Talking Religion...

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The problem here is that it looks like God is simply pouring the black ants into a jar to battle the red ants and seeing how it comes out - with the interesting side note that as it is God we are talking about, he already knows how it comes out.

And that He is the one who created the evil that is the opposition, and that He could with a wave of his hand (he does not have a hand, but you know what I am saying) eliminate evil all together, or have hard wired us to be good people in His image and not created the Tree or the Apple in the first place, or since he did, forgiven us that day, wiped Adam and Eve's memory and been back to Paradise Rev 0 a minute later.

It is not illogical to see all of that as sort of petty and mean, making us battle for thousands of years with evil just to watch us do it and make him happy when End Days are over. That is why the Gnostics believed that the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge, a lessor God who make a world like that, flood the world for people acting the way he made them, send bears to dismember kids who made fun of a bald guy, etc.

Interesting things to think about though as abstract thought.

Gator,
Think that is incomplete. I think that we have to go back to the reason God created everything in the first place. I believe you are correct in your observation that He knows how it turns out, so I believe it follows that God didn't do it just experiment. To cut it short I believe God created man not out of any need because He is complete, but because He loved us before He even created us and because of His love he desired a relationship with us. That relationship is intended to be a 2 way street or else we don't actually get to choose Him and we are ultimately robots. One cannot have a relationship with a robot. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had to exist so we had something else to choose.

In that light its not mean.

 

[Gatorubet]

Gator,
Think that is incomplete. I think that we have to go back to the reason God created everything in the first place. I believe you are correct in your observation that He knows how it turns out, so I believe it follows that God didn't do it just experiment. To cut it short I believe God created man not out of any need because He is complete, but because He loved us before He even created us and because of His love he desired a relationship with us. That relationship is intended to be a 2 way street or else we don't actually get to choose Him and we are ultimately robots. One cannot have a relationship with a robot. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had to exist so we had something else to choose.

In that light its not mean.

I absolutely see that concept, and it is a good response. Please understand that I enjoy the discussions, and that because I take a position on the board does not always mean that I hold that same position personally. Maybe it is a lawyer thing, but arguing in the abstract about a position I may not hold personally is very natural to me, but maybe not to many non-lawyers. I mean, I have had two hearings on the same day in two courts for two different clients arguing against the position I took in the other (with distinctions of course )

But you see, His plan has a guaranteed end result with millions upon millions of souls spending eternity in everlasting torment in Hell as a side result of his desire to have a relationship with us.

Some folks think that sending a nice card would have been a better idea than that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What do you mean by an "all loving God" and where does this idea come from? At least for me to answer this question, I have to know what you mean here and whether or not I agree with it.

Too much to get in to before I bail, but it is essentially what I was discussing with Jwins a few weeks back ... may have been this thread, even...

Yeah, I'm not so sure we need to discuss it. If you can't see that God by definition is perfectly just, and therefore requires punishment for sin, then I don't know where to go. He's so loving that He gave His only Begotten Son so that whomever believes in Him shall surely be saved.

Don't have an issue with perfect justice... I just don't think it's possible to sin. I realize that's not in accord with your understanding as generated by the Bible. Just wanted to point out, I'm not arguing from a Biblical perspective, so treating my comments as if I was might be clouding your understanding of what I may or may not be "seeing" by "definition"

Attention very sensitive material not intended to offend.
BKB, don't know if you have kids, but say you did. Say someone brutalized, tortured, raped and killed your wife. To save this guy from his punishment of torture you have to sacrifice your own son. Essentially we are that guy that did that to your wife to God. Only with qualitative differences. That dude is not beholden to you. You have nothing over this guy. God is our maker. We are His. And God did exactly that. The price had to be paid so He paid it for us. We just have to choose Him.

I do have kids, just for the record.

Anyway, this is a morbid.. frankly disgusting way... to look at human nature. I have not done anything of the kind to G-d... I resent the fact that you think I, just by my very nature, am so foul... and I can't imagine how you are given any comfort in believing the same about yourself.

That's one of the things that so turns me off of Christianity... your view of humanity - itself G-d's "greatest" creation - is ..... I don't mean this as insulting as it sounds, I just can't think of a better word ... depraved. It sickens me to know that people hold themselves and each other in such ill-repute.

In any case... our fundamental difference is essentially how much credit we give the pages of the Bible for being "true" as it regards G-d's nature... the word of G-d? or the word of MAN about G-d... you believe the former, I think the later... at best...

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Don't have an issue with perfect justice... I just don't think it's possible to sin. I realize that's not in accord with your understanding as generated by the Bible. Just wanted to point out, I'm not arguing from a Biblical perspective, so treating my comments as if I was might be clouding your understanding of what I may or may not be "seeing" by "definition"


I do have kids, just for the record.

Anyway, this is a morbid.. frankly disgusting way... to look at human nature. I have not done anything of the kind to G-d... I resent the fact that you think I, just by my very nature, am so foul... and I can't imagine how you are given any comfort in believing the same about yourself.

That's one of the things that so turns me off of Christianity... your view of humanity - itself G-d's "greatest" creation - is ..... I don't mean this as insulting as it sounds, I just can't think of a better word ... depraved. It sickens me to know that people hold themselves and each other in such ill-repute.

In any case... our fundamental difference is essentially how much credit we give the pages of the Bible for being "true" as it regards G-d's nature... the word of G-d? or the word of MAN about G-d... you believe the former, I think the later... at best...

Oddly, I don't think I disagree with much of what you're saying. I especially agree about our fundamental difference. Depraved, I believe is often a term used to describe man's condition.

I am at least glad that you have realized ( I think) that I believe there is no difference between your depravity and mine. Well, except, that I know someone who is the opposite of depraved has accepted the judgment for me.

I must say I find it odd how you take issue with my and others' holding people with such ill-repute considering what I've perceived you stated about people many times. Maybe not in the graphic terms I just put them in, but you hardly give the impression that you have high regard of people.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oddly, I don't think I disagree with much of what you're saying. I especially agree about our fundamental difference. Depraved, I believe is often a term used to describe man's condition.

I am at least glad that you have realized ( I think) that I believe there is no difference between your depravity and mine. Well, except, that I know someone who is the opposite of depraved has accepted the judgment for me.

I must say I find it odd how you take issue with my and others' holding people with such ill-repute considering what I've perceived you stated about people many times. Maybe not in the graphic terms I just put them in, but you hardly give the impression that you have high regard of people.

First, I'm glad to have not returned to an emotion fueled response I was worried my blunt use of English may have elicited. Thanks for not personalizing the "emotional" component of the words I used.

You are correct to note my general attitude towards people as it seems in conflict with my rebuttal of your earlier position. This is something I work on quite a bit in my own life, because I consider it MY problem that I fail to see the "good" in people before the "bad" In other words, I consider that MY inadequacy, and not humanities.

It is very hard for me to see the usefulness in a great many people.. it is true, and I admit it. However.... and this sorta goes to the larger point I have with people's view of gods... I do not think G-d sees the world in anything approaching how I see the world. G-d is not a "super"man...

As I was thinking about Grad's question above which I quickly answered.... I suppose it's fair to say ... when I think about whatever might be G-d's "personality" I figure He's more likely to be like the "best" part of man (if at all) than what I consider the "worst" of man.... So... if I can love my children without condition, and if I think that's "good" (which I do), then I'd expect G-d to be more like THAT than to be something I consider inferior. Admittedly, this is me being guilty of the very same charge I make above about making G-d a "super" man... I'm simply trying to put in to words how I think about the problem, but I should note I really believe I cant (and don't) know the first thing about G-d's personality in point of fact.....

All I know is, if G-d is as I hear Christian's describe, I don't want any part of him. I dont' find that version of G-d (normally, I'd just say "god" there, but don't want to offend you with regard to "who" I'm talking about) worthy of my worship, quite frankly.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

First, I'm glad to have not returned to an emotion fueled response I was worried my blunt use of English may have elicited. Thanks for not personalizing the "emotional" component of the words I used.

You are correct to note my general attitude towards people as it seems in conflict with my rebuttal of your earlier position. This is something I work on quite a bit in my own life, because I consider it MY problem that I fail to see the "good" in people before the "bad" In other words, I consider that MY inadequacy, and not humanities.

It is very hard for me to see the usefulness in a great many people.. it is true, and I admit it. However.... and this sorta goes to the larger point I have with people's view of gods... I do not think G-d sees the world in anything approaching how I see the world. G-d is not a "super"man...

As I was thinking about Grad's question above which I quickly answered.... I suppose it's fair to say ... when I think about whatever might be G-d's "personality" I figure He's more likely to be like the "best" part of man (if at all) than what I consider the "worst" of man.... So... if I can love my children without condition, and if I think that's "good" (which I do), then I'd expect G-d to be more like THAT than to be something I consider inferior. Admittedly, this is me being guilty of the very same charge I make above about making G-d a "super" man... I'm simply trying to put in to words how I think about the problem, but I should note I really believe I cant (and don't) know the first thing about G-d's personality in point of fact.....

All I know is, if G-d is as I hear Christian's describe, I don't want any part of him. I dont' find that version of G-d (normally, I'd just say "god" there, but don't want to offend you with regard to "who" I'm talking about) worthy of my worship, quite frankly.

I was not even close to being offended. And its likely you never will be able to offend me in the future.

I'm curious... though. Can you please describe to me what exactly is so detestable at how Christians describe God.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I was not even close to being offended. And its likely you never will be able to offend me in the future.

I'm curious... though. Can you please describe to me what exactly is so detestable at how Christians describe God.

Well, not quickly.... I mean, I've been talking about this topic for years on this board, so you should have a feel for what I mean....

But, the view expressed above about Man's nature comes to mind immediately (I find it not only depressing and angering, but also logically failing (that is to say, as Gator noted - a god who creates a soul in a certain manner, damns that soul for doing what it was created to do - strikes me as completely ridiculous.)

Likewise, though not on point necessarily, I see no use for Jesus. Since I have kicked him out of my life for good, nothing has changed, I feel as close to G-d as ever... and the whole idea has - on exploration - proven to me to be an unnecessary endeavor - spiritually and logically. At worst, I think "Jesus" actually is treated as a god and therefore is "blasphemous" (Though that word isn't particularly meaningful in my view, just trying to conceptualize it for you) at best, I see Jesus as someone with interesting ideas and some good things to say about how to go about one's life..... ie Love your neighbor as yourself... things like that... that is to say, I don't have any particular issue with the message of Jesus, so much as the importance of it.

 

[MaxBuck]

...The devil, the advesary, evil, whatever, is irrelevant to God's standing as the conflict never has been between good and evil or God and some other entity. Rather the confict is between those who follow God's Will and those who resist it. (In fact, the idea that God has an advesary is repugnant IMO; it is only us humans that I believe have an advesary).

This commentary is utterly at odds with what I was taught about Satan and Jesus's struggles with him. Do you not see Satan as the adversary of God, and "evil" as the adversary of "good?" Maybe I'm missing your point here.

 

[MaxBuck]

At worst, I think "Jesus" actually is treated as a god ...

Well, to orthodox Christians Jesus is not just treated as "a god;" he is regarded as God incarnate, per the Nicene Creed:

I believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father, ...

Why do you, bkb, see this as being "at worst?"

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well, to orthodox Christians Jesus is not just treated as "a god;" he is regarded as God incarnate, per the Nicene Creed:

Why do you, bkb, see this as being "at worst?"

Well, one of the problems I see immediately is that the OT says G-d is ONE.... in fact, if memory serves, Jesus himself says this is the chief command to remember (I'm paraphrasing a book I read last summer about Maimonides, so I may be butchering it) and as I discussed with Jwins - the Luke comments about G-d increasing in wisdom (I left "stature" alone) means that Jesus either didn't know he was G-d and knew everything already, or that G-d wasn't always "All knowing" or that Luke is full of shit... among other possibilities.. point is, it just doesn't add up for me.... as a consequence, I can't consider Jesus to have been G-d

This is compounded by Jew's belief (which Christianity purports to be based on) that the idea of a "man-G-d" (or G-d in human form) is ridiculous (maybe Muffler can help me out with the biblical support for that view)... which is in accord with my belief that a "man god" or G-d as man... is something of a "why the fuck would he do that?" issue. I mean, as I've expressed before... I just don't see the point... if G-d wanted to "save us" or give us "grace" all he had to do was say "You're saved...." or "you get grace" This nailing himself to a cross and suffering and all that just doesn't make sense.... he's G-d for Christ's sake... not the kind of guy who has to "go thru motions" for "show"

Anyway... as a confirmed catholic, I can say that I have explored these ideas of mine with a certain sense of dread... but ultimately, I have come to the conclusino that G-d is important enough to me that I will take HIS word as spoken to me, through ME instead of thru others..... That may well be a trust issue, I guess... but.. I believe in me... I trust me... I don't bullshit myself... As to others... well... I can never be certain. I believe G-d is not so very hard to find if you look... indeed, one cannot help but find G-d because there is truly nothing else....

To be sure, I still have problems reconsiling my personal behavior with my personal belief as it realtes to the consequences of my conclusions....... but.. I am trying

Edit: See also, this post:

Leviticus 16:29-34

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

For Bgrad The link is to my earlier discussion with Jwins which I mentioned in my reply to you earlier. the link takes you to several posts before the ideas which address your question here, but I felt context was probably appropriate, so...

 

[Gatorubet]

This commentary is utterly at odds with what I was taught about Satan and Jesus's struggles with him. Do you not see Satan as the adversary of God, and "evil" as the adversary of "good?" Maybe I'm missing your point here.

That would raise that punk Satan to a level that he never held.

Here is an informative Wiki article about Irenaeus, the main man and one of the original theologians who solidified the apostolic theory of who and what to listen to, and who was very influential in shaping the theology of Christianity as we know it.

His emphasis on the unity of God is reflected in his corresponding emphasis on the unity of salvation history. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that God began the world and has been overseeing it ever since this creative act; everything that has happened is part of his plan for humanity. The essence of this plan is a process of maturation: Irenaeus believes that humanity was created immature, and God intended his creatures to take a long time to grow into or assume the divine likeness. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as children. Their Fall was thus not a full-blown rebellion but rather a childish spat, a desire to grow up before their time and have everything with immediacy.
Everything that has happened since has therefore been planned by God to help humanity overcome this initial mishap and achieve spiritual maturity. The world has been intentionally designed by God as a difficult place, where human beings are forced to make moral decisions, as only in this way can they mature as moral agents. Irenaeus likens death to the big fish that swallowed Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale's belly that Jonah could turn to God and act according to the divine will. Similarly, death and suffering appear as evils, but without them we could never come to know God.

Again, what to do about the poor suckers who were created by God with a weak spirit that would fail - that God has known from the beginning would fry in Hell? Collateral Damage I guess. Since I am fairly certain there was not an Adam or an Eve, what to do about all that becomes more interesting.

 

[MaxBuck]

That would raise that punk Satan to a level that he never held.

I guess I don't see that. To say that Satan is an adversary of God (or simply of "good") doesn't impute to him any particular "level." It simply sets him up as an adversary - maybe in the same way that the Washington Generals were an "adversary" to the Globetrotters. :)

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Well, not quickly.... I mean, I've been talking about this topic for years on this board, so you should have a feel for what I mean....

But, the view expressed above about Man's nature comes to mind immediately (I find it not only depressing and angering, but also logically failing (that is to say, as Gator noted - a god who creates a soul in a certain manner, damns that soul for doing what it was created to do - strikes me as completely ridiculous.)

Likewise, though not on point necessarily, I see no use for Jesus. Since I have kicked him out of my life for good, nothing has changed, I feel as close to G-d as ever... and the whole idea has - on exploration - proven to me to be an unnecessary endeavor - spiritually and logically. At worst, I think "Jesus" actually is treated as a god and therefore is "blasphemous" (Though that word isn't particularly meaningful in my view, just trying to conceptualize it for you) at best, I see Jesus as someone with interesting ideas and some good things to say about how to go about one's life..... ie Love your neighbor as yourself... things like that... that is to say, I don't have any particular issue with the message of Jesus, so much as the importance of it.

A few minutes ago I had an answer written out then I tried to post it, and it said I wasn't logged in. Oh well. Let me try again.

I didn't post much earlier because I was blessed to teach 6, 7, and 8 year olds about Jonah. Gave me some perspective.


The idea that man was created to sin is the problem. What I believe is that man was created to have a relationship with God, to commune with Him. With that being said, God knew man would ultimately sin. That is a clear distinction though. Even still God provided man who ultimately chose to not commune with Him (man's sole purpose) a second chance in way that satisfies justice. It's not like God's a reactionary, though. He had a plan from the beginning for dealing with man's sin.

(aside: I don't believe God is bound by time. I believe he perceives time just as we perceive length, width, and depth, but only He can do it all at once, and I'm trying to describe the infinite with my very finite understanding, anyway)

As for Jesus, one who isn't depraved has no use for a Saviour.

As for the triune God, I don't understand why the one and only God couldn't manifest Himself in 3 different ways.

See you tomorrow.

 

[Gatorubet]

The idea that man was created to sin is the problem. What I believe is that man was created to have a relationship with God, to commune with Him. With that being said, God knew man would ultimately sin. That is a clear distinction though. Even still God provided man who ultimately chose to not commune with Him (man's sole purpose) a second chance in way that satisfies justice. It's not like God's a reactionary, though. He had a plan from the beginning for dealing with man's sin.

That's the problem. He shipped millions of units out of the factory, knowing that lots of them had defects. And his warranty plan is that most of them will be refurbished, made better really, in the recall, but that a large amount of them will be discarded and never work.

While that would constitute bad faith business practices in most states, when you throw in the fact that the units have sentient intelligence and that "discarded" means "tortured for eternity", it is a puzzler.

As for Jesus, one who isn't depraved has no use for a Saviour.

Well, if the Heaven/Hell thing is make believe, then a very strong argument could be made that you do not need a savior even if you are not perfect. The whole pagan Mother Teresa fries and the kiddy rapist-murderer gets to sincerely repent and go to Heaven after a lifetime of kiddy murder-rapes thing.

As for the triune God, I don't understand why the one and only God couldn't manifest Himself in 3 different ways.

Absolutely right, but that is a slippery slope.

Actually, at this time I think St. Lucian of Antioch's view (more like the Arians) make more sense to me logically. But to me it is a distinction without a difference, as you get to the same place either way, salvation wise. But the Pope thought differently, so the Cathars had to go.