God

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 05, 2017, 06:31AMIt's easy to sneer at those who cater to the least common denominator.

But the other side of that is genius. 

It really isn't true that anyone can get rich that way.  You have to have an extreme form of insight into what people will want, and a high degree of skill in producing it. 

Yes, some of the "New Atheist" writers have found a way to make a moderate living out of this sort of thing.  Maybe if they had a bit more of the skill Tim mentioned they'd make a financial killing. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 04, 2017, 08:52PM - I don't think that the apocrypha is inspired.  That's probably because they are not in my protestant bible and because they don't have the same impact on me when I read them.  So far in read da book they deuterocannonical books have been pretty uninspiring.

It was interesting, wasn't it, to include them? No more to come, we've covered them all, barring a few odds and ends in Daniel.

A very mixed bag -
Tobit - a nutty fairy tale
Judith - a faux-historical novelette
1 Maccabees - historical narration of the Maccabean revolt
2 Maccabees - rather childish version of events leading to the Maccabean revolt
Wisdom - "Be wise in order to be godly"
Sirach - misc general precepts
Baruch - standard-issue "hold tight" advice to the exiled Jews

If I had to guess which appealed to a random inquiring believer and which didn't, I'd go for:

Yes: Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch
No: Tobit, Judith

Do you feel the same?

For me the interesting thing about Tobit and Judith was that they made the everywhere-accepted Esther seem like an equally mad piece of nonsense.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 05, 2017, 05:59AMMy position's change a good deal, actually, particularly as I've learned a bit more about how human brains work (and don't work)--not to those with a much more rigid two-dimensional perspective though, I'm sure.
Heh ... well there's a pretty ironic comment.
 It is best to go with technical objections when you have nothing of substance.
 
Good strategy--revealing, but only to those paying attention. So... is there a single comment in here that has anything to do with the given topic? Or just snide rejoinders from someone with nothing to offer?

Because really, if the person making the complaint has nothing to add (as you continually show), then a valid response really has nothing to give.

So what is your point here? You have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand... what do you hope to accomplish? Just more god/religious bashing?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 05, 2017, 06:42AMYes, some of the "New Atheist" writers have found a way to make a moderate living out of this sort of thing.  Maybe if they had a bit more of the skill Tim mentioned they'd make a financial killing. 

They make a modest living, as do theologians.

Now take televangelists................................... ..........

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 05, 2017, 07:22AMSo... is there a single comment in here that has anything to do with the given topic? Or just snide rejoinders from someone with nothing to offer?
 
Because really, if the person making the complaint has nothing to add (as you continually show), then a valid response really has nothing to give.
 
So what is your point here? You have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand... what do you hope to accomplish? Just more god/religious bashing?
Going technicality tactical is a good but pretty last ditch strategy, but when you have to go all out ad hominem it's just a pretty obvious admission that you're spent.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 05, 2017, 08:11AMGoing technicality tactical is a good but pretty last ditch strategy, but when you have to go all out ad hominem it's just a pretty obvious admission that you're spent.
In other words, no you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute, but don't want to admit it and also still want the last word.

Go back to your own thread, Byron... Or do you really need to shut down any and all religious conversations on this forum for yet another time, with your close-minded anti-religious BS?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 05, 2017, 06:44AMIt was interesting, wasn't it, to include them? No more to come, we've covered them all, barring a few odds and ends in Daniel.

A very mixed bag -
Tobit - a nutty fairy tale
Judith - a faux-historical novelette
1 Maccabees - historical narration of the Maccabean revolt
2 Maccabees - rather childish version of events leading to the Maccabean revolt
Wisdom - "Be wise in order to be godly"
Sirach - misc general precepts
Baruch - standard-issue "hold tight" advice to the exiled Jews

If I had to guess which appealed to a random inquiring believer and which didn't, I'd go for:

Yes: Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch
No: Tobit, Judith

Do you feel the same?

For me the interesting thing about Tobit and Judith was that they made the everywhere-accepted Esther seem like an equally mad piece of nonsense.

Interesting.

Actually I didn't think any of them 'felt' the same as the 'real' bible texts, even Esther.  Possible reasons: some are "batty", I'm unfamiliar with them and maybe because they are from an unfamiliar translation, but I also think its because they fit with the style and theology of the rest of the 'real' bible better.  Maybe its because I can feel that the Spirit of God in the texts of the real bible, but I don't normally feel him so I would be pleasantly surprised if that was the case.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 05, 2017, 06:42AMQuote from: timothy42b on Jul 05, 2017, 06:31AMIt's easy to sneer at those who cater to the least common denominator.
 
But the other side of that is genius.
 
It really isn't true that anyone can get rich that way.  You have to have an extreme form of insight into what people will want, and a high degree of skill in producing it.Yes, some of the "New Atheist" writers have found a way to make a moderate living out of this sort of thing.  Maybe if they had a bit more of the skill Tim mentioned they'd make a financial killing. 
Most of the perceived appealing to the lowest common denominator re: the "New Atheists" is just privilege--the fact that it's shocking for many people, even now, to hear criticism of Christianity and theism. Most find that alone offensive and/or immediately start making negative assumptions about the critic's parentage and such. So even an innocuous criticism starts off in the negative, perception-wise, and not just a little. It's kind of like Trump's deplorables. They're about 20% to 25% of the population, and they're a gimme, so he starts in the polls with a 20% to 25% bonus of deplorability.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:00 AMYes, some of the "New Atheist" writers have found a way to make a moderate living out of this sort of thing.  Maybe if they had a bit more of the skill Tim mentioned they'd make a financial killing. 
Most of the perceived appealing to the lowest common denominator re: the "New Atheists" is just privilege--the fact that it's shocking for many people, even now, to hear criticism of Christianity and theism. Most find that alone offensive and/or immediately start making negative assumptions about the critic's parentage and such. So even an innocuous criticism starts off in the negative, perception-wise, and not just a little. It's kind of like Trump's deplorables. They're about 20% to 25% of the population, and they're a gimme, so he starts in the polls with a 20% to 25% bonus of deplorability.

Byron, I'm not at all sure what you're saying here, so I don't know if I agree or disagree.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 05:27 AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:00 AMQuote from: John the Theologian on Jul 05, 2017, 06:42AMYes, some of the "New Atheist" writers have found a way to make a moderate living out of this sort of thing.  Maybe if they had a bit more of the skill Tim mentioned they'd make a financial killing.  Most of the perceived appealing to the lowest common denominator re: the "New Atheists" is just privilege--the fact that it's shocking for many people, even now, to hear criticism of Christianity and theism. Most find that alone offensive and/or immediately start making negative assumptions about the critic's parentage and such. So even an innocuous criticism starts off in the negative, perception-wise, and not just a little. It's kind of like Trump's deplorables. They're about 20% to 25% of the population, and they're a gimme, so he starts in the polls with a 20% to 25% bonus of deplorability.Byron, I'm not at all sure what you're saying here, so I don't know if I agree or disagree.
Interesting.
 
I don't know if you agree of disagree either ... heh.
 
To rephrase (and I know you were joking--good naturedly--more about the skill thing than the lowest common denominator thing I suspect):
Generally speaking, in the West, the US in particular, anyone criticizing Christianity or theism starts out with a large helping of shock and wildly flailing knees from his or her audience, no matter how innocuous the criticism (such is the nature of iconoclasm). So much of the perception that the critic is appealing to the lowest common denominator is a product of that reaction (and the uncritical/naive presumption of obvious veracity regarding the beliefs being criticized) rather than the actual criticism.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 04:51 AMThis is the part I have trouble with.

I think the evidence for that is in Webster's.

By that, I mean the only reason to think so is because we consider that part of the definition of a god.

That doesn't mean a real God, should one exist, would be forced to conform to it.  He/She/It could very well have some real limitations (like Superman and kryptonite.) 

If that is inconceivable, then I think we are insisting on dealing only with our mental construct of a god. 

I don't think (and I'm saying this tentatively) that describing God's attributes as infinite is a problem.

I agree that God has limitations but they are described by his infinite attributes and not be a limit on the attribute. 

One restriction is that God can't lie.  That's because he has the true attribute that is unrestricted and not because he has some other attribute, like being able to say speak, that is restricted in that he can only say some things.  or because he is supposed to be invulnerable but not to kryptonite.

Does that make sense?  That's how I think of it anyway.

And I am aware that my concept of God is a restricted version of what he really is, we have to do that so that he can fit inside our understanding.

[ttf_BillO]

So, I went though Driz's list of God attributes and have a few comments/questions on them.

QuoteAseity
 - he isn't dependent on creation, he was not incomplete before creation and it doesn't add to his completeness or happiness ...This begs the question: Then why bother with creation at all?

QuoteGood
 - God is the ultimate standard of good
We just don't get to see much of God's goodness.  If he's the ultimate example, that seems to be setting the bar pretty low.

QuoteGracious
 - he is compassionate and desires to forgive and even makes that possible
Again, this is a sparely used attribute.

QuoteImmanent
 - he is in every part of the worldSo, he's right there when the RC priest is sodomizing the innocent little alter boy, or when some horrendous pedophile rapes and kills a completely innocent 6 year old girl to make a snuff movie.  This all happens with God's providence.  Do you think these truly innocent victims feel the love, grace and goodness of God during these experiences?

QuoteImpeccable
 - God is unable to sinI am not so sure about this, unless there is a double standard for 'sin'.

QuoteJealousA sin.

QuoteWrathA deadly sin.

QuoteIncomprehensibleSo it seems.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 10:39 AMSo, I went though Driz's list of God attributes and have a few comments/questions on them.
This begs the question: Then why bother with creation at all?
We just don't get to see much of God's goodness.  If he's the ultimate example, that seems to be setting the bar pretty low.
Again, this is a sparely used attribute.
So, he's right there when the RC priest is sodomizing the innocent little alter boy, or when some horrendous pedophile rapes and kills a completely innocent 6 year old girl to make a snuff movie.  This all happens with God's providence.  Do you think these truly innocent victims feel the love, grace and goodness of God during these experiences?
I am not so sure about this, unless there is a double standard for 'sin'.
A sin.
A deadly sin.
So it seems.


Martin is doing a good job of interacting with you on these things and you're responding to  him, not me, but my main comment can be summed up in the Luther quote about Erasmus that I posted a few days ago: "your thoughts about God are too human."

Basically the problem is that you have decided that God must meet your standard while the traditional, orthodox, biblical answer is just the other way around-- we are called to meet His standards.  That's always going to be an impasse unless you realize that the very definition of God that we who hold to the historic Christian faith believe is that "it is he who has made us" and therefore we believe that how God has revealed himself is who He is.  We don't have exhaustive knowledge of Him by a very long shot-- hence the readiness to accept that God has "mysterious ways" sometimes that are to be accepted, not challenged.

Obviously, that really rubs you the wrong way, but unless you recognize the fundamentally different starting point, we will always talk past each other.  You want to challenge us, but there really is a challenge to you that in your uncertainty--  which I take to be your fundamental starting point-- you have no idea if this world is really just a cosmic joke or if possibly there is a deity behind it all that is far "worse" than the God of historic Christianity.

In other words your judgments are based off of an understanding of what God must be like that takes some of the biblical categories that you like and reject the others.  Since you invariably end up saying that the Christian God must be some sort of moral monster, the real question is:  what is your basis of what God "should" must be like, other than your own preferences?

[ttf_BillO]

No John,  God does not have to meet my standards.  God is a fictitious human construct.  A part of a larger human construct, religion.  Which was created as a set of rules that people of ancient times could use to help them interact in the larger societies that were forming at the time.

For some reason the leaders of the time, those that invented religion, decided top base it on fear.  God was created to be the thing to be feared.  I can imagine the difficulties they had in trying to design this God.  They must have made a lot of alterations over time, the final one resulting in him being incomprehensible.  Solves a lot of problems.

John, you a theologian.  I like to invite you to answer the questions I had in my previous post.  Also, you can tell why your God is allowed to sin.  Or rather, there things your God says about himself that are considered sinful by the religion.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 11:09 AMNo John,  God does not have to meet my standards.  God is a fictitious human construct.  A part of a larger human construct, religion.  Which was created as a set of rules that people of ancient times could use to help them interact in the larger societies that were forming at the time.

If God doesn't need to meet your standards, then why is that the basis of virtually every one of  your arguments against the historic Christian faith.  They all seem to boil down to this:  the Christian God doesn't resemble the God that I believe must be, if he does exist, so therefore he can't exist.

Honestly, every post of yours seems to boil down to this.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 11:09 AMNo John,  God does not have to meet my standards.  God is a fictitious human construct.  A part of a larger human construct, religion.  Which was created as a set of rules that people of ancient times could use to help them interact in the larger societies that were forming at the time.

For some reason the leaders of the time, those that invented religion, decided top base it on fear.  God was created to be the thing to be feared.  I can imagine the difficulties they had in trying to design this God.  They must have made a lot of alterations over time, the final one resulting in him being incomprehensible.  Solves a lot of problems.

John, you a theologian.  I like to invite you to answer the questions I had in my previous post.  Also, you can tell why your God is allowed to sin.  Or rather, there things your God says about himself that are considered sinful by the religion.


No Bill. God is "a human construct" according to you. So if that's your starting point, why bother explaining it to you. Because without faith, you will NEVER understand. Period.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Today at 12:33 PMNo Bill. God is "a human construct" according to you. So if that's your starting point, why bother explaining it to you. Because without faith, you will NEVER understand. Period.
Yes, God is a human construct according to me.  And yes, that's where I'm coming from.  We agree on lot's of things.  My 'No' to John was to indicate I have no uncertainty here, and that the other assumptions he made about me were not correct.  In fact, it is the religious people that are uncertain.

I need to understand why Your God stands by and lets a RC priest violate a child.  And I need to understand why you are okay with that (not that the priest is a piece of ****, but that God stands by and let's it happen).  I'm not uncertain about these things.  They are.  I just want to know from a religious perspective why they are.  These are the deep moral questions religion is supposed to help us with, but instead has no answers.

You talk about me not understanding, but I have asked questions on this and other threads here on religion where the religious folks just come back with it's no possible to know God's purpose, so apparently the religious folk will never understand either.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 11:15 AMIf God doesn't need to meet your standards, then why is that the basis of virtually every one of  your arguments against the historic Christian faith.  They all seem to boil down to this:  the Christian God doesn't resemble the God that I believe must be, if he does exist, so therefore he can't exist.

Honestly, every post of yours seems to boil down to this.
It has nothing to do with my standards.  It's your standards.  When I ask about God, it's your God I'm asking about.  I simply don't have need for any God.  You can't seem to get your head around that.

John, you're not answering my questions.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 01:16 PMIt has nothing to do with my standards.  It's your standards.  When I ask about God, it's your God I'm asking about.  I simply don't have need for any God.  You can't seem to get your head around that.

John, you're not answering my questions.

No, we've answered some of your questions, but you don't like the answers because you have an assumption about what God must be like and must do if he is to be real.  Hence you claim we have not answered your questions. 

T repeat, the real issue is that since you won't allow that God could have purposes beyond what you deem legitimate, you keep repeating that we haven't answered your questions.  I think you need to realize that the real issue is when we disagree with any answer that you have stipulated to be acceptable you keep saying,  more loudly each time, it seems, that we haven't answered your questions.

In that sense you are as dogmatic as any of us believers. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 08, 2017, 11:01AMMartin is doing a good job of interacting with you on these things and you're responding to  him, not me, but my main comment can be summed up in the Luther quote about Erasmus that I posted a few days ago: "your thoughts about God are too human."Sounds strangely like the whole "fake news" ploy.
 
The no true Scotsman fallacy suggests itself rather prominently.
 
If you have a problem with God or my theology I can dismiss it because I have impressive terms I can attach to your criticism and just never deal with it.
 
And many wonder how we got where we are right now sociopolitically ...

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ronkny on Jul 08, 2017, 12:33PMBecause without faith, you will NEVER understand. Period.
Awesome.
 
That really means until you decide to agree with me you'll never understand.
 
Or in other words if you insist upon taking intellectual responsibility for the veracity and soundness of your beliefs you'll never understand.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 08, 2017, 05:07PMSounds strangely like the whole "fake news" ploy.
 
The no true Scotsman fallacy suggests itself rather prominently.
 
If you have a problem with God or my theology I can dismiss it because I have impressive terms I can attach to your criticism and just never deal with it.
 
And many wonder how we got where we are right now sociopolitically ...

Actually it's not at all the "no true Scotsman" argument.  I can elaborate more if you'd like if you'd explain how I'm using that argument.

My point is that we need to talk about both our assumptions and whether or not the arguments are true, with both of those being totally inseparable.  What BillO keeps claiming is that we aren't attempting to answer him. 

My response is, Oh yes we are, it's just that our answers are not acceptable to him-- and I assume to you as well-- because your starting assumptions about what God must be like if He exists is nothing like the God we believe in.

We can talk about that all day, but the end result will always be the same because your starting presuppositions-- there's that key word again-- have ruled out actually listening sympathetically to the answers we give.

The bottom line is we believe that God gives us an compelling answer as to why there is good in this world and a real future certainty that He will triumph over evil while Naturalism ultimately just leaves us with time, space and chance and no real understanding of the nature of good and evil other than a vague hope that things somehow are "getting better."

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 11:09AMAlso, you can tell why your God is allowed to sin.  Or rather, there things your God says about himself that are considered sinful by the religion.Sin is defined basically as doing something that distances God's people from God.

God is not tasked with seeking or following God, so the second part is not applicable (the religion is about how people come to God, not God's behavior), and the first is impossible.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 08, 2017, 05:11PM Awesome.
 
That really means until you decide to agree with me you'll never understand.
 
Or in other words if you insist upon taking intellectual responsibility for the veracity and soundness of your beliefs you'll never understand.
You use intellectual responsibility as a club to beat others with... but have you ever considered it yourself? Maybe instead of engaging only at the "meta level" - ie: discussion about the discussion - you could grow the cojones to simply engage in the discussion at hand?

Most people don't find it a fearful thing to engage other directly. Interesting you work so hard to avoid it.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 08, 2017, 06:35PMSin is defined basically as doing something that distances God's people from God.

God is not tasked with seeking or following God, so the second part is not applicable (the religion is about how people come to God, not God's behavior), and the first is impossible.
You may not believe it, but this actually works and is at least an answer.  So, what your telling me then, is when God is wrathful it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  Or, when God is jealous it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  My assumption of a double standard is verified then.  God can do or say anything he likes and it's not a sin or a lie, even if it would be for a human.  Fair enough.  Thank you Bob.  I think I have made progress in my understanding of your God.  Do Martin and John agree with Bob?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 08, 2017, 01:51PMNo, we've answered some of your questions, but you don't like the answers because you have an assumption about what God must be like and must do if he is to be real.  Hence you claim we have not answered your questions. 

T repeat, the real issue is that since you won't allow that God could have purposes beyond what you deem legitimate, you keep repeating that we haven't answered your questions.  I think you need to realize that the real issue is when we disagree with any answer that you have stipulated to be acceptable you keep saying,  more loudly each time, it seems, that we haven't answered your questions.

In that sense you are as dogmatic as any of us believers. 
You are giving me none specific "Tell all the doubters this..." answers.  I want specific answers.  Like I was one of your flock coming to find a moral compass.  Would you like me to reiterate some of my questions so you can address them specifically?  It makes it hard to communicate when you respond with "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is too much for you to understand" type answers to very specific happenings that are in moral question.  My assumption, and correct me if I'm worng, is that (your) God is trying to develop some sort of moral direction for us dirty rags.  If this is the case, and it certainly seems so from both testaments, why do we still have no clue what the plan is?

Dogma has it's uses - for some it provides 'certainty', but it has a lifespan.  It needs to be challenged in order for it to hold sway as times and people change.  Look at your own religion.  It started out as Judaism, got challenged by a Jew that was supposedly God incarnate, then morphed over hundreds of years to what you have now.


Quoteyou won't allow that God could have purposes beyond what you deem legitimateYeah, you know, the rape and murder of a small child is not 'legitimate'.  No way, never and no how.

[ttf_ddickerson]

In your world where there is no God, is there any type of higher authority that can judge what's right and wrong? Or, without a higher authority, is it just that every person can decide for themselves what's right or wrong?

I hear all the time from liberals that every person controls their own version. If what's right or wrong. Every person'  beliefs are equal.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Are hasty, self-serving presumption, proud ignorance, and intellectual cowardice preached as fruits of the spirit in a lot of conservative churches these days? Just curious ... sure seems that way sometimes.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 07:19PMYou may not believe it, but this actually works and is at least an answer.  So, what your telling me then, is when God is wrathful it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  Or, when God is jealous it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  My assumption of a double standard is verified then.  God can do or say anything he likes and it's not a sin or a lie, even if it would be for a human.  Fair enough.  Thank you Bob.  I think I have made progress in my understanding of your God.  Do Martin and John agree with Bob?

Nope.  I don't agree that anger and jealousy are necessarily sins: it depends what they are motivated by. eg Is the jealousy motivated by true love or covetousness?  Is the anger motivated by a response to sin or to a personal slight?

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 07:43PMYou are giving me none specific "Tell all the doubters this..." answers.  I want specific answers.  ... why do we still have no clue what the plan is?

what were the questions again?

Is Ephesians 1:3-14 close enough to a plan for you?

QuoteDogma has it's uses - for some it provides 'certainty', but it has a lifespan.  It needs to be challenged in order for it to hold sway as times and people change.  Look at your own religion.  It started out as Judaism, got challenged by a Jew that was supposedly God incarnate, then morphed over hundreds of years to what you have now.

Dogma = teaching

Our understanding is based on revelation from God.  So yes we are always looking at that revelation and trying to understand it better, but there's no new facts out there.  Sorry.

QuoteYeah, you know, the rape and murder of a small child is not 'legitimate'.  No way, never and no how.

No way, never and no how.  But God can and does take bad things and use them for good and to further his purpose.  

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 08, 2017, 08:33PMIn your world where there is no God, is there any type of higher authority that can judge what's right and wrong? Or, without a higher authority, is it just that every person can decide for themselves what's right or wrong?

I hear all the time from liberals that every person controls their own version. If what's right or wrong. Every person'  beliefs are equal.


The ethos of dealing with others that are embodied in religion (and they are similar through the Abrahamic religions) are generally adopted in the Western World.  Even by people who don't believe in God.

I suspect using God as the Good Cop / Bad Cop to keep the flock in line is useful for some.  That's what seems to come from the older teachings: Do this and God will be pleased; do that and God will smite you down.

Some groups are very strict in their adherence to a set of rules, while others are more liberal.  Generally as long as we all play together in harmony, then the job is done.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 08, 2017, 08:47PMNope.  I don't agree that anger and jealousy are necessarily sins: it depends what they are motivated by. eg Is the jealousy motivated by true love or covetousness?  Is the anger motivated by a response to sin or to a personal slight?

what were the questions again?

Is Ephesians 1:3-14 close enough to a plan for you?

Dogma = teaching

Our understanding is based on revelation from God.  So yes we are always looking at that revelation and trying to understand it better, but there's no new facts out there.  Sorry.

No way, never and no how.  But God can and does take bad things and use them for good and to further his purpose.  

I can second what Martin has said.  Genuine evil exists in this world, but historic Christians believe that God can and does bring good out of it.

We can always point to individual acts of evil and the Christian doesn't deny them. However, the ultimate evil act was the crucifixion of Christ, the sinless Son of God and God uses that for the greatest good in the world-- the salvation of sinners.  This was planned by God, but those who perpetrated it are fully accountable for that act-- see Acts 2;33.

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 08, 2017, 09:28PMI can second what Martin has said.  Genuine evil exists in this world, but historic Christians believe that God can and does bring good out of it.

We can always point to individual acts of evil and the Christian doesn't deny them. However, the ultimate evil act was the crucifixion of Christ, the sinless Son of God and God uses that for the greatest good in the world-- the salvation of sinners.  This was planned by God, but those who perpetrated it are fully accountable for that act-- see Acts 2;33.

So the Holocaust was a good thing since it punished "Christ's Killers"?

I think Jews were exonerated by Vatican 2.  Maybe that doesn't apply to Protestants?

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 08, 2017, 10:11PMSo the Holocaust was a good thing since it punished "Christ's Killers"?

I think Jews were exonerated by Vatican 2.  Maybe that doesn't apply to Protestants?
Ummm.  The Jews killed Jesus. But that is what was suppose to happen. And that's the way it should be.  I hold no ill will towards Jewish people. That was the plan.  It wasn't the Jews fault.
BTW
Vatican II was a politically correct Protestant purging of Catholic teaching and tradition. It occurred during the 60's when liberalism was on the rise. In other words it swing the pendulum way to far to the left.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 08, 2017, 10:11PMSo the Holocaust was a good thing since it punished "Christ's Killers"?

I think Jews were exonerated by Vatican 2.  Maybe that doesn't apply to Protestants?

No!

None of "Christ's Killers" were still alive at the time of the holocaust.  The Jew's of that generation were no more or less to blame for Christ's death than we are.

And Jesus prayed for God to forgive his killers when he was on the cross.

I've got no idea about Vatican 2 but it wouldn't apply.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 08, 2017, 10:31PMNo!

None of "Christ's Killers" were still alive at the time of the holocaust.  The Jew's of that generation were no more or less to blame for Christ's death than we are.

And Jesus prayed for God to forgive his killers when he was on the cross.
Bngo!

[ttf_BGuttman]

I watched the Wakefield Mystery Plays one summer (in England).  The Crucifixion scene has the Jews syaing "We will bear this stain forever" (or something to that effect).  So that has changed? 

Note that the bulk of the people of the day didn't care a rat's patootie about the preacher who sowed dissent.  A few of the well placed ones and the Roman occupiers were more concerned about Jesus and when the wealthy Jews ratted him out the Romans were happy to deal with him.

Lots of Jewish comedians used a routine about growing up and getting beat up by the Polish kids for their religion.  All goes back to this point.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 08, 2017, 10:11PMSo the Holocaust was a good thing since it punished "Christ's Killers"?

I think Jews were exonerated by Vatican 2.  Maybe that doesn't apply to Protestants?

Actually it was the Roman government that put Jesus to death in the gospels at the instigation of the Jewish religious leadership of the time.  Both are held responsible.

Nothing in my post was intended to be anti-Semitic and in reality all humanity is responsible because all have sinned.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 07:19PMYou may not believe it, but this actually works and is at least an answer.  So, what your telling me then, is when God is wrathful it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  Or, when God is jealous it's not a sin, but when I am it is.  My assumption of a double standard is verified then.  God can do or say anything he likes and it's not a sin or a lie, even if it would be for a human.  Fair enough.  Thank you Bob.  I think I have made progress in my understanding of your God.  Do Martin and John agree with Bob?
You partly understand...

But calling it a double standard shows the problem John mentioned about confusing standards.

When a parent tells a small child to do something, and the child demands to know why, and the parent responds with "because I said so"... because they know, they child only argues back to get what they want...

But that same parent would want an reason when being told to do something by another adult...


Is that a double standard? Or is that working on two different levels - ie peer to peer vs parent to child?


God answered your problem in scripture: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+40-42&version=NIV

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 08, 2017, 09:28PMI can second what Martin has said.  Genuine evil exists in this world, but historic Christians believe that God can and does bring good out of it.

We can always point to individual acts of evil and the Christian doesn't deny them. However, the ultimate evil act was the crucifixion of Christ, the sinless Son of God and God uses that for the greatest good in the world-- the salvation of sinners.  This was planned by God, but those who perpetrated it are fully accountable for that act-- see Acts 2;33.
And here's where John and I may diverge on definition...

Darkness is the absence of light. Evil is acts that move one from good, or basically turning away from God.

Though it fits about the same... turning against Jesus and crucifying him... yup, that would pretty much be the ultimate evil.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 07:43PMYou are giving me none specific "Tell all the doubters this..." answers.  I want specific answers.  Like I was one of your flock coming to find a moral compass.  Would you like me to reiterate some of my questions so you can address them specifically?  It makes it hard to communicate when you respond with "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is too much for you to understand" type answers to very specific happenings that are in moral question.  My assumption, and correct me if I'm worng, is that (your) God is trying to develop some sort of moral direction for us dirty rags.  If this is the case, and it certainly seems so from both testaments, why do we still have no clue what the plan is?
The short answer... in coming to God, one must realize that they are not the greatest source of wisdom and power... far from it. It's an answer some people don't like, but even without a god, it's still true.

You want a specific answer that satisfies your own needs and issues. But there isn't one. But even taking God out of the equation, life responds in many unfair, horrible seeming ways that don't make sense. Short answer why... you don't have the ability to fully understand and make sense of it yourself, and there is nothing greater that says life needs to make sense to you.

Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 07:43PMYeah, you know, the rape and murder of a small child is not 'legitimate'.  No way, never and no how.I have 5 hens. They give me eggs, I give them food and shelter and such. Hens only lay for maybe 4 years and can live a few years after that. At the end of that laying, the hens will have known my care basically all of their lives. And I will kill them, clean them, and eat them. And then I will get another 5 hens.

How legitimate is that? How horrible is it?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 08, 2017, 08:33PMIn your world where there is no God, is there any type of higher authority that can judge what's right and wrong? Or, without a higher authority, is it just that every person can decide for themselves what's right or wrong?

I hear all the time from liberals that every person controls their own version. If what's right or wrong. Every person'  beliefs are equal.


There is the universe.  But it is not judgemental or authoritarian.  It just is.  However, many of it's attributes are parallel with the fundamental attributes of 'God'.

I find the universe a very interesting place.  One of the most interesting things about it is that a tiny bit of it became conscious and came up with the concept of a creator.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 06:30AMThere is the universe.  But it is not judgemental or authoritarian.  It just is.  However, many of it's attributes are parallel with the fundamental attributes of 'God'.
So your biggest problem is that in times of authoritarian behavior by people, God was expressed in an authoritarian manner? Or is it that in order to sit in judgement, one must be in a position of authority?

So far, your criticisms seem to be more of human behavior than anything else... either the tendencies of yourself, or those of others.

[ttf_BillO]

I think I am beginning to see a inkling of your view of your God.

However, I think you attribute things to God that have never been demonstrated and that are unnecessary or show uncalled for bias.

For example, his omniscience is usually extended to include knowing everything that is to come.  God appears to put things into motion then waits for the results. This is not the behavior of one that knows what's going to happen.  God may know everything that is or has been, but demonstrates no knowledge of the future.

Grace, goodness, kindness and veracity are other examples.  God does demonstrate these once in a while, but he also demonstrates the exact opposite just a frequently.  It seems a little biased just to mention those attributes and not their antonyms.  However, then you get into arguing things like the difference between 'God shows grace' and 'God shows disfavor'.  Just better to say God has no bias ether way and leave them out altogether.

If we do that we get a set of attributes for God that closely mirrors the fundamental attributes of the universe with three major differences:  1)God is judgemental.  2)God is emotional.  3)God created the universe.

This is the way I see your God and our discussion here and in the other two threads has only served to cement this.  So, for me, what does it mean to me to not have a God?  I give up being subject to an emotional, judgemental overlord and I have no idea who or what created the universe.

I can totally live with that.

I'd like to thank all of you who participated herein.  

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 09, 2017, 07:01AMOr is it that in order to sit in judgement, one must be in a position of authority? Kind of this, yes.  The authoritarian part flows naturaly from the concept that God created the universe though, so goes without saying.  It's the judgment thing I think I can do without.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 09, 2017, 05:05AMActually it was the Roman government that put Jesus to death in the gospels at the instigation of the Jewish religious leadership of the time.  Both are held responsible.
 
Nothing in my post was intended to be anti-Semitic and in reality all humanity is responsible because all have sinned.
 ... precisely as we were created to do (according to the creator god theism model).

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 07:33AMKind of this, yes.  The authoritarian part flows natural from the concept the God created the universe though, so goes without saying.  It's the judgment thing I think I can do without.
The fact that God strangely seems to advocate for what any given like-minded body of believers thinks is where the confusion rests. It's also why the notion of a single, monolithic, unanimous god is patently false. That's just a means of claiming an ideological monopoly. And granted, for most believers this is an innocuous thing, but the all-powerful validation source can prove to be a problem when anyone can access it and do more or less what they please with it given sufficient consensus in order for them to feel validated (the Catholic position was right in the 16th century, at least on that count). All this theology makes perfect sense and works all nice and neat right up until until there's a significant disagreement and of course all sides are certain that God is on theirs--meaning they feel certain their side bears the true standard of ultimate validation and everyone else is just deceived (or maybe just evil). Then the true colors of faith and devotion to God really show and the curtain is pulled back. Not that it's always nasty, just revealing.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 09, 2017, 08:27AM All this theology makes perfect sense and works all nice and neat right up until until there's a significant disagreement and of course all sides are certain that God is on theirs--meaning they feel certain their side bears the true standard of ultimate validation and everyone else is just deceived (or maybe just evil). Then the true colors of faith and devotion to God really show and the curtain is pulled back. Not that it's always nasty, just revealing.
I've made this assertion many times myself.  This apparently ubiquitous trait by itself is grounds for the summary dismissal of religion.

[ttf_BGuttman]

I wouldn't summarily dismiss it.  Religions advocate a good code of conduct most of the time.  Using God as a Good Cop / Bad Cop to keep people in line is also useful.

The problem comes when you start partisan bickering between different religions (or even sects within a religion).  Then it gets ugly.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 09, 2017, 09:32AMReligions advocate a good code of conduct most of the time.
This can be done without religion Bruce.  Very effectively too.

In China where more than 70% does not believe in any god and another 23% have paganistic and multi-god religions the people are generally as moral, good and kind as they are anywhere.  More so in some respects.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

I'm seeing some semantic issues here.
 
There's a tendency to use the term "religion" sort of like we use the term "shite". Religion vs. Religious Institutions are both referred to as "religion". The many aspects of religious communities and all that goes down in them is referred to as "religion". Few ever try isolating their variables. What is it that makes a community religious? That would be a good candidate for "religion" rather than the many other aspects that fall under "community" and/or "organization" or simply "human" instead.
 
It's very common for people to credit religion with the positives and negatives of "community" which may or may not be appropriate, but when it's done fluidly without any awareness all it does is muddy an already complicated subject. Pro-religion types conflate the good stuff but not the bad, and anti-religion types tend to conflate the bad not the good, so we have all sorts of disagreements that are flying under the radar because of the loose ways people are using the term.
 
So what is it that makes a religious organization religious, and what is it that makes religious ideology religious?

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 07:33AMKind of this, yes.  The authoritarian part flows naturaly from the concept that God created the universe though, so goes without saying.  It's the judgment thing I think I can do without.

Yeah... and to tell the truth, you aren't alone. Many figure in history, even religious figures hate being judged. It means not only making a mistake or an error, but owning up to it.

When King George broke from the catholics and created the anglican church... it was really about not wanting to submit to authority of another. He never intended to keep his promises of marriage and such, but he wanted to be able to freely break them when they no longer suited him. And therein lies the crux of the issue..

Quote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 09:55AMThis can be done without religion Bruce.  Very effectively too.It can, but rarely ever is. Mostly, it is done on a level of convenience. When you offend, ties may be completely severed, so try to offend as little as practical.

Because... who wants to be judged? Who wants to be told they screwed up, and have it rubbed in their face? Who wants to be that person in a relationship... where everyone else says, "oh yeah, you were in the wrong, man..." No one.

Which is the duality many people miss in Christianity.

Step 1, try.
but step 2.... yeah, you will fail. It happens. But you know what? you're saved... so screw that diet cheat day and get back on the diet, ok? Those days happen. Here's a salad.

In the end, no one likes to think about being judged per their failures... and really, that seems to be what fuels most of the anti-religious (as opposed to the non-religious). The simple human emotion of knowing your wrong, but trying to avoid being called on it... But the fear of that, is similar to the internal issues most Americans have with a diet. I screwed up. so... screw it. All you have to do is continue to eat better. The key in not in one event or another, but the consistency of maintaining it.

Because the real human experience: sometimes... it's easier to find an excuse.

Couple that with: deal with the immediate over the long term, and you have why most americans will not be able to retire off of a 401k plan/savings.