|
Why would he let these heathens continue living this way and not send them some kind of clear sign or prophet to show them the true path?
First of all, you are making an assumption that this absolutely has not happened.
Second, where is the line between being told what to believe and free will lie with your question?
Lastly, why do you expect the rest of the world to accept the Bible differently than you have?
|
|
It could go back in forth. Except that a fact is something that can be tested, proved, observed with our senses and agreed upon. The existence of god has not met this criteria, and thus in not a fact other than in the minds of Christians. Christians are free to go around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
If you are right you should feel mad. You should feel mad that your so called loving god has allowed so many people in the world to disagree with you. He could have done things different. Aren't you frustrated that you can't figure out why he has chosen to do things the way he has? Don't you feel angry that he allows people like me to go on being misguided? Doesn't it wrankle you that millions of people in the world never even get the chance to know the Christian god because of the geography of their birth?
I understand that in response you say, "Well who are we to question god. He is omnipotent and we are merely mortals". But even so it must be frustrating and keep you up a night sometimes. Christianity sounds to me like a religion of torment and agony- too many unanswered questions, too much relying on faith alone that father has a plan even if you can't figure it out.
Kirth addressed the "fact" issue as well, but even if the rest of the entire world was Christian, it still wouldn't be "fact". I was just trying to get you to understand how Christians think -- apparently a waste of time.
You say things like "You should feel mad that your so called loving god has allowed so many people..." It tells me that you (for some reason) think that God should take over people's lives and really push/force them to live a certain way. Again, I don't see a lot of free will here.
There are times that I do get angry about some of the things that you mentioned. But I don't let my anger stop me. At the same time, you feel like we should be on every street corner preaching the gospel and then you also say how terrible it is that we seem to be doing just that. Should we or should we not be doing just that?
|
|
I was being generous with the definition to cut them some slack.
Christians are free to go
around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
I should point out that at one point the population of the world agreed that the Sun moved around the Earth. That didn't make it a "fact." As you started to point out, a "fact" should probably be defined as a verifiable observation, a "datum" if you will. (The idea of "proof" is valid in law and in mathematics, but not in science--see previous discussion in this thead).
By that definition, both your idea and Mevers' get thrown out.
That was "generous"? I never said that it was "fact".
|
|
Remember folks, most of the human beings on this planet are not Christian.
As I understand it, the Christian viewpoint is that this just goes to show how unworthy humanity is as a whole.
As I understand it, even if all humanity was Christian, I still don't know that technically we would be "worthy".
|
|
To me I find this idea very strange. I know it has been discussed before, but I still don't get it. If the Christian god really did exist why would he allow so many people in the world to live in ingnorance of him, and why would he punish them for not being Christian when they have never had any exposure to the religion? It is kind of like saying that you are automatically destined to go to hell just because you were born in the wrong country. Is it just me or does that seem incredibly ridiculous and unjust? If god is really out there and is really so judgemental regarding people's souls, don't you think he'd take the time to find a way help all those people who have never had access to the christian faith? If not then he must be a real prick. Based on the Christian concept of god, he certainly has the capability to do this. Why would he let these heathens continue living this way and not send them some kind of clear sign or prophet to show them the true path? I can understand why he wouldn't like people like me. I've been exposed to Christianity and of my own free will decided to turn my back on it. But if I lived somewhere in the world where such exposure just wouldn't happen I'd be real bitter if...
Ok, this whole thing (which I have dealt with earlier) really gets me. More often than not, people don't use this argument because they want to know -- they either feel superior to God for thinking about something that he obviously didn't think about before or they feel that since this argument isn't dealt with well in the Bible that it automatically makes it the wrong religion.
Does the CEO of a major corporation give out a manual with every little tidbit of the corporation past and present in all its gory details? What the windows were made of, why the entrance was facing north, why they currently have 3,574 employees instead of 3,576, all the bad moves that the corporation made in the past, why they were bad, and so on? Yet people who are not even Christian seem to expect this out of the Bible even more than Christians do.
You are assuming that God is not in control of the situation. You are allowed to believe that way. I choose to believe differently.
As I understand it, even if all humanity was Christian, I still don't know that technically we would be "worthy".
Exactly; you and the others have been quite clear on the "we're all worthless, vile wretches" philosophy that underpins the theological need for redemption through Christ alone. What I get from less enlightened people outside of this forum is that people who "turn away from God" or who "refuse to repent and accept Christ" are most particularly and especially vile and wretched, if that were even possible.
That was "generous"? I never said that it was "fact".
No; but earlier, Mevers stated point-blank that God's existence is fact, and that Christianity is not a belief, but a set of facts. These assertions required a drastic redefining of the term "fact," from what I proposed to something more along the lines of "a fact is an assertion that I make."
Now I feel a little "rankled". (Breath in...breath out...) :-)
Great replies on your part, though. If more Christians talked about it the way you do, I can pretty well guarantee there would be a lot more Christians in the world.
|
|
Exactly; you and the others have been quite lear on the "we're all worthless, vile wretches" philosophy that underpins the theological need for redemption through Christ alone. What I get from less enlightened people outside of this forum is that people who "turn away from God" or who "refuse to repent and accept Christ" are most particularly and especially vile and wretched, if that were even possible.
I don't know. How dirty is dirt? Can dirt get any dirtier? And for that matter, who cares?
I only see "vile and wretched" when people start tearing down the good things that people -- Christians or otherwise -- do.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ok, this whole thing (which I have dealt with earlier) really gets me. More often than not, people don't use this argument because they want to know -- they either feel superior to God for thinking about something that he obviously didn't think about before or they feel that since this argument isn't dealt with well in the Bible that it automatically makes it the wrong religion.
Does the CEO of a major corporation give out a manual with every little tidbit of the corporation past and present in all its gory details? What the windows were made of, why the entrance was facing north, why they currently have 3,574 employees instead of 3,576, all the bad moves that the corporation made in the past, why they were bad, and so on? Yet people who are not even Christian seem to expect this out of the Bible even more than Christians do.
You are assuming that God is not in control of the situation. You are allowed to believe that way. I choose to believe differently.
I don't think that analogy works. It's more like the CEO of the Company offers you a good pension if you fill out Form 304. Failure to fill out Form 304 results in the CEO taking away your pension. Not only that, the CEO has the power to take away the pension of every person on earth that fails to fill out Form 304. On top of that, MuslimCorp keeps claiming that I can get benefits if, and only if, I fill out Form 403 and not Form 304. I'm not interested in the direction the doors face, I want my pension, and I am getting conflicting answers as to who will actually provide said pension.
Sorry Moff, I think your answer back many pages ago was a good one, but I can't stomach it. Binding universal truth to woodpulp and ink strikes me as an incredibly poor way of communicating said truth. Christianity claims that the truth is so embodied. It's one thing to say that the Bible is a book of knowledge to understand a divine being and that there are many ways to understand said being. But that's not the claim generally made. Unless you assume that the ability of the wind in the trees to communicate the existence/love of God has as much credibility as the Bible, I'm not sure how valid these non-Biblical methods of obtaining knowledge of god can be.
Damnit. I meant to stay out of this thread. It's just that PHD is playing my song...
I should have bolded the word "clear". If it was clear they would have noticed and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is a difference between knowing your options and being told what to believe. If you have never been exposed to christianity you don't know your options. If you are a member of another faith you won't seek out Christianity because you already have that part of your life filled by whatever religion you are raised with. If god himself took action instead of leaving it to crazy evangelists the world might feel much differently about the bible.
Why would he let these heathens continue living this way and not send them some kind of clear sign or prophet to show them the true path?First of all, you are making an assumption that this absolutely has not happened.
Second, where is the line between being told what to believe and free will lie with your question?
Lastly, why do you expect the rest of the world to accept the Bible differently than you have?
|
|
I don't think that analogy works. It's more like the CEO of the Company offers you a good pension if you fill out Form 304. Failure to fill out Form 304 results in the CEO taking away your pension. Not only that, the CEO has the power to take away the pension of every person on earth that fails to fill out Form 304. On top of that, MuslimCorp keeps claiming that I can get benefits if, and only if, I fill out Form 403 and not Form 304. I'm not interested in the direction the doors face, I want my pension, and I am getting conflicting answers as to who will actually provide said pension.
Sorry Moff, I think your answer back many pages ago was a good one, but I can't stomach it. Binding universal truth to woodpulp and ink strikes me as an incredibly poor way of communicating said truth. Christianity claims that the truth is so embodied. It's one thing to say that the Bible is a book of knowledge to understand a divine being and that there are many ways to understand said being. But that's not the claim generally made. Unless you assume that the ability of the wind in the trees to communicate the existence/love of God has as much credibility as the Bible, I'm not sure how valid these non-Biblical methods of obtaining knowledge of god can be.
Damnit. I meant to stay out of this thread. It's just that PHD is playing my song...
Only not as well as you did. (There you are ;-) )
Actually my point with the CEO analogy was more to demonstrate that I don't understand why so many people expect every single question to have an answer in the Bible.
You're right -- it isn't a great medium for the word of God. But again, short of having a Monte Python experience for the entire world, I'm not sure what would be. Also, again, it comes rather close to the problem of free will. (And what happens to the people that are born after the Monte Python experience?)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You're right -- it isn't a great medium for the word of God. But again, short of having a Monte Python experience for the entire world, I'm not sure what would be. Also, again, it comes rather close to the problem of free will. (And what happens to the people that are born after the Monte Python experience?)
I guess I would say that (assuming for sake of argument a divine being exists) that such being must be something that each human can experience independently. Things like the Bible embody a great deal of human wisdom, but cannot possibly embody the understanding of God. Similarly, though the stories of Jesus may have a great deal of moral relevance and we would all be well served in following much of what he preaches, he was not literally sent by a divine being and he is not literally required for salvation.
That's my take at least. I don't see any evidence of a diety existing in my own life, or at least I don't see any evidence of a diety that requires my adulation, and I see strong evidence against the possibility that a diety would require said adulation and that he would communicate that fact in a book.
All that being said, I find the most persuasive arguments to be the way that you continue posting - staying calm, probing hard, and generally doing an exemplary job communicating your faith.
|
|
I should have bolded the word "clear". If it was clear they would have noticed and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is a difference between knowing your options and being told what to believe. If you have never been exposed to christianity you don't know your options. If you are a member of another faith you won't seek out Christianity because you already have that part of your life filled by whatever religion you are raised with. If god himself took action instead of leaving it to crazy evangelists the world might feel much differently about the bible.
"Let" -- "Clear" -- it still seems to take away more of the free will if he is the one making the decision for you.
And what about the non-crazy evangelists (of which there are more of, but you don't hear about them because they're not crazy)?
And, again, you are assuming that God is not in control. Still your choice, but that is the assumption that you are operating under.
|
|
Similarly, though the stories of Jesus may have a great deal of moral relevance and we would all be well served in following much of what he preaches, he was not literally sent by a divine being and he is not literally required for salvation.
You combined this statement with what we are looking for and I'm not sure how it is related. Can you expand a little please?
|
|
...and I see strong evidence against the possibility that a diety would require said adulation and that he would communicate that fact in a book...
Depends on your definition of "adulation", but I'm not sure that he does "require" it. "Desire" is probably a better word.
Thanks for the kind words. (That must have hurt.)
I am not saying that people should be forced by god to believe a certain way. I am saying that I don't think its fair that people who have never had the option of being exposed to Christianity and given the chance to except it should be punished for not knowing about it. In India it is not like they say- okay here's Christianity this is how it works, now here's Hindusim this how it works, now you choose. People all over the world know nothing about Christianity because it isn't part of their culture. How can someone who has grown up with no knowledge of such be held responsible for not knowing. You use a company as an anology- well guess what they don't even know that they work for it. They think they have a job with a different company that has a separate employee manual. Don't you think the CEO is being an ass if he let's them go around thinking they work for Sony when they actually work for Panisonic. Don't you think he should send them a memo. "Hey guys stop reading the Sony manual you guys all work for Panisonic." They'd look up and say "Really? My whole life I had always been told that I worked for Sony and I should be reading the Sony manual, I had no idea that the CEO of Panisonic was really running the show- stupid, sneaky, shell companies."
I don't think Chrisitans should be on every street corner (I was just trying to point out that they aren't and it isn not currently possible for many people of the world to learn anything about the Christian religion). Because of this problem I think that if the Christian god exists he should be responsible for informing the world in an effective way (his mortal subjects have failed at this task). I'm not saying he should take control of people and make them believe. I'm saying he should make his existence known to all people in a conclusive way, so that they can then decide for themselves to accept him or not. This has not happened, and most people in the world through their cultural upbringing have no knowledge of God (not because they have just chosen not to bother learning about god).
It could go back in forth. Except that a fact is something that can be tested, proved, observed with our senses and agreed upon. The existence of god has not met this criteria, and thus in not a fact other than in the minds of Christians. Christians are free to go around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
If you are right you should feel mad. You should feel mad that your so called loving god has allowed so many people in the world to disagree with you. He could have done things different. Aren't you frustrated that you can't figure out why he has chosen to do things the way he has? Don't you feel angry that he allows people like me to go on being misguided? Doesn't it wrankle you that millions of people in the world never even get the chance to know the Christian god because of the geography of their birth?
I understand that in response you say, "Well who are we to question god. He is omnipotent and we are merely mortals". But even so it must be frustrating and keep you up a night sometimes. Christianity sounds to me like a religion of torment and agony- too many unanswered questions, too much relying on faith alone that father has a plan even if you can't figure it out.
Kirth addressed the "fact" issue as well, but even if the rest of the entire world was Christian, it still wouldn't be "fact". I was just trying to get you to understand how Christians think -- apparently a waste of time.
You say things like "You should feel mad that your so called loving god has allowed so many people..." It tells me that you (for some reason) think that God should take over people's lives and really push/force them to live a certain way. Again, I don't see a lot of free will here.
There are times that I do get angry about some of the things that you mentioned. But I don't let my anger stop me. At the same time, you feel like we should be on every street corner...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You combined this statement with what we are looking for and I'm not sure how it is related. Can you expand a little please?
Not sure I follow. What do you mean?
Adulation seemed like the least controversial word I could think of that fits, what I believe to be, the level of reverence. In any event, I don't think any diety requires or asks anything of me, not even acknowledgement.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It looked like (to me) that you were 'looking' for the absence of something. You basically said that you were looking for Jesus not to be something. I'm not sure what difference that makes as far as what you are looking for.
I'm looking for the truth beyond the literal facts of Jesus. I find the literal facts to be the least relevant to the question of the divine. Assertions that Jesus is a conduit to god, and in particular, the only conduit to god, conflict directly with my expectations of a universal god. Assertions that Jesus's story contain wisdom that is divine seem more in line with the sort of divine being I could contemplate. It's not that such divine being gave the bible to humanity, it's that humanity in seeking to codify its best instincts, naturally channels the divine.
Well if not knowing the right answer and doing the wrong thing means I'll suffer an eternity of torment. I would want the answers to be laid out pretty clearly somewhere. I mean Christians argue to the point that they will kill eachother about this book, so in my mind there is a problem.
Apparently I really failed in my CEO analogy. Let me see if I can make it clearer...
Why do you expect every answer to every question to be contained in a book?
There -- was that clear?
Well, here I'll stand up for my belief with no wimpism: if I were in an ice cream parlor ordering chocolate, and you came along and told me it was wrong and that vanilla is the only "true" flavor and knocked my chocolate cone to the floor, I'd likely respond by knocking your head off. Relativism is far from "rubbish." In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are grains of truth in almost any "-ism," (some with more than others, but none with all), and that there's a whole load of bull in all of them, including yours.
Mindless refusal to find any truth in anyone else's viewpoint--even if it's there--and assuming that one somehow has divine insight into the workings of the cosmos (that all others lack), doesn't make that person noble or virtuous; it makes him unable to see past his own nose.
The 9-11 hijackers stood up for their beliefs to the point of dying for them. I personally think they were insane. But by their total rejection of relativism, of seeing their view as the only "true" one, they were absolute paragons of the "values" you're describing.
You've told me (and everyone else who might not share your exact beliefs) that you're right, we're wrong, and that our viewpoints lack any merit whatsoever. In that case you can't possibly be offended by anything I have to say. If any of the above did annoy you slightly, however, then perhaps that's evidence that it might be OK to rethink your stance a bit.
I think you have slightly misunderstood me a bit Kirth. By relativism, I mean the bland, unthinking relativism that says both the Quaran and the Bible are true. They both can't be true, they can both be wrong, but they directly contradict each other, so they can't both be true.
Likewise, you are a buddhist (I think, I'm sorry if that's wrong, but it's a massive thread, and sometimes I lose track), and I am a Christian. We can't both be right. Again, we can both be wrong, but we both can't be right.
Relativism says that we are both right, for ourselves. I find that a load of rubbish. We can't both be right.
Now, just because I am right, does NOT, in any way, shape or form give me the right, or the responsibility to oppress those who are wrong. Not at all. This is what I don't understand. I keep wanting to say Chrisitanity is right, and other's are wrong, and then people are accusing me of wanting to oppress those I disagree with. I don't, it's completely wrong.
To come back to your ice cream example. Yeah, if you are ordering Chocolate, when the only true ice cream is vanilla, I would tell you you are wrong. You aren't really eating ice cream. But I would stop there. If you want to eat it, that's up to you. I wouldn't forcibly knock it out of your hand. And if I did, you would be well within your rights to punch me in the face.
I think the problem relativism is trying to solve needs to be solved, but it goes about it the wrong way. I think the problem (that it is trying to solve) is that alternative views aren't respected, and those who are seen as "wrong" (however and whoever defines it), are seen as fair game for oppression and persecution. And relativism does a reasonable job at solving the problem. I just rankle with the other effects of relativism, as it means we don't really respect or understand alternative view points, it instead gives us an intellectual cop-out to just say "well, that's true for you, this is true for me" without really dealing with the issues and details.
My problem isn't that I can't (and don't want to) see the truth in alternative view points, so much as the concept that all world views are "true." As you said, there is an awful lot of bull in most of them, but relativism doesn't allow us to say that.
If divine being gave the bible to humanity he only gave it to a very select segment.
I'm looking for the truth beyond the literal facts of Jesus. I find the literal facts to be the least relevant to the question of the divine. Assertions that Jesus is a conduit to god, and in particular, the only conduit to god, conflict directly with my expectations of a universal god. Assertions that Jesus's story contain wisdom that is divine seem more in line with the sort of divine being I could contemplate. It's not that such divine being gave the bible to humanity, it's that humanity in seeking to codify its best instincts, naturally channels the divine.
It looked like (to me) that you were 'looking' for the absence of something. You basically said that you were looking for Jesus not to be something. I'm not sure what difference that makes as far as what you are looking for.
|
|
I am not saying that people should be forced by god to believe a certain way. I am saying that I don't think its fair that people who have never had the option of being exposed to Christianity and given the chance to except it should be punished for not knowing about it.
I don't believe that they will be punished simply because they were absolutely never exposed to "the truth".
And in any case, what you are suggesting is that God makes it "clear" to everyone in the world. If it was "clear", then where is faith?
I think that Sebastian is actually pretty close to the "truth" of it. It may really come down to an individual "experience".
And as far as getting the word out to the "untouched peoples of the world" or whatever you want to call it -- there are such incredibly few of these places left. Wycliffe, especially, has done a phenomenal job getting the message out there -- while teaching the people other things like reading, writing, farming, health, and so on. The time of the street corner evangelist is largely gone. Christians are going all over the world going into specific fields in the area and helping people as much or more than they are preaching to them. Maybe you don't hear much about evangelists because they don't advertise themselves as such -- often times because it could get them killed.
And I still don't get the feeling like you care. You still seem to suggest that this is "proof" that the Bible is somehow wrong.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If divine being gave the bible to humanity he only gave it to a very select segment.
Huh? We're on the same page with regards to this point. That's why I said "if god gave the bible to humanity." I agree, that's a tremendously ineffecient manner of communicating the most important message that could possibly be communicated. Which is why I believe that, to the extent there is a god, the truth of the bible stems from humanity and not vice versa.
Which is why the bible and the quoran can be true at the same time. The literal elements are not relevant to the potential spiritual truths. The literal elements are merely ways to convey the spiritual truths contained therein. It's like learning the law by learning the facts of a bunch of cases. No, you can't reconcile the facts of the cases, but you can interpret the law that underlies them.
Well if not knowing the right answer and doing the wrong thing means I'll suffer an eternity of torment. I would want the answers to be laid out pretty clearly somewhere. I mean Christians argue to the point that they will kill eachother about this book, so in my mind there is a problem.
The answer is "Jesus is Lord." That is the message of the Bible boiled down to it's simplest form.
God isn't so much concerned with the little details of your life (who you work for, who you marry, what car you drive, etc), as He is with the BIG question of your life. Who are you following? That is the important question. Everything else (almost) is pretty much negotiable.
There are things that aren't clear in the Bible (it is one of the reasons we have so many different denominations), but the core is. Jesus is Lord. He died for our sins, and was raised to live, and now rules the world at the right hand of God. Get that right, and the rest will take care of itself.
|
|
Why do you? ;-)
Why do you expect every answer to every question to be contained in a book?
Sometimes I feel like --
"Why is the grass green?"
"Well, let's look in the Bible... Let's see... Ah yes, here it is in the 2nd chapter of Begledee Back..."
"And the Lord did declare that the grass was green because the almighty God did run out of blue creating the sky."
And thus it was written.
If divine being gave the bible to humanity he only gave it to a very select segment.
Huh? We're on the same page with regards to this point. That's why I said "if god gave the bible to humanity." I agree, that's a tremendously ineffecient manner of communicating the most important message that could possibly be communicated. Which is why I believe that, to the extent there is a god, the truth of the bible stems from humanity and not vice versa.
Which is why the bible and the quoran can be true at the same time. The literal elements are not relevant to the potential spiritual truths. The literal elements are merely ways to convey the spiritual truths contained therein. It's like learning the law by learning the facts of a bunch of cases. No, you can't reconcile the facts of the cases, but you can interpret the law that underlies them.
I do understand your point. From your point of view it is only one Book. But from my point of view, that Book is accompanied by the Holy Spirit and infused with the power of God. It has done a pretty effective job so far, and will continue to do so into the future.
And before we had the New Testament, we had the ACTUAL SON OF GOD. That sounds like a pretty clear method of communication. And to prove he really was Lord, God raised him from the dead. What more miraculous sign do you want?
I get the impression (not just from this thread), that there is an underlying assumption that there are large parts of the world that have no Christian witness. It's just not the case anymore. Africa has more Anglicans (I know that doesn't equal Christian, but I don't know that stats for the other denominations) that the UK, USA and Canada combined, and is actually sending "missionaries" to America and Europe. The country with the highest proportion of Christians is South Korea, and again, they are sending Missionaries all over the world. True, there are places like China, where the proportion of Christians is low, but there are millions and millions of Christians in China, and the church is exploding. It seems to me that God's way is pretty effective.
But I do understand your point. From your point of view it is only one Book. But from my point of view, that Book is accompanied by the Holy Spirit and infused with the power of God. It has done a pretty effective job so far, and will continue to do so into the future.
I think you have slightly misunderstood me a bit Kirth.
I think we misunderstand each other, in part because we're coming from totally different directions. I hope you don't get too fed up with it, though, because I am interested in hearing your views.
By relativism, I mean the bland, unthinking relativism that says both the Quaran and the Bible are true. They both can't be true, they can both be wrong, but they directly contradict each other, so they can't both be true.
One point I was (poorly) trying to make is that they can both contain some truth and some falsehood. In fact, I'm fairly certain that's the case. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Likewise, you are a Buddhist (I think, I'm sorry if that's wrong, but it's a massive thread, and sometimes I lose track), and I am a Christian. We can't both be right. Again, we can both be wrong, but we both can't be right.
I am, and we can both be right. There's actually nothing in Buddhism that contradicts any other religion that I know of.
My problem isn't that I can't (and don't want to) see the truth in alternative view points, so much as the concept that all world views are "true."
There's no reason they can't be, though. Are electrons in a cloud or in layers? Effectively, they're both. The cloud is closer to what you'd "see" in an atom, but the layer model permits us to make valid predictions regarding the properties of the atom, especially when it comes to forming compounds--the cloud model doesn't permit that at all. Which one is "true"? I view religion the same way. We're not dealing with taking 2 coconuts, and adding 2 more, and seeing how many we end up with. We're dealing with the supernatural, with moral and spiritual principles that are in many cases beyond our grasp, because we are not God, and we can't see the whole picture. What we can do is capture bits of it, the parts we can handle, and put them down on paper. The Bible is one such. So are the Sutras. This isn't relativism so much as an acceptance that God is bigger than any one human system can encompass.
|
|
Which is why I believe that, to the extent there is a god, the truth of the bible stems from humanity and not vice versa.
I can see this.
Which is why the bible and the quoran can be true at the same time. The literal elements are not relevant to the potential spiritual truths.
Yes and no. The problem is that there are some spiritual truths that are in direct contradiction to each other.
Maybe this is where the Bible would be found more or less "correct" than other texts. Which one makes more sense?
It isn't a matter of feeling superior to god. God doesn't exist, so how can I feel superior to him? No if anything I am trying to point out my superiority to deluded mortals, which isn't nearly so vain. However, I'm not actually trying to suggest superiority. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how you guys rationalize this issue, which you have given me to a limited extent, but not fully.
Moff Rimmer wrote: Ok, this whole thing (which I have dealt with earlier) really gets me. More often than not, people don't use this argument because they want to know -- they either feel superior to God for thinking about something that he obviously didn't think about before or they feel that since this argument isn't dealt with well in the Bible that it automatically makes it the wrong religion.
Does the CEO of a major corporation give out a manual with every little tidbit of the corporation past and present in all its gory details? What the windows were made of, why the entrance was facing north, why they currently have 3,574 employees instead of 3,576, all the bad moves that the corporation made in the past, why they were bad, and so on? Yet people who are not even Christian seem to expect...
|
|
Well if not knowing the right answer and doing the wrong thing means I'll suffer an eternity of torment. I would want the answers to be laid out pretty clearly somewhere.
Except that isn't the question at hand. The question you imply is fairly well clearly laid out. The question of the untouched masses is not.
And people argue about politics to the point of killing each other. I don't necessarily see how that is relevant.
|
|
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how you guys rationalize this issue, which you have given me to a limited extent, but not fully.
Ok, then allow me to try again...
We don't know. No one does. Anyone that claims to know "for sure" is just asking for problems.
I guess that as far as you are asking, that 'rationalizes' the issue. We don't know. We won't ever truly know beyond a shadow of a doubt until we die. No matter how much we dig, no matter how much we read, no matter how much we debate, we will never ever know for certain the answer to your question.
The only thing that we can do is do our best to look into the nature of God using the best source(s) we have and try and 'rationalize' what we think that God has done about the situation based on how we see God.
If you think that God is a 'bastard' and has condemned all those people to hell just because they were in a different part of the world that didn't have the Bible, then I feel like you have missed the whole 'nature of God' thing.
EDIT: And if you haven't read it yet, check out my post that specifically addressed this issue. I'm not saying that it is perfect, but I did my best to address the question at hand fairly completely.
Well I like "I don't know much better" than some of the other arguments people have mentioned. I'd rather hear I don't know than be fed some BS.
In regards to the last paragraph I do feel that way. Or I would if I believed in God. I can't think something that doesn't exist is a bastard. I am just proposing my arguments from the point of view that he does exist because I am trying to get a better understanding of your view points. I know trying to convince you guys you are the ones who are wrong won't go anywhere (and I actually wouldn't want to try to take something away from you that you value so much).
I know lots of Christians who are much more moderate than you and meavers, and who don't think that people who don't accept Jesus as lord are going to hell (or even believe in hell as a literal place), so when I refer to the Christian God I am talking about the Christian God in terms of "the meavers" version (or my interpretation of the meavers god), which seem to be a fundamentalist view. It is this version of the Christian God that I suggest is rather unjust, and to me doesn't seem like a god who espouses love. Maybe you can better explain to me how I am missing the point or why you think this isn't the case.
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how you guys rationalize this issue, which you have given me to a limited extent, but not fully.Ok, then allow me to try again...
We don't know. No one does. Anyone that claims to know "for sure" is just asking for problems.
I guess that as far as you are asking, that 'rationalizes' the issue. We don't know. We won't ever truly know beyond a shadow of a doubt until we die. No matter how much we dig, no matter how much we read, no matter how much we debate, we will never ever know for certain the answer to your question.
The only thing that we can do is do our best to look into the nature of God using the best source(s) we have and try and 'rationalize' what we think that God has done about the situation based on how we see God.
If you think that God is a 'bastard' and has condemned all those people to hell just because they were in a different part of the world that didn't have the Bible, then I feel like you have missed the whole 'nature of God' thing.
Thank you for forwarding me your link to the other post. That does clear up your point of view for me a lot. The purgatory concept seems a little strange, but makes more sense then sending people to hell just because they haven't been exposed to Christianity.
It also gives me a better understanding of your whole free choice argument. I can see why you wouldn't have the patience to try to explain all that over again. It was well put.
Meavers wrote: And before we had the New Testament, we had the ACTUAL SON OF GOD. That sounds like a pretty clear method of communication. And to prove he really was Lord, God raised him from the dead. What more miraculous sign do you want?
I get the impression (not just from this thread), that there is an underlying assumption that there are large parts of the world that have no Christian witness. It's just not the case anymore. Africa has more Anglicans (I know that doesn't equal Christian, but I don't know that stats for the other denominations) that the UK, USA and Canada combined, and is actually sending "missionaries" to America and Europe. The country with the highest proportion of Christians is South Korea, and again, they are sending Missionaries all over the world. True, there are places like China, where the proportion of Christians is low,...
I kind of missed that period in history. Being raised from the dead is pretty cool. I would need to see it to believe it though. Just telling me it happened and is true, doesn't cut it for me.
Yes I am suggesting that large parts of the world have very limited exposure to Christian doctrine, and would be cultural biased against it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes and no. The problem is that there are some spiritual truths that are in direct contradiction to each other.
Which spiritual truths? The basic message of most religions is to be groovy. Jesus isn't a spiritual aspect; nor is acceptance of Jesus. Those rituals cannot be part of the requirements for salvation any more than a latin mass is.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And before we had the New Testament, we had the ACTUAL SON OF GOD. That sounds like a pretty clear method of communication. And to prove he really was Lord, God raised him from the dead. What more miraculous sign do you want?
I dunno - how about direct evidence that he's the son of god. You are assuming your conclusion. The only evidence that Jesus is the son of god is the bible. To say that the bible is true because Jesus is the son of god because the bible says he is the son of god is circular.
On top of that, there are other segments of the exact same religion (e.g., the Jews) that acknowledge the existence of Jesus but say that he was just a prophet and not the son of God. Why shouldn't I believe what they say?
And, since we are taking the text of holy books at face value as if they contain actual facts, I'd like to direct your attention to the Book of Mormon, which claims that Jesus came to north america. Furthermore, the central prophet of Mormonism witnessed a miracle about a hundred years ago. Certainly we must give equal credence to this prophet as well. I mean c'mon - he's got a holy book!
On behalf of Pastafarians everywhere I would like to break in and say:
Avast ye swabs - Happy international talk like a pirate day.
(It be grand to live in Australia and be a day ahead o' the US of A)
May the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his noodly goodness.
Pray continue....Aaarrr!
May the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his noodly goodness.
Ramen!
The answer is "Jesus is Lord." That is the message of the Bible boiled down to it's simplest form.
God isn't so much concerned with the little details of your life (who you work for, who you marry, what car you drive, etc), as He is with the BIG question of your life. Who are you following? That is the important question. Everything else (almost) is pretty much negotiable.
There are things that aren't clear in the Bible (it is one of the reasons we have so many different denominations), but the core is. Jesus is Lord. He died for our sins, and was raised to live, and now rules the world at the right hand of God. Get that right, and the rest will take care of itself.
With respect mevers, this just reads to me like so much "my dude is bigger than your dude -- your dude's not even real, but mine is -- my king is better than your king" thinking that seems to me to be the least important message of the Bible. You seem to believe that it's the most important.
I made a comment a couple of days ago to our drive-by poster/flamebaiter Quick Silver. It was mostly a sarcastic crack, but I am aghast at how many Christans I've met personally who seem to have this D&D style image of God as just a Really Big Dude With Smite Powers. I'm sorry, but that is the least likely incarnation of a God I can possibly imagine.
I don't mean this to be hurtful or inflamatory, which means that's probably how it's going to come across, but to me, the insistance that Jesus is Lord, and the only way to salvation, and all the other guys are wrong, just seems like insisting that Batman could kick the Hulk's ass.
Like Sebastian, the most divine being I can imagine would just try to communicate the divine to His creation in every way possible, even if those ways sometimes contradicted. And frankly the most divine communications would come from the wind rustling the trees.
The most divine being I can image can communicate salvation through the Bible, and the Koran. I can hold two contradicting thoughts in my head at the same time, are you telling me God cannot? Why does God always have to be about absolutes, just because God is divine. I think absolutism is a human thing, and God isn't actually all about the absolute.
Maybe the insistance in the literal and exclusive truth of Jesus is Lord is just as wrong as the notion of divine glory through martyrdom in the name of Allah. Maybe the people of all religions who care more about being kind, generous and subserviant to each other, regardless of who they are, have more of the right of it than literalists of any religion.
Sean, I completely understand where you are coming from, and from your point of view, I can see how it doesn't add up.
I'm not sure what to say to convince you otherwise, or if it would even be beneficial.
But I will say this, I don't believe this stuff because I, or any one else thought it up, I believe it because that is what the Bible says. And I fully expect it to sound like rubbish to everyone else. In fact it is what the Bible tells us will happen. And it's sort of the point.
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
I don't know if I did a very good job of explaining the passage, (or my point either really), but I hoped it helped, at least a little.
Kirth, I had this reply regarding our discussion of relativism, written earlier, but my connection was playing up, so here it is again.
Thanks for your reply Kirth. I'm not at all getting fed up. I quite enjoy these types of discussion. I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested we are coming from different direction. I am coming from a modern / science / engineering, true false / binary, yes / no sort of background. It's how my brain "works", and how I see the world. If I wasn't a Christian, I would probably be a naturalist.* You, however seem to be coming from a very "Easter?" view point, with less absolutes, and more... mysticism? (not meant to be derogatory at all, but couldn't find a better word).
Yeah, most world views will contain some element of truth and falsehood (I am certain that my own view of the world is wrong in places, if only I knew exactly where), and I am interested in finding them out, and having my own views challenged. But I'm not sure relativism is the best way to accomplish that.
I think there is plenty in Buddhism that contradicts Christianity (at least as I understand buddhism). Some quotes from the Bible,
Hebrews 9:27 "Man is destined to die once, and after that face Judgment."
John 14:6 "Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me'"
Don't they both contradict Buddhism. The first ruling out reincarnation, and the second Buddhas path to enlightenment?
... he's got a holy book!
That about says it. This obsession with scripture being TRUE, being the infallible word of God yet recorded by men, totally escapes me.
There is just so much that is wrong with this in a linguistic sense I will NEVER buy it.
Hebrews 9:27 "Man is destined to die once, and after that face Judgment."
John 14:6 "Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me'"
Don't they both contradict Buddhism. The first ruling out reincarnation, and the second Buddhas path to enlightenment?
As discussed previously at length, reincarnation is no more than a holdover from the predominantly Hindu culture in which Buddhism first arose. It is not an essential aspect of Buddhism, and in my view is actually more of a distraction from it.
Your second quote is one of my favorites. Reference my post above regarding an electron cloud. You call it "salvation," and you see the whole things in terms of people: God set things up, Jesus saves you. I call it "enlightenment" and perceive it in terms of actions: grasping creates the trap I'm in, and the Eightfold Path liberates me. Now, we're dealing with metaphysical principles of existence, as much bigger than we are as the atom is smaller. In the same way we can view the electrons in different manners, why can't we be perceiving the exact same thing, but using different imaging and terminology?
If you take a very small step and interpret John 14:6 to mean through Christ's message, rather than meaning through his name, then we're pretty close to practicing different versions of the same thing. You quoted: "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." As I see it, his wisdom is the essence here, not his person.
If I wasn't a Christian, I would probably be a naturalist. You, however seem to be coming from a very "Eastern?" view point, with less absolutes, and more... mysticism? (not meant to be derogatory at all, but couldn't find a better word).
I am a natural scientist by inclination and profession. Very few things in nature are black and white or absolute. The magnetic north pole is neither fixed in location nor in intensity, and periodically it "switches" and actually becomes magnetically south. The continents move, the climate shifts, the fossil record indicates that species arise and go extinct. In allowing for slight ambiguities and potentially large flaws in human observation, I'm being true to my training and observation; it has nothing to do with Eastern "mysticism" or whatever. Perceiving everything in terms of binary absolutes is OK for computers, but would leave me unable to do my job when dealing with the natural world.