Originally posted by epiphinehasThe lord says that if you want a break you should hang around in a pool hall. But if you want to enter the kingdom you should begin by questioning the directions you've been given. Those who claim to know the way are frequently the poorest guides.
Give me a break.
RHP 3:17
Originally posted by rwingettrwingwett!another favourable post(don't get carried away now)
The lord says that if you want a break you should hang around in a pool hall. But if you want to enter the kingdom you should begin by questioning the directions you've been given. Those who claim to know the way are frequently the poorest guides.
RHP 3:17
Those who claim they know the way can often be the poorest guides however some examination will usually get them to reveal their true colours!
For today’s sermon I will be examining something that doesn’t really have anything to do with “why god hides.” But continuing with the free wheelin’ nature of my ministry I am content to let the Holy Spirit take me where it will. So today I will be breaking new ground into the problem of evil and the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice.
The ‘Problem of Evil’ has been a major stumbling block for Christians since the very beginning. How do we reconcile the presence of so much evil in the world with the concept of an ‘all-loving’ god? Or, put another way, how do we reconcile the laundry list of atrocities committed by god in the Old Testament with the concept of an ‘all-loving’ god? It is a difficult question that has kept theologians occupied for centuries, with many different answers being proposed along the way. One answer that I wish to briefly examine was proposed by Marcion of Sinope, who was a second century theologian.
Marcion’s answer was that the Jewish god and the Christian god were two separate and different gods. For him, the Jewish god (who created the world) was an evil god. There is so much evil in the world because it was created by an evil god of wrath. The Christian god (the god of love) came to rescue mankind from the clutches of the evil Jewish god by means of Jesus’ sacrifice. This was an interesting solution to the problem of evil, but it was eventually declared to be heretical by the orthodox Christian churches.
My purpose for bringing up Marcion is not to say that his solution was right, but simply to underscore the point that there is a radical disconnect between the Old Testament god and the New Testament god (the god of wrath and the god of love). My solution, however, will be a little different.
For my purposes, the two are part of the same god, but of a god who has had a major change of heart. The OT god is a young and inexperienced god who rules his creation as a tyrant. He has infinite power, but a limited capacity to love. Or one could say he has too much power and too little wisdom, and this has led to the creation of evil in the world. But after a little on-the-job training, god has matured a little and wishes to clean up his act. How does he do it? By sending Jesus to earth to be sacrificed.
In this version of the story, Jesus’ sacrifice is not meant to atone for the sins of mankind. It is meant to atone for the sins of god. It is not meant to set man right in the eyes of god, but to set god right in the eyes of man. The sacrifice of Jesus signifies to mankind that the god of wrath has become the god of love. Instead of demanding mankind’s worship, god is going to make himself worthy of mankind’s worship.
That’s all well and fine, but the question remains: why is there still evil in the world? If god has become a god of love, why hasn’t he eradicated evil by now? The answer is that the sacrifice of Jesus did not signify only a change in god’s heart, it signified a change in his abilities as well. By changing from a god of wrath to a god of love, god has sacrificed his capacity for infinite power to gain the capacity for infinite love. The answer is that god no longer has the ability to eradicate evil on his own. He needs our help. God needs mankind to step up to the plate and help him clean up the mess he created. And through Jesus he has provided us with the blueprint for what we need to do to help him win that struggle. The battle to eradicate evil is now a team effort.
How much different would that relationship between man and god be than the one contained within orthodox Christianity? How much richer and more ennobling would it be than the current one of a supposedly perfect god and worthless sinner? Instead of having no role to play in our salvation, we could become active participants in it. Instead of god requiring nothing from us but faith, what if he actually needed us to pitch in and help him out of a tight spot? Instead of just being part of the problem, mankind could be part of the solution. How much more psychologically uplifting would that relationship be? I suspect it would make a world of difference. It might even be worth believing.
Originally posted by rwingettMe you can ignore, but you are obviously obsessed with God.
Boring! I will just ignore you and continue my freewheelin', heterodox sermonizing from earlier.
Expanding on god as a 'parental' figure, or a heavenly father, if you will, the Israelites were to him as children. God's covenant with them was like that of a father toward a young child. He interacted with them as a stern father, protecting them and they s ...[text shortened]... im. For they have grown up and moved on, just as any parent would wish of his children.
Hebrews 12:29
For our God is a consuming fire.
Originally posted by josephwGod is a consuming fire? That is an interesting hypothesis. But I see no reason why your notion of god should be given precedence over the ones I have presented here. Given that every specific element of your religion is a human invention, it all comes down to utility. Would the conception of god I have presented here make for happier and better adjusted people, or would yours? It is my contention that your religion makes for a lot of self-loathing among its practitioners. I think that people could come up with a mythology that better suits their needs than what orthodox Christianity has been able to come up with thus far. They wouldn't even need to throw Christianity completely away. They could just freshen it up a bit. Give it a 21st century facelift. This type of creativity should be encouraged and not discouraged with hellfire and damnation. And they certainly shouldn't be hounded with a constant litany of bible quotations of dubious origin.
Me you can ignore, but you are obviously obsessed with God.
Hebrews 12:29
For our God is a consuming fire.
Originally posted by rwingett"But I see no reason why your notion of god should be given precedence over the ones I have presented here."
God is a consuming fire? That is an interesting hypothesis. But I see no reason why your notion of god should be given precedence over the ones I have presented here. Given that every specific element of your religion is a human invention, it all comes down to utility. Would the conception of god I have presented here make for happier and better adjusted pe ...[text shortened]... y certainly shouldn't be hounded with a constant litany of bible quotations of dubious origin.
No, you don't see. If you did, you would realize that I don't have any "notions" of God. What I know about God comes from God.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm here having just as much fun as you are having. The only difference is that I am personally acquainted the God you think doesn't exist. That's my advantage.
"Given that every specific element of your religion is a human invention,..."
This idea IS of human invention. Is it possible for you to imagine that there are thoughts and ideas that are not of human origin? Is that just too impossible for you to consider?
"It is my contention that your religion makes for a lot of self-loathing among its practitioners."
Actually, if you had been paying attention to the truth instead of the lie, (this is not meant as a jab) you would understand that it's really not about self-loathing, but sin-loathing.
You need to do a lot of unlearning. Seriously. Your misunderstanding of so many little facts and figures about God and what it means to be a Christian is what is causing the blindness. (this is not a jab)
I would really like you to know the truth, even at the expense of appearing to be a fool.
"And they certainly shouldn't be hounded with a constant litany of bible quotations of dubious origin."
Dubious? Do I detect a shadow of doubt? 🙂
Originally posted by rwingettNot sure why you blew that off as boring, would not the result be the
Boring! I will just ignore you and continue my freewheelin', heterodox sermonizing from earlier.
Expanding on god as a 'parental' figure, or a heavenly father, if you will, the Israelites were to him as children. God's covenant with them was like that of a father toward a young child. He interacted with them as a stern father, protecting them and they s im. For they have grown up and moved on, just as any parent would wish of his children.
same we are blind to God, because we want to be? Either God is on
the edges where we can find Him if seek Him or not, and if that is the
way it is, his point is very valid.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdMy eventual conclusion was that 'supernatural' was an almost meaningless term - depending on usage. If one uses it to mean 'external to the universe' where 'the universe' is not necessarily 'all that exists' but rather a subset of all that exists then 'supernatural' may have some meaning.
Also, how do we sort out possible errors in our perception (or psychological projections)? If either the form or the seeming power of any experience were themselves enough to decide the issue, no one would ever be deceived by a mirage.
Anyway, I may have muddled twhitehead’s argument, or missed some critical aspect of it. I really hope he might present it again.
However if we define 'supernatural' as 'an observable violation of the natural laws' then it is meaningless as it essentially contradicts definitions. 'Natural Laws' are laws that are observed to always hold true. If we observe a 'violation' then it is what we believe to be the laws that must be changed to include the new phenomena. All observable phenomena are therefore entirely natural.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAh yes: “observable”! If natural laws are (logically, if not nomologically) defined as “observable”, then no completely supernatural event could be observable at all; if observable, it would be natural (whether explainable or not).
My eventual conclusion was that 'supernatural' was an almost meaningless term - depending on usage. If one uses it to mean 'external to the universe' where 'the universe' is not necessarily 'all that exists' but rather a subset of all that exists then 'supernatural' may have some meaning.
However if we define 'supernatural' as 'an observable violation of ...[text shortened]... de the new phenomena. All observable phenomena are therefore entirely natural.
On the other hand, if “natural” and “supernatural” are simply terms that refer to (respectively) the “observable” subset of the greater set, then either, it seems to me—
(1) We are just back to the limits of the human consciousness (in terms of what it can perceive), in which case “supernatural” loses the force of its conventional usage—and we could just talk about the knowable versus the unknowable universe; or
(2) We have at most some version of panentheism, which has been occasionally mentioned but never really discussed on these boards.
Does that seem right to you?
Originally posted by rwingettBut how is your claim any different that theirs? More polite perhaps? Surely you claim that you 'know' that there is no hell or heaven and that Christians are doomed to die? (as in cease to exist without option of heaven).
Where I get into "bashing" mode is with people who claim to 'know' that their interpretation is right and that everyone else is wrong, and probably doomed to hell for it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I do not make that claim. I make the claim that I’m pretty sure, at present, that there are no such things, based on all the evidence I’ve gathered. (This may hinge on an infallibilist versus a fallibist conception of “knowing”, if one wants to use that word.) I also make the claim that meaningless or incoherent claims—e.g.,. claims that entail inherent contradictions—are simply dismissible on their face.
But how is your claim any different that theirs? More polite perhaps? Surely you claim that you 'know' that there is no hell or heaven and that Christians are doomed to die? (as in cease to exist without option of heaven).
I think your argument makes a case for a stronger atheism (vis-à-vis any supernaturalist god) than I had held prior to your presenting it.
EDIT: Ooops! I thought that post was to me. Sorry. 😳
Let us look at what people really mean when they say 'supernatural'. It is in reality an intentionally self contradictory claim.
I say 'I saw a cat floating past my window'.
You reply - but thats impossible, everyone knows that cats don't float.
I say 'Maybe it was a supernatural cat'.
What I mean is:
I recognize that you have a body of evidence against floating cats. I further do not want to be rude or contradictory and claim that your body of evidence is incomplete or wrong. So I am saying - yes I understand that my floating cat violates your rules, but not to worry because it was following a different set of rules called 'the supernatural' and thus your rules are not violated or wrong but my cat can still float.
Of course the argument does not stand up to much scrutiny, but it nevertheless works for most people.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not claim to 'know' anything about heaven or hell. I see no reason to believe either concept is true, and while I have my suspicions that they may be false, I do not at any time claim to 'know' it.
But how is your claim any different that theirs? More polite perhaps? Surely you claim that you 'know' that there is no hell or heaven and that Christians are doomed to die? (as in cease to exist without option of heaven).
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlthough I have the sense that you are right that the claim of a supernatural category (as conventionally understood, as you say) is self-contradictory, I am not yet satisfied that I have it clearly in my head. So, I’d like to proceed slowly, if you’ll bear with me.
Let us look at what people really mean when they say 'supernatural'. It is in reality an intentionally self contradictory claim.
I say 'I saw a cat floating past my window'.
You reply - but thats impossible, everyone knows that cats don't float.
I say 'Maybe it was a supernatural cat'.
What I mean is:
I recognize that you have a body of evidence a ...[text shortened]... argument does not stand up to much scrutiny, but it nevertheless works for most people.
If the claim of a supernatural category entails an actual self-contradiction, then it is epistemically unsound, not just epistemically unwarranted (my old position). That is a much stronger claim.
So far, we have been arguing somewhat analogically, but self-contradiction ought to be demonstrable via a deductive inference that leads to a reductio ad adsurdum, and should be challengeable only by challenging the premises.