Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:13:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1834 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> > I'm not sure we can have a meaningful debate about the nature of God as
> > presented in the Bible if we don't question why God does what he does.
>
> What I am contending is that we don't know much about what God does, so we
> can't begin to question why He does what He does. What I *know* God has done:
>
> 1) Created the universe (but not Adam and Eve specifically BTW)
> 2) Made a covenant with Abram
> 3) Gave the Law to Moses
> 4) Came to earth as Jesus to redeem the world.
For clarification, how is it that you know these 4 things for certain, but
at the same time, little to nothing else about God's actions? Do you know
these 4 things *because of the Bible*, or aside from the Bible?
> > If I point out an action of God that seems arbitrary and cruel, you can
> > always come back with "yes, but if you knew God's grand scheme of things,
> > you would see that what seems arbitrary and cruel is actually perfectly good
> > and right." But you can't really say that without assuming from the start
> > that God is perfectly good, and that therefore all his actions must be
> > perfectly good, and then you are taking as a given what we are trying to debate.
>
> I think you are missing my point. Given: God is perfectly good. God gave us
> free will. Now, in the course of human events, caca pasa. And good things
> happen, too. How is God involved in these events? Who knows? Generally, the
> religious will attibute the good to God, and not the evil (or the evil to some
> perfectly wretched entity such as the Devil).
OK, but what is it we are debating here? I think this debate began with the
issue of whether or not The Brick Testament was mocking in tone. It moved
on from that issue to whether or not The Brick Testament is any more or less
fair in its presentation of the Bible than other presentations of selected
Bible stories. And then it moved on to debating the nature of God as
presented in the Bible, which is where I thought we were now at.
You and Nathan are both taking as a given that God is perfectly good. This
forces you into accepting one of these two possibilities about God's actions
in the Bible:
A) Although God's actions as portrayed by the Bible might *seem* cruel and
disturbing, they are actually perfectly fair and just, and here's why...
(This seems to be Nathan's take.)
B) Although God's actions as portrayed in the Bible *do* seem cruel and
disturbing, they can't possibly be accurate descriptions of God's actions,
because that conflicts with the given knowledge that God is perfectly good.
(This seems to be your take.)
So for me, the most important revelation so far in this debate is that both
you and Nathan are bringing to the table your own certain knowledge about
God's nature that is *not derived from the Bible*. You are then both
forming your theories about the contents of the Bible, based on that
extra-Biblical knowledge about God.
What I would point out here is that The Brick Testament assumes no such
extra-Biblical information about God's nature. It does not re-interpret the
Bible through the rose-colored glasses of believeing God to be "perfectly good".
> God never changes. Our understanding of Him does, from the earliest Israelites
> to today. Any portrayal of God as vengeful, petty, cruel, whatever, is
> speaking more about the portrayer rather than God. God is a loving God. Any
> interpretation of Him in any other light is flawed at best and ignorant at
> worse.
Just to play devil's advocate, could I not conversely say that "Any
interpretation of God as perfectly good, merciful, and loving, whatever, is
speaking more about the portrayer rather than God"?
> > My point is that, just because there could be an super-intelligent being
> > whose grand schemes we cannot truly grasp as lesser beings, it doesn't shed
> > any light on whether that being is good or bad, benevolent or malicious.
>
> There isn't any guarantee that God is good. I believe this because I believe
> that He revealed this to me through the teachings of Jesus.
Wait, now it seems like your knowledge that God is perfectly good *does*
come from the Bible. Or were the teachings of Jesus revealed to you from a
non-Biblical source? And what is it about the teachings of Jesus (whether
from the Bible or otherwise) that makes you believe they are dependably true
(unlike the much of the Bible)?
> Hmmm, I wonder. If God appeared to you right now in front of your computer,
> what form could he take to best convince *you* that he is, in fact, God?
> Wouldn't you as a skeptic doubt your very senses? Any "miracle" that you may
> witness-- wouldn't you question it as a possible hoax? Wouldn't you
> immediately try and process any information as you always do through the eyes
> of science? And wouldn't you then want some *proof* that what you witnessed
> was indeed what you thought you witnessed? And even if you did somehow accept
> that this entity *was* a God, how could He prove to you that He was indeed
> good? I don't see how you could *ever* be convinced that God exists, because
> you have conveniently set up road blocks (science) that categorically deny the
> possibility that such communication could ever take place.
I suppose it depends on your definition of God. If you want to say that
"perfect goodness" is an absolute requirement for any entity to be
considered God, then I don't think there is any way for this entity
appearing in front of my computer to convince me that he is "perfectly
good", because the concept of objective goodness doesn't really make any
sense to me. If you are willing to drop "perfect goodness" as an absolute
requirement, I think it *is* possible for an entity to appear in front of me
and convince me that he is powerful and knowledgable enough for me to
consider him God, or a god, at least. He could probably even convince me
that he was the God of the Bible. I just wouldn't necessarily think he was
"good". I would, as ever, judge him based on his actions, both past and
present.
> You require specific conditions (I won't believe in God until I personally
> witenss a supernatural occurance manifested just for me, or something of that
> sort). But what if God doesn't, for whatever reason, work that way? Does that
> mean He doesn't exist?
I consider it possible that a non-"perfectly good" God exists, I just don't
have any reason to believe one does. Since *I* don't see any reason to
believe such a God exists, it naturally make me curious why other people
believe in God, and healthily skeptical of such beliefs.
> What if I said that God is speaking directly to you now, plainly and clearly as
> you wish, right now through these very words? Is that so unbelievable, so out
> of the question, and if so, why?
As I said, it's not impossible, there's just no particular reason so believe
it. It's equally possible, in my mind, that you are chanelling Elvis.
Maybe you are, but there's no reason for me to believe you chanelling Elvis,
and equally no reason to believe that God is speaking through you or even
exists.
> > If there is no benefit to delivering a garbled message through an ancient
> > book and sinful evangelizers, it would certainly seem that God is not doing
> > nearly all he can to get his important message across.
>
> Again, I ask you: what part of the message aren't you getting? If God chooses
> to manifest Himself through the witnesses of His people, then He is speaking to
> you right now. The OT may be garbled, but what is garbled now?
Well, an awesome display of power or knowledge, far beyond the powers of
humans would be very convincing that I'm dealing with something beyond the
powers of mere humans. But getting a garbled message from an ancient book
and imperfect humans is in no way convincing to me.
> > How exactly is Jesus supposed to be a culmination of God's covenant with the
> > Israelites?
>
> He is their Messiah, their King, who will reign in righteous over Israel.
Strange that God didn't mention anything to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses
about an upcoming king as part of his covenant with them. Calling Jesus a
King of Israel, reigning in rightneousness, is a questionable claim in and
of itself, but even if we don't question that, it still doesn't seem to in
any way "fulfill" the covenant with the Israelites.
> > > heck, it took the Israelites
> > > 100s of years to get the fact that there was only 1 God Yahweh!
> >
> > Imagine that, God appears *in person* to the Israelites, talks with them
> > *directly*, and yet they *still have the free will to disobey him*.
>
> I don't understand. Isn't that what the OT claims happens?
Yes it is, and I'm pointing it out because it seems to go exactly against
how you've been portraying free will. You've been saying that if God just
appeared to people directly and gave them his message clearly in person,
then the future actions of those humans would be a forgone conclusion,
compromising their free will. Whereas I've been arguing that, just as God
appeared to the ancient Israelites, and yet they still used their free will
to disobey him, God could likewise appear to me or everyone in the world
today, deliver his unadulterated message, and not in any way compromise our
free will to choose to either obey or disobey him.
> > > So when I read OT stories, it is through the eyes of one who takes these things
> > > into consideration. Yeah, Yahweh is dropping folks right and left... or so
> > > those ancients thought.
> >
> > By the same token, why not say, "Yeah, Jesus was the son of God... or so
> > those ancients thought."
>
> I have personally encountered the Risen Christ. You may be surprised to hear
> me say that, for all I know, some of the miracles attributed to Jesus didn't
> happen (save for the resurrection, I guess;-) or that his birth narrative is a
> myth, or any other such "confessions". But I can tell you this: I know who
> Jesus is by my experience, not from what any ancients wrote about him
> (directly).
OK, so you have experienced the Risen Christ. Is this where you learned the
"teachings of Christ" that convinced you that God is perfectly good? If
not, what did you learn from your experience?
> > No, it seems quite common for Christians to doubt the historical, and even
> > theological accuracy of the Old Testament. I just don't see why they don't
> > apply those same standards to the New Testament.
>
> Happens all the time. The Revelation as a map for the end times? Not for me.
> Some of Paul's teaching on women? Dance, squirm, dance;-) They are there.
So the Bible really has very little to do with what you believe. I'm not
entirely sure why you would consider it especially valuable in that case, as
anything more than a record of ancient people's misconceptions about Jesus
and God. Is it so upsetting then to see those misconceptions illustrated in
The Brick Testament, even if I'm choosing what you would consider the worst
of those misconceptions? Isn't the whole thing just a book of
misconceptions that only very occasionally got things right?
> The Israelites did not hate Yahweh-- they worshipped Him.
Did they have a real choice? The other option seems to have lead to certain
and unpleasant death.
> Yahweh did not
> despise His people; He *chose* them (think of it as an honor; they did), and
> made Covenant promises to them (unilateral) of Hesed (Steadfast Love).
>
> That is not the "overall message" I get from the BT.
I will admit that a lot of the Bible is about how wonderful Yahweh is, and
many times it is claimed that Yahweh somehow loves his chosen people, but my
point is that if you look beyond this surface message, you quickly come to
see just how "wonderful" this Yahweh really is, and how exactly his "love"
for his people manifests itself.
A wife-beater will often claim to love his wife more than anything in the
world, and the beaten wife will often delude herself into thinking that her
husband really does love her and that she must somehow deserves the beatings.
The prophets often portrayed Israel as God's unfaithful wife.
> > But the Bible purports to tell you exactly what God's actions were, and so
> > that is what I have used in my judgment. In my opinion, the God if the
> > Bible is a hot-tempered, homicidal maniac.
>
> Do you think that *they* thought of God as such? Why would you come to such a
> conclusion if *they* didn't, and it all happened to *them*?
As in the wife-beater analogy, an outside observer's take on the situation
can often be quite different than those involved, and sometimes arguably
more sane.
To further the analogy, imagine if this wife-beater was heralded as a moral
beacon for the community, and someone to whom we all owe a debt of
gratitude. In that case, it is all the more disturbing, as it is for me
when God, as portrayed in the Bible, is described as worthy of our worship.
Keep in mind that this is God *as portrayed in the Bible*. If you have
extra-Biblical rock solid knowledge that God is perfectly good, I wouldn't
expect you to see things like I do.
> Maybe the BT
> should be qualified as "An outsider's view of the Bible". That to me would put
> the BT in a much more honest position.
But are all "insiders" (Christians & Jews) expected to receive their certain
knowledge that God is perfectly good from some non-Biblical source? It was
my understanding that the majority opinion is that the Bible pretty much
speaks for itself about the nature of God, and that you don't really need
more than that to understand God and Jesus.
> > So the Bible is useless as an indicator of God's actions? It seems like
> > you'd be better off dropping it altogether for a religion that is purely
> > based on faith.
>
> Not wholly. I mentioned before the actions of God of which I am sure. All
> else is commentary or documentation, or teaching. And BTW, I am a Christian
> purely based on faith. Apart from a few events, you could tell me that the
> whole Bible isn't factual and it wouldn't matter to me one bit. I know this
> because my faith has survived "Demythologizing" (explanation another time, if
> you are interested).
Right, so I'm not sure why you place much value on the Bible in the first
place, or why you should be particularly concerned if its misconceptions
about God are illustrated in LEGO. It seems like you should take much more
issue with fellow Christians (like Nathan) who pass off what you consider to
be profound misconceptions about God as *the real deal*. In comparison, The
Brick Testament, since it is created by an atheist, makes no actual claims
as to the nature of God, it just illustrates what *others* have claimed to
be God's actions, and what *others* still, now, today believe to be examples
of God's justice and mercy.
> > > Assuming God is
> > > perfect is, to me, by definition. Of course you cannot have faith in an
> > > imperfect and unfair God. Who wants that?
> >
> > As Dave! pointed out, what does want have to do with it? Maybe there's a
> > perfectly good God, and maybe there's a perfectly evil God, but I can't see
> > how what anyone *wants* there to be affects what actually exists.
>
> I meant, "Who wants (to believe in) that? I don't want to worship and rever an
> imperfect and unfair God. I don't even know if a perfectly evil God could
> exist.
Well, it couldn't if you include "perfectly good" as part of your definition
of God. But if there was an entity that had all of God's other attributes,
except instead of being perfectly good, he was perfectly evil (ie. no good
in him whatsoever, according to your definition), would you still call this
entity a God? If not, what would you call it? Could you imagine that such
an entity exists and a perfectly good God does not?
> I define evil as the absence of good, much like light and darkness.
> There isn't such a thing as "dark", it is merely the absence of light.
>
> This, incidently, is also how I define "hell"-- separation from God.
So when Jesus talked about being thrown into the eternal fires of hell
throughout the Gospels, do you believe that this is Jesus being misquoted?
Or is this his euphamism for "separation from God"? It seems like the
people he was talking to were already separated from God, and yet he
certainly seems to be warning them of a much more dire punishment than the
lives they were currently leading.
Do you believe that I am separated from God, and thus "in hell" right now?
If so, I gotta tell you, it's not nearly so bad as Jesus made it out to be.
> > I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. I'll
> > indulge you by providing a description of the most-desireable type of God I
> > can think of, if you really want, but I'm not sure what the point is.
>
> My point is that God *is* actually the way you would probably want Him-- a
> being who is always there for you and who will never let you down, who loves
> you far more than you do yourself; a being who knows you intimately (heck, he
> created you!), a being that gave you the greatest gift you could ever
> imagine--life, and existence for eternity. What *more* would you want?
How about starting with some reason to believe any of the above is true?
How hard would that be? If something goes right for me, sure, you can *say*
that God is helping me out, but what reason is there for me to believe that?
It's one of those thing where it seems just as likely that it's Elvis's
ghost helping me out in my times of trouble. Or Maury the Kangaroo. @8^)
Now, if God actually appeared and demostrated his super-human capabilities,
maybe he'd start to have a reason to expect me to believe he exists.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "by what the ancients *supposed* about him".
> > Is that different from what the believed about him, and what the wrote about
> > him?
>
> I meant try unpacking the OT and see if you can detect a God that loves His
> people.
So he does, like a wife-beater loves his wife.
> > No assurance, it just tends to be what happens -- sometimes you're up,
> > sometimes you're down. So if you're down, chances are you'll be up again.
> > I know this from experience, so I keep it mind during rough times, and I get
> > through them. What's the big mystery?
>
> All I meant was that, for all we know, disaster (God forbid) may be right
> around the corner.
> Personally, I don't like to think about the afterlife so much. I have hope for
> it, and that gives me strength, purpose, and meaning. Armed with that, I can
> face life in the here and now, which is, as you say, what it is all about. We
> have been given the gift of life-- to merely take that gift and throw it away
> is a big no-no.
How good a gift is life to someone who is suffering intensely, especially
prolonged suffering, especially when they could just go to heaven and be in
eternal paradise instead?
> > Distract me from what? It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.
>
> From the realization nobody *really* cares about you,
Are you really suggesting that my friends and my family do not *really* care
about me?
> that your existence is ultimately meaningless
I give my life plenty of meaning. It doesn't bother me that my existence,
outside of my own perspective, is meaningless. The idea of an objective
meaning to life doesn't make any sense to me, so it's hard for me to be
disappointed that my life doesn't have one.
> that you will soon die, and that you will be soon
> forgotten as if you never existed at all.
I suppose this part can bum me out if I really dwell on it, so I try not to.
What's the point? And as I said before, I do *hope* there's some sort of
pleasant afterlife, I just don't have any reason to think there is one, so I
don't make any plans based on it.
> > And yet you don't dismiss the New Testament, saying, "I'm sure it would make
> > a lot of sense to members of fledgling gentile churches of the early Jesus
> > Movement scattered around to Mediterreanean 2,000 years ago, but not me."
>
> What made sense to me was the Kergyma, the proclaimed Gospel, which is found in
> the NT and has its roots in the OT.
It's hard to see how a mere proclomation can really "make sense". It's not
an argument, or a demonstrated proof, it's just a claim. It's as if I went
up to someone and said "Maury the Kangaroo came to Earth in a magical
spaceship to save you from being a horrible person!" and then suddenly,
without anything further, the listener was *convinced* of this.
Maybe you can explain it better.
> > There's plenty of stuff in the Christian Bible that can and has been used to
> > support holy wars. I guess the question is, how is it that *you* can read
> > the Bible and be absolutely sure that God would not be in favor of war, and
> > yet *someone else*, just as earnestly, can read the Bible and then go on a
> > crusade to libaerate the Holy Land, absolutely sure that God is fighting on
> > their side.
>
> We are human. We are different. We don't know with certainty God's will, so
> we act as we believe God would want. Sometimes we are wrong.
See, this is why it would make a lot more sense to me if we all knew God's
will as crystal clearly as Adam & Eve knew that God forbid them to eat the
apple. But apparently God likes it better when we're all just taking our
best guesses at what he wants, even if it means the brutal slayings of
countless people in the process.
> > > > > But what an amazing story. God coming to earth, not as a king, but as a
> > > > > servant.
> > > >
> > > > What kind of servant was Jesus?
> > >
> > > He wasn't a servant-- He was the Messiah, the King of the Jews, humbling
> > > Himself *as* a servant.
> >
> > How was he *as* a servant, but not a servant?
>
> He IS the King. But He doesn't *act* as we would suppose a king to act;
> instead He humbles Himself as a servant, as an example of love to us.
OK, in what way did Jesus *act* like a servant, and whom did he act like he
was serving?
> What is humble is that the Master allows his own people to reject Him,
If he "allows" his own people to reject him, it implies that he could have
chosen to have them accept him, and if accepting Jesus is a good thing (it's
been called the only way into heaven) then "allowing" people to reject him
doesn't seem so much humble as it does cruel.
> even
> murder Him in the most humiliating way,
Oh, there are *much* more humiliating ways to go, I can assure you.
Compared with even other deaths from the Bible, Jesus's looks downright
dignified.
> and *still* forgives them. How more
> humble can one be?
Submitting to a death that would have been simple to avoid does not strike
me as humble, even if you forgive the executioners.
Imagine that I know that on the other side of a door is a paranoid person
with a gun who will shoot anyone who opens that door. Would it be a
"humble" thing to do if I were to forgive the paranoid person in advance,
and then open the door and get shot to death?
> > Is it just because you *like* the message of the NT that you believe it, or
> > because there's some particular reason(s) beyond that to believe the message
> > of the NT?
>
> Well, I *do* like the message that the creator of the universe cares about
> little ol' me, and that I will exist with Him for eternity.
>
> And I do believe it because The Message rings true to me.
But could you explain why it rings true to you? I guess what I'm ultimately
trying to determine here is what part of Christianity you take wholly on
faith without any reason to support it, and why you choose to have faith in
that instead of the limitless other fanciful things that one could
potentially have blind faith in.
-Brendan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) What I am contending is that we don't know much about what God does, so we can't begin to question why He does what He does. What I *know* God has done: 1) Created the universe (but not Adam and Eve specifically BTW) 2) Made a covenant with (...) (22 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
