do more work do not always get a greater reward. But Christian's aren't saying that those who have never heard of Jesus get a free pass. It becomes quite obvious after studying scripture that there are at least two prerequisites: to be genuinely seeking God, and for appropriate actions to follow from that.

IOW far from strengthening the definition of god, the more clauses one adds in order to move it in that direction, the more unwieldy it becomes.

Christianity can be very rational to those who have embraced the prescribed epistemology.

I can see where this is going - eventually its going to culminate in fideism ... which is the weakest most problem besieged epistemological system one can draw up in the name of religon

If by that you mean that there are certain things about the nature of God and his interactions with the world that remain mysterious to his followers, then sure. Your own religion doesn't escape that sort of criticism.

Let's just get straight to the meat of this. Are you convinced that your own epistemological framework is superior to that of the fundamentalist Christian?

 

[wynn]

Christian fundamentalists don't see God as a monster. They see him as a loving father. So they would argue that this grossly inaccurate characterization of yours is simply a feature of your rejection of him, or a symptom of a 'hardened' heart.

Oh, I know they do that, I know that very well.

Don't forget that those same fundamentalists have no problem eating veal for Christmas.
Such facts about them seriously make me doubt that they are suitable judges for what is a hardened or a soft heart.

So again, how do you reliably determine whether or not they are correct about this?

That will depend on my preconceived notions about myself, other people, God, life, the Universe and everything,
and on how willing and able I am to challenge and change those notions,
and also on how able I am to withstand the pressure from the people around me (esp. if they are all Abrahamists).


Again, this is where goodwill comes in.

Do you really believe that happy people would espouse an outlook like the Abrahamists do?

Let me ask you the same question that I'm asking wynn: how have you been able to determine that the claims of the Christian fundamentalists are incorrect?

It's not that I see their claims as "incorrect."

It's that I see them as limited to a particular time, place, circumstance; to a particular group of people with particular needs, interests and concerns.

 

[wynn]

The scripture plainly says that god's power and divine nature have been clearly seen though his creation. The argument goes that since everyone has seen his creation, everyone has seen evidence of his power and divine nature, thus people who reject what the scripture says is self-evident have no excuse.

But how does that affect the plight of say australian natives 10AD or residents of india or even Jerusalem 1BC (all of whom, along with 99% of the population who were presented from submitting to Jesus for reasons of chronology, culture and geography)?

I am sure that the same content to the effect of -

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation." - Rev 5:7

Romans 1:19-20

" because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."

can be found in all religions -

"God is great and God loves you and He has done things to redeem you even though you are sinful; so you have no excuse not to believe in Him."

 

[wynn]

Perhaps the easiest point to discuss is because it relies upon an inferior definition of god.

I think that the really difficult part here is to consider the mainstream Abrahamic definition of God as inferior -
in terms of trusting a different sense of what a superior God is or would be
above the sense of what makes for superiority that one has been raised with / used to.

It's a matter of shedding old conditioned beliefs, and this is usually not easy.

I can see where this is going - eventually its going to culminate in fideism ... which is the weakest most problem besieged epistemological system one can draw up in the name of religon

But parallel to fideism is the phenomenon of being overwhelmed by religious choice and resorting to (self)destructive behaviors in order to medicate the stress, or adopting a hyperindividualistic, ecclectic approach to religion presuming oneself to be already enlightened.

IOW, the modern problem is that there seems to be no meaningful and viable way to approach religiousness.
It's not that people wouldn't want to be religious, or that they wouldn't want to know the higher truth - it's that there is so much confusion and abuse in the name of it that many people simply try to back off.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

I agree that most religions likely have proscriptions like this, it's among the best ways they have to convert people. The scare that converts them is also the scare that coerces them to remain. I've experienced this tactic first hand.

However LG disagreed with the interpretation I offered for the scripture and I showed him how the scripture leads to such beliefs, they are indeed scripturally sound.

 

[wynn]

I'm pretty sure that by anyone's standards the creation was around well before 10CE, so the evidence, according to the bible, was there. If they "chose" not to heed it then they must face the consequences.

More and more studies show that the notion of eternal damnation is a later invention, a glitch in translation.


E.g.

It is a prevalent idea that the words "Eternal, Everlasting, Forever," etc., in the English Bible, signify endless duration. This essay aims to prove the popular impression erroneous. The inquiry will be pursued in a manner that shall be satisfactory to the scholar, and also enable the ordinary reader to apprehend the facts, so that both the learned and the unlearned may be able to see the subject in a light that shall relieve the Scriptures of seeming to teach a doctrine that blackens the character of God, and plunges a deadly sting into the believing heart.

The original Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, by seventy scholars, and hence called "The Septuagint," B.C. 200-300,(1) and the Hebrew word Olam is, in almost all cases, translated AiónAiónios etc., (Aíwv, Aíwvios,) so that the two words may be regarded as synonymous with each other. In the New Testament the same wordsAión and its derivatives, are the original Greek of the English words,Eternal, Everlasting, Forever, etc.. So that when we ascertain the real meaning of Aión, we have settled the sense of those English words in which the doctrine of Endless Punishment is erroneously taught. It is not going to far to say that if the Greek Aión - Aiónios does not denote endless duration, then endless punishment is not taught in the Bible. We proceed to show that the sense of interminable duration does not reside in the word.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html



What is truly timeless? This book explores the language of eternity, and in particular two ancient Greek terms that may bear the sense of "eternal": aiônios and aïdios. This fascinating linguistic chronicle is marked by several milestones that correspond to the emergence of new perspectives on the nature of eternity. These milestones include the advent of Pre-Socratic physical speculation and the notion of limitless time in ancient philosophy, the major shift in orientation marked by Plato's idea of a timeless eternity, and the further development of Pre-Socratic insights by Epicurean and Stoic thinkers. From the biblical perspective, the intersection of Greek and Hebrew conceptions is reflected in Septuagint, as well as new inflections in popular terminology in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and in the role of eternity in the theology of the New Testament. The profound cross-fertilization of Christian and classical philosophical conceptions in the works of the Church fathers and their contemporaries is explored, bringing the topic into the Patristic period. Christian theology in the first five centuries of the Common Era and its choice of vocabulary prove to be most revealing of larger doctrinal commitments. Above all debate raged on the question of eternal damnation versus the idea (deemed heretical in the Christian church after the formal condemnation of Origenism) of apocastastis or universal salvation -- that is, the belief that the wicked are not condemned to eternal punishment but will eventually be included among the saved. Terminology for "eternity" is often at the core of how these issues were debated, and helps to identify which writers inclined to one or the other view of the matter.

Ramelli, Ilaria, and David Konstan. Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts



And currently, there is a debate going on among Christians on whether there is eternal damnation or not, and some hold that there is not.
The notion of eternal damnation is not universally Christian, at least not anymore.

And if they themselves are not so sure or unfied about it anymore, then why should the rest of the world?



(I remember seeing a bit of an old Bible film with Anthony Hopkins playing an early Christian. It so happened that the scene I've seen was just the one where a group of Christian men is discussing preaching to others (non-Christians), and some men claim that they should be preached to and converted, while the Hopkins character says words to the effect that the biblical teachings were meant only for them, the Christians, and not those outside of the flock; that those outside are bound to different laws than the Christians and that the Christians may not interfere.)

 

[wynn]

You misunderstand. The Christian fundies are saying that about the people who have been exposed to the truth. People such as you.

So what if they say that?

 

[wynn]

See Matt 20:1-16. The passage demonstrates that people who do more work do not always get a greater reward. But Christian's aren't saying that those who have never heard of Jesus get a free pass. It becomes quite obvious after studying scripture that there are at least two prerequisites: to be genuinely seeking God, and for appropriate actions to follow from that.

And I can think of a Hindu text, for example, that says in roundabout the same (of course without reference to Jesus).

 

[aaqucnaona]

I guess people get what they expect.

More like they begin to expect only what you give them.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Yes. There are, and always have been, sects of christianity that don't believe in eternal damnation and it's easy to see why. In judaism hell is not permanent either, you spend your allotted time there and then ascend to heaven. There were only five exceptions to this, five people who were supposedly cursed to hell for all eternity because of the severity of their crimes. And their hell wasn't the "fire and brimstone" that we see in most sects of modern christianity either.

So if you look at the history of christianity and it's origins as a fringe cult of judaism, it makes sense that many christian sects would have retained the judaic vision of hell.

This, in no way, invalidates what I said. The interpretation I offered is a valid one based on what the text says. Interestingly enough the scripture I quoted doesn't mention eternal damnation once, so how is this even relevant to my post?

 

[wynn]

More like they begin to expect only what you give them.

Depends on what they were asking for or shown ready to accept.

 

[aaqucnaona]

So what if they say that?

So you have to explain why there is a difference between your conclusions and ours.

 

[aaqucnaona]

there are at least two prerequisites: to be genuinely seeking God, and for appropriate actions to follow from that.

So you need Confirmation bias and the sunk cost effect to believe in God?

 

[wynn]

This, in no way, invalidates what I said. The interpretation I offered is a valid one based on what the text says. Interestingly enough the scripture I quoted doesn't mention eternal damnation once, so how is this even relevant to my post?

The scripture you posted:

Romans 1:19-20

" because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."

So what's with the "no excuse"?
What will happen to those who don't believe in God?