Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:35:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1785 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I think that anything greater would infringe upon our free will and free
> thinking. Anything more definitive would make the response a "no brainer" and,
> in a way, coerced.
That assertion hits upon a real dilemma for me. I should come clean and
admit that I don't accept the argument that proof of God's existence would
eliminate our free will to obey/disobey him; Adam and Eve certainly knew (in
the context of the book) that he existed, yet they in their free will
disobeyed him. I know that my mom exists, but that doesn't mean I feel
compelled to obey her.
But here's the problem: if we're born with original sin (ie, we default
to "non-saved" status) then how can we be said truly to have free will, when
we are predisposed from conception (and prior to conception, too, I guess)
to be tainted with sin? That's like balancing a broomstick on its end and
then tipping it slightly to the left and saying "I give you the option to
fall in any direction you want, but I'll destroy you if you fall to the
left." How does Christian philosophy reconcile the problem of this
predispostion?
> Any message, no matter how clear and concise, will break
> down in time. Haven't you ever played the game "telephone"? Add to that the
> fact that the OT concerned an Eastern nomadic Semitic race that probably
> couldn't be more opposite than Western modern culture. That we can understand
> *anything* in the OT is a miracle!
I've made a similar point in previous debates, but the question remains:
how (other than in your "heart-of-hearts," which IMO is no confirmation at
all) do you know that the beliefs you hold are the "correct" ones according
to God's will, since we have only the current diluted translations of his will?
> I make a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. There are many people out
> there who have a lot of knowledge about "things". It's been my experience that
> the more knowledge one accumulates, the more one tends to think of one's self.
> Knowledge so often leads one down the path of pride and arrogance.
Perhaps, but so does the self-perceived path of righteousness lead to
sanctimoniousness, and I'd rather be knowledgeable, arrogant, and correct
than wise, humble, and incorrect. [I just re-read that part and noticed that
it sounds like a direct affront to you, but it's not meant that way--it's
just a comment in general.] For that matter, there's a distinction between
knowledge and wisdom, but they're interconnected and certainly not mutually
exclusive!
It's also worth pointing out that atheism tends to be more fundamentally
humble in its recognition that humanity is indeed an infinitessimal speck in
a super-duper big universe. Atheism, in fact, assigns no special "chosen
people" status to any group of humanity, nor do atheists think that The
Infinite God of All Creation and Eternity sent his only begotten Son to our
insignificant pebble of a planet to redeem us in accordance with His will.
On the contrary, any atheist worth calling an atheist will proclaim that
humanity is in no way worthy of such a unique and ultimate distinction!
So, in mundane facts-of-the-world matters it's possible that more
knowledge can lead to the impression of more "worldly arrogance," but IMO
that type of arrogance (if such it may be called) pales before the arrogance
of declaring oneself to have identified the one and only path to Heaven.
> > How do you make these judgements about which parts of
> > the Bible are accurate and important, and which parts should be written off?
>
> A fair question. And I don't deny the possibility that some of Jesus' recorded
> teachings could've been attested to him, but considering his overall message,
> what people believed about Him, what they said about Him, and how His message
> has been changing lives continuously for almost 2,000s years, I'd say that
> that part was pretty important.
"Important" is a seductively relative and ambiguous term, and the
"changing lives" argument doesn't hold much water. Egyptian mythology
greatly helped in the development of civil government, irrigation, advanced
architecture, and accounting, and as a culture it persisted for thousands of
years. Certainly it changed people's lives for millennia--does that mean it
was correct?
> The reason you don't judge God's actions is because you can never be sure of
> what they actually are.
**snip**
> Again, you have no idea what God's actions are, so you simply cannot judge
> them. Because in the final analysis, *nobody* can be certain of anything God
> does or doesn't do.
But for that reason you have no justification for concluding that God is
good! If God is infinite, then you cannot judge him unless you are able to
evaluate every aspect of his infinite nature. Even the bible is of no help
in that case, since an infinitely evil being could certainly craft a
convincing but false testament of "good."
> Of course you cannot have faith in an imperfect and unfair God. Who wants
> that?
Why should my "wants" have anything to do with the nature of God? That is
the type of arrogance to which I referred above; the perception that one can
somehow perceive the "correct" nature of or path to God and thereby conclude
that all other roads lead to hell.
For what it's worth, if I were a theist, I'd be happy with a god who is
simply an ultimate entity--a figure unsurpassed in any quality or
characteristic. Who could deny that such a figure would qualify as supreme?
That's not to say I'd worship such a figure, but there's no reason to
dismiss an ultimate entity just because he's not perfect enough for you or
for me!
> Go back to thinking of God as a perfect entity that is everywhere, in every
> one of your thoughts. Imagine God to be the kind of God you'd like to have
> around, if you dare.
You are, by the way, invoking the ontological argument, which has been
thoroughly debunked for centuries.
> Instead of a rather uncritical and literal interpretation, try evaluating God
> through a critical eye, based on what ancients *supposed* about Him.
But the Rev is most assuredly evaluating God through a critical eye! Many
atheists (myself included) do that all that time, and that's why they're
atheists. I don't summarily rely on the wisdom of the ancients when
evaluating current-day decisions about medical care, or economic policy, or
international politics because their views are ancient and very often
superstitious, dogmatic, and obsolete. Why, then, should I trust their
judgment on matters of ultimate existence?
You've actually invoked a standard propaganda technique used in the
selling of pseudoscientific new-age medicinal products: "This herbal secret
was discovered by Chinese apothecaries 2,500 years ago" as if the age of the
claim confirms some inherent, transcendent wisdom in it.
> > I do hope there's an afterlife.
>
> Really? If fundamental Christians are correct, you may not want it;-)
I couldn't agree more! I can conceive of no greater hell than an eternity
spent with Falwell and Robertson. Give me a black lake of eternally burning
brimstone any day!
> > Just knowing that things will probably get better within my lifetime is
> > generally all I need to get me through the rough times.
>
> lol What assurance do you have of that?
Are you serious? An easy, lighthearted example is that I was able to
endure my final exams in college because I knew they would be finite, and I
knew that once they were done I would feel better. Another example is my
current financial situation--I'm quite deeply in debt, but I'm paying it
down; therefore I'm easily able to endure the current hardship because I am
confident that I will eventually be better off.
And as a negative example: one reason that deep depression is so
destructive is that it impairs the sufferer's ability to realize that it
will, in all likelihood, end at some point. When that realization is
removed (that is, when someone can't say "things will probably get better
within my lifetime") then suicide becomes a real danger.
> > Any *one* of the above examples is enough to convict God in my book, and
> > there are plenty more examples I could give. There is nothing in the New
> > Testament that denies the accuracy of these stories or the Old Testament as
> > a whole, and in fact, it is appealed to by Jesus and the apostles as
> > authoritative.
>
> Hmmm, all from the early OT. I'm sure it would make a lot of sense to a 3,000
> year old Bedouin, but not me. Perhaps it would be analogous to extremist
> Muslims justifying "Jihad" (Holy War-- a better oxymoron than military
> intelligence;-) today. Jesus refers to the OT to correctly interpret it for
> the Pharisees et al. He was constantly convicting *their* interpretations.
Then how about Jesus withering a fig tree just because it wasn't bearing
fruit? That's pretty petulant, especially considering that the tree--which
has no free will of its own--could only bear fruit or not bear fruit in
accordance with God's will. So Jesus was, in effect, smiting the tree for
obeying God's will.
For that matter, why did the omniscient Jesus have to walk all the way
over to the tree to find out that it was empty of fruit?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Unless God really has revealed the one and only path to Heaven to an individual/s. Then declaring it is not arrogance at all - its simply declaring the truth. <snip> (...) Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Seriously. Consider for a moment that you may be referring to the entity that created you, and quadrillions of other living things that are/were but a speck on this insignificant planet in the course of time and history of the universe. Has (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
