Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/08/2007 10:08:52 AM · #551

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
...if they WERE all-knowing, and DID have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying, WOULD THEY do so?

...if you were all-knowing and had the ability to foresee and prevent creatures from making a choice that would doom all future generations and require the sacrifice of your first-born to correct, then I would certainly hope so!

Originally posted by RonB:

Lucky for us all that you are not the one who had to make that choice...

I think I'll just leave this one alone for others to digest. ;-)

01/08/2007 10:10:02 AM · #552

Originally posted by boomtap:

You are made perfect through Jesus. God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell. Yes he knew you would, but true love comes from choice not control.

I find this a bit creepy. boomtap, you sound as though you are quoting other people's words, rather than using your own mind to consider the issues being discussed.

Even within Christianity (if I may be so bold), I understand that it is appropriate for you to explore the questions we are exploring (or "why else would god have given you the capacity to do so?").

01/08/2007 10:13:41 AM · #553

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Men and women are not considered perfect and all-knowing, nor do they have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying when they are created.

And if they WERE all-knowing, and DID have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying, WOULD THEY do so?

Well, the "son" of God would apparently be Christ, not us. We're more like pets in this respect. Regardless, if you were all-knowing and had the ability to foresee and prevent creatures from making a choice that would doom all future generations and require the sacrifice of your first-born to correct, then I would certainly hope so!

That would be control, not love. If you do not choose to love something, but are forced to, there is not love at all. You could make a robot, but would you be happy if a robot told you that he loved you because it was part of his programing?

We are not God's only creation by the way. He finds something special in us, for we are to be rulers over even the Angels in Heaven.

01/08/2007 10:14:15 AM · #554

Originally posted by scalvert:

I did cover that one earlier.

Apologies - though I hope that I added to your argument - I would still be interested in a response.

Message edited by author 2007-01-08 10:19:52.

01/08/2007 10:14:15 AM · #555

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell.

Really? From what I read here, that chance was given to Adam and Eve, not us. WE had no chance to be perfect and are in fact defined as imperfect at birth.

01/08/2007 10:19:12 AM · #556

Originally posted by boomtap:

You could make a robot, but would you be happy if a robot told you that he loved you because it was part of his programing?

If every aspect of that programming, right down to the electrons, was under your omniscient direction and predictable in every way, then your point is moot since that's the only possible result.

01/08/2007 10:19:30 AM · #557

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by boomtap:
You are made perfect through Jesus. God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell. Yes he knew you would, but true love comes from choice not control.

I find this a bit creepy. boomtap, you sound as though you are quoting other people's words, rather than using your own mind to consider the issues being discussed.

Even within Christianity (if I may be so bold), I understand that it is appropriate for you to explore the questions we are exploring (or "why else would god have given you the capacity to do so?").

Um, no those are my words.

01/08/2007 10:22:14 AM · #558

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell.

Really? From what I read here, that chance was given to Adam and Eve, not us. WE had no chance to be perfect and are in fact defined as imperfect at birth.

You eat the apple the very first time you sin in your life. Young children are sin free at birth. If you were to go through life sin free you would not need Jesus to get to Heaven. You would have done the work yourself. It is impossible, so it is a moot point. You sinned. Adam and Eve were the first to fall. you were the something billianth to fall.

Message edited by author 2007-01-08 10:23:28.

01/08/2007 10:28:41 AM · #559

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I don't think that this point has been addressed.

I did cover that one earlier. The nature of dark matter is (so far) unknown, but we can predict it and make some indirect measurements already. The nature of God is defined as unknowable. There's a huge difference between unknown and unknowable.

Correction. It's not the NATURE of God that is unknowable, it's God, Himself.
It's like black holes. The NATURE of black holes is knowable, but black holes themselves are not.

01/08/2007 10:29:04 AM · #560

Originally posted by scalvert:

While I agree with you Shannon, I am not sure that referencing/debating Christian ideology (other than by way of example) is particularly helpful. After all, there are many hundreds of religious teachings with equal authority, and Christianity only comes up because of the location of a significant number of the site's subscribers.

I only mention it because I am sure that RonB et al. will have some clever answers based on many hundreds of years of theological debate that has managed to find answers for many of the inconsistencies. However, the fact that a particular religious book has been subject to such intensive interpretation is only relevant if you accept that it has some meaning outside the scope of a historical artefact.

It would be a shame if people reading this thread thought that religion gained credibility because someone manages to confirm that a perceived inconsistency in a holy book can be read sideways and made to make sense.

01/08/2007 10:50:37 AM · #561

Originally posted by boomtap:

You eat the apple the very first time you sin in your life. Young children are sin free at birth.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the purpose of Baptizing an infant? What sins are all children assumed to have committed such that they are taught to beg forgiveness before they can even read?

01/08/2007 10:55:22 AM · #562

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell.

Really? From what I read here, that chance was given to Adam and Eve, not us. WE had no chance to be perfect and are in fact defined as imperfect at birth.

If you read a little further you will find that God gives us the chance to gain our own salvation. We are perfect until we decide to sin. People argue about when that is. If you can follow God's law and not sin, you could go to Heaven on your own.

As I said before, it is the choice of everybody to do what they want. I like that sort of system. I know my heart on the matter and my convictions as somebody who does believe and knows without a shadow of a doubt that God is real. I respect the choices that other make, because it is there choice. If they know in there heart beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is not real, or he exsists but in some other fashion than what the bible speaks then they have made that choice.

I again agree to disagree agreeably.

01/08/2007 11:06:11 AM · #563

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am not sure that referencing/debating Christian ideology (other than by way of example) is particularly helpful. After all, there are many hundreds of religious teachings with equal authority, and Christianity only comes up because of the location of a significant number of the site's subscribers.

It probably doesn't matter too much which religion is used as a point of reference. After all, each claims to be the "right" one, yet none can agree even among themselves after hundreds of years. Thus we have Sunnis killing Shiites in Iraq, Protestants killing Catholics in Ireland, and any number of splinter denominations of every major religion as each one attempts to be more right than the others. I seriously doubt that everyone within the same congregation, or even the same family, shares the exact same views on whatever text they use as reference for their belief (or even which version of that text is the most accurate). Such a splintered platform is tough to address in a debate since there's no single reference to evaluate, so I try to use common stories that would be familiar to a larger audience or specific examples given by others in this thread.

01/08/2007 11:17:52 AM · #564

Originally posted by boomtap:

So: everyone has the choice to follow all the teachings of *one* religion, or go to hell. If they make one slip up, they go to hell, (which - as you have indicated, is almost impossible to avoid even if you know the rules and believe in them utterly). Unless, of course, they have heard of Jesus and choose to believe in him. In which case - free card to act as you will.

Doesn't sound like a good system to me (especially for anyone who lived before JC or in a non-Christian area).

Can we just put this one down to curiosity, that most religions that they only provide a solution for their believers, and damn everyone else?

One further indication that, even if you are right that there is or are one god(s), unless you choose the one true of thousands of potential religions, you are screwed.

Anyone care to comment on why this is wrong, or why any particular religion has greater accuracy than any other?

01/08/2007 11:22:51 AM · #565

Originally posted by scalvert:

It probably doesn't matter too much which religion is used as a point of reference. After all, each claims to be the "right" one, yet none can agree even among themselves after hundreds of years.

Sounds a lot like scientists share the same faults. Many groups claim to be "right", yet not all agree which of their theories is "right". or example, some scientists believe that global warming is anthropogenic, while others do not. It is well known that many of Einstein's peers did not agree with his views of anthropism. And even in areas where they DO come to near-universal agreement, they are often found to be agreeing to that which turns out later to be scientifically untrue - e.g. at one time they all agreed that the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth, only to find out later that not only does the universe not revolve around the sun, but neither does our own Milky Way galaxy.
Universal agreement does not constitute "right".

01/08/2007 11:53:10 AM · #566

In the case of global warming or Einstein, scientists haven't been debating the issues for hundreds of years to come to an agreement. In the case of heliocentricity, scientists DIDN'T agree in ancient times, but they do now. In any event, scientists don't claim perfection in their models and condemn those who believe otherwise to death or eternal damnation.

01/08/2007 12:03:12 PM · #567

Originally posted by scalvert:

First of all scientists do not have fixed models - they create models as they go along. The nature of God does not change depending on the current state of knowledge.

Secondly, Christians do not condemn those who believe otherwise to death or eternal damnation. They merely report that that is their fate according to Scripture. What you are attempting to do is shoot the messengers.

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

"Shooting the messenger" is a phrase describing the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news.

01/08/2007 12:14:19 PM · #568

Originally posted by RonB:

This is a criticism of science, but also its strength: not all scientists agree, but continuously test theories and posit alternatives. The body of science moves along a path of persuasive theories paved with supporting observational evidence, signposted by opposing evidence.

If you are comparing this with religion, there is an implicit acknowledgement that not all religions can be right, and perhaps that all religions have some inadequacies. However, what you have highlighted is the human frailty involved in both disciplines (which certainly is a common factor).

Your inference that science offers nothing more than religion falls down on a deeper analysis. Religion offers a fundamental inconsistency between faiths, is supported by gut feeling, blind faith, the intergenerational didactic transmission of "truths", topped off with a host of arguments as to why it is right (or how it might be interpreted differently) despite and in order to overcome inconvenient observational evidence and disguise its overall improbability.

Attacking the vulnerabilities of science as a provider of information (of which it most certainly has some), does not improve the reliability of religion as an alternative provider.

01/08/2007 12:20:59 PM · #569

Originally posted by RonB:

The nature of God does not change depending on the current state of knowledge.

The current belief does not change with new discoveries, but the nature of God has always changed with the timesâ�� polytheism, monotheism, and later Christian faith (and other religions)... each of which are further divided into different beliefs about the nature of God with varying degrees of compatibility.

Originally posted by RonB:

Christians do not condemn those who believe otherwise to death or eternal damnation. They merely report that that is their fate according to Scripture. What you are attempting to do is shoot the messengers.

First of all, burning heretics at the stake and the Crusades were LITERALLY condemning those who believe otherwise to death. Secondly, the "message" you refer to is the Christian model of belief, so regardless of how you word it, you're still proclaiming that non-believers are doomed for not believing your model.

01/08/2007 12:39:24 PM · #570

Since my posts are being ignored, I will try a couple of the big points again.

Is it fair to say that there are and have been hundreds/thousands of religions?

Is it fair to say that, other than the believer's gut faith in his religion, there is no way of divining which religion is correct?

Is it fair to say that no religion has greater legitimacy than any other, except in the mind of a believer?

Is it fair to say that religions cannot all be right (they are generally mutually exclusive)?

Can we conclude that, given the hundreds of potentially correct religions to choose from (using your objective hat here), there is a significant risk that your religion of [insert here] is not the correct one?

Instead, given the fact that choice of religion is largely inherited, rather than independently determined, isn't it right, or at least likely, that you are more influenced by the teachings that you have received and been encouraged in, over external influences?

Assuming that religious people generally rely upon their gut feeling in order to confirm the accuracy of their choice of faith, doesn't the inherited nature of religion challenge the validity of gut feeling as to accuracy?

Given the commitment demanded by religion, is one of the key reasons to reject reasoning opposing religion your reluctance to abandon your investment in it, rather than any rational determination?

Message edited by author 2007-01-08 12:45:28.

01/08/2007 01:08:09 PM · #571

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
The nature of God does not change depending on the current state of knowledge.

The current belief does not change with new discoveries, but the nature of God has always changed with the timesâ�� polytheism, monotheism, and later Christian faith (and other religions)... each of which are further divided into different beliefs about the nature of God with varying degrees of compatibility.

Correction - the INTERPRETATION of the nature of God may have changed, but the true nature of God has not. Just because two people can look at the same object, under the same light, one day apart and disagree on it's color does not mean that the color of the object changed.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Christians do not condemn those who believe otherwise to death or eternal damnation. They merely report that that is their fate according to Scripture. What you are attempting to do is shoot the messengers.

First of all, burning heretics at the stake and the Crusades were LITERALLY condemning those who believe otherwise to death.

Contemptible. Just as contemptible as the condemnation to death of many by the presumably atheistic scientists at Dachau. Religious extremists do not hold a patent on contemptible acts.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Secondly, the "message" you refer to is the Christian model of belief, so regardless of how you word it, you're still proclaiming that non-believers are doomed for not believing your model.

The model of belief is not the message, it is the One who gave the message. Your last statement is, surprisingly, correct. But proclaiming that the punishment for murderer is death is not the same as actually flipping the switch on the electric chair.

01/08/2007 01:32:37 PM · #572

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Since my posts are being ignored, I will try a couple of the big points again.

Matthew, I am not ignoring your posts. I just haven't found any reason to either a) affirm your postulations, or b) refute them. Rather, I find them thought provoking and appreciate the explanations you provide.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is it fair to say that there are and have been hundreds/thousands of religions?

If you count each nuance of tribal belief as a separate religion, then yes.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is it fair to say that, other than the believer's gut faith in his religion, there is no way of divining which religion is correct?

Until the end of days, yes.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is it fair to say that no religion has greater legitimacy than any other, except in the mind of a believer?

No. What is, is. In the end, either one religion will prove that it was the only legitimate religion, many will prove to have been equally legitimate, or all will be found to have been illegitimate.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is it fair to say that religions cannot all be right (they are generally mutually exclusive)?

No, since none can be proven true ( or false ) at this time.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Can we conclude that, given the hundreds of potentially correct religions to choose from (using your objective hat here), there is a significant risk that your religion of [insert here] is not the correct one?

Trick question. Since religion is subjective, not objective, it is not possible to approach the question objectively. No true adherent should admit that his/her religion has a significant risk of not being the correct one. To do so would invalidate his/her belief.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Instead, given the fact that choice of religion is largely inherited, rather than independently determined, isn't it right, or at least likely, that you are more influenced by the teachings that you have received and been encouraged in, over external influences?

Not for me. My parents were, at best, agnostics ( until my mother "converted" in her later years ). I was, however encouraged to "learn" about religion(s). My ultimate belief in the Christian faith came about empirically, through divine revelation, as it does for most born-again Christians.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Assuming that religious people generally rely upon their gut feeling in order to confirm the accuracy of their choice of faith, doesn't the inherited nature of religion challenge the validity of gut feeling as to accuracy?

Not for me. I believe with my whole being, not just my "gut". I would never consider debating something that I disagreed with only at a "gut" level.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Given the commitment demanded by religion, is one of the key reasons to reject reasoning opposing religion your reluctance to abandon your investment in it, rather than any rational determination?

No. My religion does not demand any commitment, other than belief and trust. It does not demand time, effort, money, or any of the other things that non-believers falsely throw out as excuses for why they refuse to believe that there is a God.

01/08/2007 01:41:15 PM · #573

Originally posted by RonB:

Just because two people can look at the same object, under the same light, one day apart and disagree on it's color does not mean that the color of the object changed.

At least they can usually agree on the difference between one and more than one. Monotheism appeared around the Late Bronze Age.

Oh, and those "religious extremists" you refer to would include the authors of the very texts you hold dear. If a pope or writer of gospel proclaims that God says it's OK to burn a heretic at the stake, overrun another nation or practice slavery, where does the contempt lie... with those who do what they are told is good to save their souls or with those declaring the message?

01/08/2007 01:54:37 PM · #574

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is it fair to say that religions cannot all be right (they are generally mutually exclusive)?

Originally posted by RonB:

No, since none can be proven true ( or false ) at this time.

Huh? Name one religion that doesn't imply that some other religion is wrong. Even if you're talking about different interpretations of the same God, that would exclude Roman or Egyptian gods (for example).

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:

Not for me. My ultimate belief in the Christian faith came about empirically, through divine revelation, as it does for most born-again Christians.

Again, Huh? If your parents had lived in some remote Amazon tribe, downtown Tehran or 200 years before Jesus, how would you have independently arrived at the conclusion that Christianity was the right choice? This is a similar to the jaw-dropping revelation suggested earlier that Christianity isn't based on the bible and church teachings. :-O