FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-02-2001, 06:28 PM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:
My understanding of the matter is that modern archeology has done much to demonstrate that many of the enemies of Israel were very definitely evil.

Could you elaborate on this? How "evil" were they compared to, say, the Aztecs, who regularly cut the living hearts out of their war victims? Or other American native tribes that were wiped out by the Europeans during and after the fifteenth century?</font>
I can't really elaborate on this significantly which is why I was deliberately vague.
In one book (One of Dr Victor Pearce's Evidence for Truth series: and while I realise that he is a pretty biased apologist, in cases where I have checked his evidence from others sources he has been accurate in what physical evidence he has presented and so I have no particular reason to disbelieve him) I read quite a while ago it brushed on the issue of how evil the people of Jericho were at the time of their destruction at the hands of Israel. If I remember correctly he says something about them stuffing babies into barrels and killing them and says they did worse things which he refuses to describe.
 
Old 07-02-2001, 07:04 PM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
I read quite a while ago it brushed on the issue of how evil the people of Jericho were at the time of their destruction at the hands of Israel. If I remember correctly he says something about them stuffing babies into barrels and killing them and says they did worse things which he refuses to describe.</font>
OK, let's analyze this example (assuming that
you have represented it here correctly).

We have evidence here that the people of
Jericho were being attacked by the Jews.
They stuffed their babies into barrels to
kill them.

Evil?

Perhaps that's one interpretation.

But let's look at it from another perspective. Here you are about to
be beaten in battle by a group of people
who have a reputation for doing nasty
things to the conquered people. Killing
the women and children? Would you as
a parent, knowing what the future holds,
not prefer to spare your children from
a suffering death? Maybe they put them
out of their misery quickly and quietly?

The evidence (as you presented it) leaves
open many alternatives, IMHO, than just
proof that they were "very evil".

Let's got to Masada (sp?). Rebel Jews killed
their Women and Children, then committed
suicide. Why? To spare themselves from the
wrath of the Romans. Does that also make
the Jews at Masada "very evil"?

 
Old 07-02-2001, 07:04 PM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
it brushed on the issue of how evil the people of Jericho were at the time of their destruction at the hands of Israel. If I remember correctly he says something about them stuffing babies into barrels and killing them and says they did worse things which he refuses to describe.</font>
Does he happen to say why? Victims of conquest, population control, etc.? What about the other cities and nations?

Don't spend too much time on it though, it's a peripheral issue and I'd rather hear your responses to the other participants' questions.

Thanks,
Muad'dib
 
Old 07-02-2001, 11:36 PM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
For the rest, I appreciate your amusing wit.

"The rest" is herein identified as the remaining three-fourths of the post in which I repeatedly questioned the basis for Tercel's theology--many of them pertinent questions he appears to be conveniently ignoring.

But at least he was amused. That's something.</font>
I would love to be able to answer completely every single question I am ever asked about my beliefs and throughly support everything with as much evidence as I can. Unfortunately God only put 24 hours in the day and I have other things to do in my life. So I answer as much as I can as completely as I can with the time that I have got and I try to prioritise as best I can the questions that I get asked.
What I hate most is one sentence questions which require large answers to explain without sounding stupid, of which you seem to be particularly adapt at asking Diana.
In addition your requirement that I quote BC&V everywhere only makes it more difficult, because it takes me a lot of time to locate relevant verses. (As I'm not in the habit of doing it)
(By the way, does anyone know of a Bible-search facility on the internet which searches the Good News version?)
I could respond over the next few days to every single part of that post if you want, but it would simply mean that I won't have the time to respond to your objections to my original responses.

Many of the questions you are asking Diana are fairly standard questions of parts of Christian doctrine. I am sure you would do much better with a book than asking me, as well you would get the BC&Vs you like so much. Not to mention that I've never been particularly skilled at explaining things.
Go and buy yourself a Systematic Theology or something. I've got one sitting on my bookshelf covering everything from Proofs/disproofs of the existence of God, through the nature of God, through Millenial views through the nature of eternity and Hell and much more. It is about 750 pages of small type. I am NOT going to type out here even a reasonable potion of one page. Go and buy/borrow yourself one. My one is called Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof published by The Banner of Truth Trust originally published 1939 though my edition was published in 1979. (Is that a specific enough recommendation for you?)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Using "the more commonly used verses" while ignoring "the more obscure ones" allows you to choose that which supports what you believe while ignoring all else, does it not? But internal consistency demands that everything agrees--or at least, doesn't contradict. This would necessarily include those pesky "more obscure verses."</font>
With any given piece of theology there is usually a passage in the Bible which says it straight out. I have the choice of quoting the verse which says it straight out (where I know it, which is not that often) or explaining why this theology must be true from the more obvious points.
Also, because I am not an inerrantist there are sometimes verses I want to drop. It would be inconsistent of me to believe something simply because one verse says it and drop something else simply because I don't like it. Instead I aim to try to get a consistent overview of what is happening by taking the basics into account and extrapolating from there. This allows me to justify myself in situations where I want to say "this passage is false" (as I do upon occasion).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The way you explain your standards, it almost sounds as though you began with a belief and have extrapolated those verses which support that belief. Being the man of logic you are, I'm sure you can see the shortcomings of this technique.</font>
Believe it or not I wrote the above before reading this - so I'm not about to deny your charge. I'm curious as to why you think this technique has shortcomings. It promotes consistency, leads to an open minded understanding, and allows me to determine my beliefs in points of theology on which the Bible writers contradict each other. -"Does god change his mind?" being an appropriate example of this. If I can justify my beliefs by using any text to support it, how on earth am I supposed to work out what to believe about whether God changes his mind? Whereas if I have an overall understanding of God and how he works without having specific knowledge of the answer to the question, I am able to work out by a process of logical deduction what the answer must be. Perhaps at this point you can begin to understand my annoyance when people say things like "intelligence and faith have nothing to do with each other" or "facts have no place in religion" or "being religious requires people to turn off their brains" etc. While these statments may be true when refering to fundamentalists from the Bible Belts (I say MAY) they simply demonstrate ignorance of how theology and beliefs are really constructed (as well as being an insult to me).
Anyway I'm curious as to what you think is the problem with this method.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For the sake of this discussion, I have no problem with your beginning with a belief; I do, however, take issue with the fact that you're willfully ignoring those verses which contradict your theory. Any scientist caught doing this would be defamed. A logical, honest man, once he sees that the facts to not support the theory, will change his theory.</font>
Scientists are often happy to put one contradictions down to unforseen experimental error and are normally only worried if the contradictions happen repetitively under very carefully monitered conditions.
It is the nature of revelation and the Bible writings that they are not repeatable. So in fact the methods of the all-great science (which I do in fact regard as extremely useful and I have quite a reasonable interest in it myself - but lay-people have a tendency to forget that it doesn't do everything and tend to take it where it doesn't belong.) have no business anywhere near religion. It is sometimes said "Science has disproved religion", (well I don't know what these people are thinking of when they say "religion" because it is clearly not the same thing which I'm thinking of) but "Science is not, and has nothing to do with, religion" would be much closer to the truth I think.
I can willfully ignore select verses which do not conform on the basis that they are points of individual error. If I find that there are many verses all of which do not conform in the same way, then I would agree that some rethinking is in order.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. God clearly had a plan from the beginning (we initially hear of it when the serpent is cursed) and Xst is God and was in on it all along (John 1:1-3). Further (according the Xn theology), there were multiple prophesies throughout the OT predicting the coming of the messiah. Considering these factors, I'm forced to believe that, if Xst had two "choices": go through with the plan or refuse/back out and make a liar out of God. Is the latter really an option?</font>
I would say that the later probably isn't an option.
Here it must be rembered though that Jesus is God (John1 1:1). We must be careful not to build the argument in a circle which ends with the conclusion that: Jesus chose what he chose. Which athough true does not advance us very far.
Do you really want to get into "the nature of time / freewill / omniscience / symetric causality" discussion? I have examined the question myself and been satisfied and have in fact disscused it recently on this forum (See the "Tree of Knowledge" thread and also to some extent "The logical contradiction of Biblical prophecy and freewill". These were really only touching on part of the full problem and are almost preliminary questions as opposed to a full philosophical discussion). However I am not convinced that we could agree this side on Christmas on it and I am certainly convinced that if we do discuss this I won't have much time for anything else.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I know this is difficult to reconcile with your belief in free will, but I have a solution (I think): your belief in the autonomy of Xst is preserved if you wish to believe that he volunteered to go through with the plan of his own free will before he/God made the worlds. Once the plan was in action, however, he really had no choice.</font>
Basically yes. I do disagree with the last sentence though because the "plan" was what Jesus chose to do and when "the plan was in action" Jesus chose to do what he chose. "The plan" as you put it clearly must be contingint upon the choice. And thus despite the plan existing "before" the choice the choice was still Free. (Please read my post in "The logical contradiction of Biblical prophecy and freewill" thread for a discussion of how free will is possible under these circumstances)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now, concerning your belief that Xst's blood was retroactive, I accept your argument that Xst is outside the bounds of time, being the supernatural being he is. However, all those who went before were human, and therefore confined to a place in time. In Heb 11 we are told that no one comes unto the father except through Xst, and that they must confess their faith in Xst. Your problem here is that those who came before had never heard of Xst and had no way to "confess him":

Romans 10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.</font>
What about the possibility of confessing Jesus as Lord after death?
If I recall rightly one of the the books of Peter says that between the death and resurrection Jesus descended to the world of the dead and preached the Gospel.
Here we are, 1 Peter 4:6:
'For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.'
(cf 1 Peter 3:18-22)

While of course this leaves unaccounted those who lived after Jesus died and didn't hear the Gospel, if those who were dead when Jesus died can be saved through Jesus there appears to be no a priori reason why God cannot save through Jesus those who never heard the Gospel while they lived. And since according to Paul God is desiring that all men should be saved, I believe it is safe to assume that God has certainly worked something out for these people despite it not being specifically mentioned.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Dead men tell no tales. So. How, exactly, did Xst's death help anyone who was already dead?</font>
I hope you consider this sufficiently answered.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">'Who are you, my friend to answer God back?'

I am humane, fair and just to all. I don't have to tell anyone this. They can tell by watching. As such, I am superior to your god. He should be answering to me.</font>
Are you being sarcastic or are you just blind to the irony of what you are saying?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">'A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes the pots has the right to use the clay as he wishes' (Romans 9:20-21)

Paul wasn't so good at analogies, was he? A creature who has been specifically created as a rational being cannot be compared to an irrational being, let alone an inanimate lump. Silly Paul.</font>
I find the analogy both accurate and meaniful. A part of Christian theology is the idea that '"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."' (Isaiah 55:8-9). God's ways are as far above ours as the ways of a potter above the pots he makes.
We might be rational as compared to the irrational pot, but compared to God our "rationality" might as well be irrationality.
Logically if what rationality we have is derived from the rationalness of God then it is required that God's rationality is at least as high as our own.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But now that I'm thinking about this verse, what kind of sense does it make to assert that God created man as a living soul (with a brain and the ability to use it), then require that he not use it?</font>
Of course he can use it. The point is that saying that God should do something other that what He is doing is merely an exercise in stupidity as God knows what he is about far better than you do and also has every right to do it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Isn't it merciful to the infants to save them from growing up evil?

No. If you honestly believe this, I must say now that you truly frighten me. If you are convinced that they will grow up evil if left behind, a merciful god/nation would adopt them and bring them up righteously. But we can't have them tainting the bloodline, huh (i.e., your god appears to be racist)?</font>
I did say it was off the top of my head. I hadn't thought it through particularly far. You have got me interested in the subject though (thanks) and I've found a book which looks interesting:
The goodness of God by John W Wenham published by Inter-Varsity Press 1974.
I haven't read beyond the second chapter so far but I am extremely impressed at the frankness with which the author is prepared to approach the subject (He is a Christian and he says the intended audience of this book is Christians) - He doesn't beat around the bush or pretend there is no problem.

That's all for now,
-Tercel
 
Old 07-03-2001, 12:25 AM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

With regard to the evilness or otherwise of the enemies of the Israelites I cannot provide any further physical evidence on the subject.
However the fact that the Bible declares that they were destroyed by God as part of His judgement on evil-doers provides I think reasonable evidence. We must bear in mind that everyone tends to see their enemies as "evil" and so perhaps the case that the "evilness" of the Israelites enemies is merely evil imagined by the writer. However I think that attributing their destruction to a just God who destroys evil (as is often done) suggests that this is not mere propaganda that the enemies are evil and I think the balance of probabilities suggests that they probably were evil. Though we may consider the writers opinions suspect, certainly I see no intrinsic reason why we should disbelieve the claim that the enemies were evil.
If I recall rightly there is a passage somewhere (I am unable to find tn currently, but it is sometime during the exodus) in which God says he isn't going to destroy the enemy yet because they are not evil enough and he will wait until their evil comes to fruition before bringing judgement on them.
Again we could argue that this is propaganda and that the writers made this up to defend the failure of the Israelite armies to defeat their enemies. However with no external evidence in support of this theory, on the balance of probabilities I would consider that the enemies of Israel probably really were evil.
 
Old 07-03-2001, 07:14 AM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

However I think that attributing their destruction to a just God who destroys evil (as is often done) suggests that this is not mere propaganda that the enemies are evil and I think the balance of probabilities suggests that they probably were evil. Though we may consider the writers opinions suspect, certainly I see no intrinsic reason why we should disbelieve the claim that the enemies were evil.

Whereas I think that the "balance of probabilities" suggests that the writers of the OT told the stories the way they wanted to see them or wanted others to see them.

I've seen nothing that shows the Isrealites were truly any more civilized than those they considered "evil". They appeared to be just as barbaric, warlike and as ruthless as all those around them. And I think it quite reasonable to suspect that the "evil" enemies of the Isrealites thought the same about them. Unfortunately only the Hebrew documents have survived and thus the "victors" get to write history, such as it is.

In 1 Samuel 15 where God commands the Isrealites to slaughter all the Amalekites, including the women, children and infants, we are somehow supposed to believe this is a "just" action taken against the "evil" Amalekites. The writer, whoever he is, goes to some effort to justify the action by citing the attack of the Amalekites upon the Isrealites when they came from Egypt. Unfortunately for him and his God Yahweh, slaughtering the descendants of a people for a 400 year old offense isn't an action that is considered "just" in this day and age.
 
Old 07-03-2001, 05:52 PM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Diana:
I submit to you that they were just like them in every other way, as well--up to and including creating their own God/gods. After all, it was the "normal thing," wasn't it? (Or were the gods of the surrounding nations real, after all? Or do you really believe that their gods were figments of their imaginations, but JHWH was real?)</font>
In most cases the surrounding nations were into idol worship and God pretty heavily condemns it. I think any gods which are idols are figments of the imagination.
GK Chesterton in his book The Everlasting Man presents the interesting theory that originally all nations were monotheistic but over time this deteriorated. As nations merged so did their Gods and eventually most countries became polytheistic.
I have also seen other authors mention this and I think the idea sounds fair enough. Thus the Gods of the surrounding nations (that weren't plain idol worshipping) were probably JHWH once upon a time, but had deteriorated or combined.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The "genocide" was actually religicide and the genocide part was coincidental. The religicide was necessary to preserve the true faith from corruption.

Nazi.</font>
Please do not resort to emotional appeals. If you cannot actually present a logical argument against it, I'll take it you agree my point is valid.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I made the statement that you "must believe that God's plan changed between the old covenant and the new," you said "I understand it, I don't have to believe anything of the sort, and don't (although that might depend on exactly what you mean by "plan" and "changed")." Then you didn't point out how you understand things or why I'm wrong. Please do. </font>
I don't even follow what you're trying to say. Why would anyone think that God's plan changed between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent? You keep pointing out the it was planned before the world was made, so how can it change?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I believe that God is loving and "desires that all should be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4). Whatever interpretation is given with regard to judgement and Hell it must be non-contradictory with that.

I get the impression that you aren't sure what the bible has to say on this subject, but whatever you read, you begin with the premise that it cannot contradict itself. If it does, there must be some logical explanation.</font>
I don't like things contradicting themselves, it's logically unsound. I don't particularly like paradoxes either until I've understood them to my satisfaction.
I am quite sure of what the Bible says on the subject. I am not sure what it means or how to interpret what it says. In such cases I keep an extremely open mind. Obviously the reality cannot be contradictory thus any interpretation which fails to agree with the more easily interpreted parts must be discarded.
While it is unclear exactly about what Hell is or who goes there, it is clearly spelt out that God's final decision will be just.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And Tercel, thank you for your kind (albeit vague) reading suggestions, but you miss my point. By my asking you questions about your faith, I give you to opportunity to defend the reasonableness of your belief system. If you cannot support your beliefs consistently, I suspect your beliefs will not change, but there is a remote possibility that you will at least understand why atheists do not believe.</font>
I am curious as why you would think that any Christian book you picked would differ significantly from my beliefs. Although their is quite a large number of denominations the differences have a tendency to be relatively minor in the scheme of things. The only subject that we have discussed in which I think there would be significant disagreement is the subject of inerrancy. Apart from that I suspect that if you read a few Christian books on the other subjects we have discussed you would certainly find my opinions covered somewhere.
I make every attempt to make sure my beliefs are supportable and consistent. If you cannot see this from what I have posted in this thread then I am sorry.
I have a lot of respect and time for atheists who can show me that they have a sound understanding of Christian doctrine and keep an open mind, yet do not believe.
What I do not have so much respect for are atheists who have a closed minds or do not have a good understanding of Christianity but think they do or who think that Christianity is clearly stupid because of one minor point and who immediately make up their minds without considering real solutions or reading appropriate material.
As for why atheists do not believe, I think that in many cases I understand all too well.

-Tercel
 
Old 07-04-2001, 07:45 AM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

GOD WANTED TO WIPE ISREAL OUT BUT MOSES CHANGED HIS MINED.

GOD WAS GOING TO WIPE SODEM AND GOMORA BUT ABRAHAM CHANGED HIS MINED AND CONVINCED GOD NOT TO IF HE FOUND RIGHTIOUSNESS.

GOD WAS GOING TO WIPE OUT NINIVAH BUT JONAH CAUDED THEM TO REPENT AND GOD CHANRED HIS MINED.

need i go on.theres many examples like this were god changes his mind.
 
Old 07-04-2001, 09:56 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Good morning, Tercel.

I’ve spent the last couple of hours fishing around in the bathwater trying to find the baby. I think it’s still in there somewhere, but first, I need to say a couple of things.

1. When I say “according the standard Xn dogma,” and can point out the place in the scriptures that leads me to believe a certain concept is integral to your belief system, according to your holy book, you accuse me of “telling you what to believe.” However, when I step back (as I have done 90% of the time in this thread) and ask you what, exactly, you believe and why, you manage to suggest that I don’t understand Xnty, but you produce no reference from your own scriptures to disprove me or support your position. How would you prefer I carry on the discussion so that I don’t put words in your mouth or waste your time?

2. I have found that the best chance I have in getting a Xn to understand my objections is to ask him questions about his beliefs and why he holds them. I’ve tried to simply point out why something makes no sense or is inconsistent, but this is far less effective, on average, than allowing him to make this discovery by himself.

3. You routinely make blanket statements with absolutely no backing outside of your conviction that what you believe is “standard” Xn theology, but many of the things you say I’ve never heard before and have no idea where you get them. Your arguments are unconvincing when you appear to pull a notion out of thin air and simply expect me to accept it as a premisis for your argument. We cannot have an argument unless we agree on the premisis. Hence, I ask where you got this idea or that, as this is absolutely necessary to continue the discussion. When you find yourself needing pages to answer one simple question I’ve asked (as you pointed out), this should indicate to you that you made a blanket assertion. If you don’t have the time or energy to back them up, don’t make them.

4. I have had a good deal of exposure to Xns at all points of the scale, and I’m not sure which ones amaze me more: inerrantists or liberals (which is the general term that is used where I grew up—no disparagement intended). Inerrantists, as you’ve pointed out, basically screw themselves because the bible is clearly errant. And I’m pleased that you are intelligent enough to acknowledge this fact. Liberals fascinate me because they have put themselves in a position from which they are forced to rationalize why they believe this scripture but not that one. So I ask again, how do you know which scriptures to believe and which to discard? How do you know you’ve made the right choice? (If I wanted to pick a fight, I’d call what you’re doing “convenient Xnty.” But don’t, so I won’t.)

5. You suggest I know little about Xnty (I just think I know something). Meanwhile, you seem to think all Xns believe the same basic things, that their differences are rather insignificant. (These “petty” differences have provoked wars, though.) I know enough about Xnty to know that Xns ultimately base their beliefs on the Bible (not on Systematic Theology, or some other apologist’s ideas), and every sect/demonination has references for its own interpretation. Since you’re the Xn, it should be a simple matter for you to point out the basis for your belief. It would appear at this point that I’m far more familiar with the basis for your belief system (i.e., the bible) than you are. Pity I’m so ignorant of Xnty, though.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Also, because I am not an inerrantist there are sometimes verses I want to drop. It would be inconsistent of me to believe something simply because one verse says it and drop something else simply because I don't like it. Instead I aim to try to get a consistent overview of what is happening by taking the basics into account and extrapolating from there. This allows me to justify myself in situations where I want to say "this passage is false" (as I do upon occasion).</font>
In other words,
a. You acknowledge the bible is inconsistent (i.e., the doctrine of inerrancy is silly). (Agree.)
b. It is inconsistent for you to believe one thing and discard any verses that say something else simply because you don’t like what they say. (Agree.)
c. You try to get a consistent overview of a text that is, by your own admission, inconsistent. (Huh?!)
d. You get this “consistent overview” by “taking the basics into account and extrapolating from there.” (In an admittedly inconsistent text, how does one determine what “the basics” are so that one may justifiably discard the chaff?)

Therefore, you feel justified in announcing, when occasion merits, “This passage is false.

Tercel, I am clearly an atheist (duh). Of this, I make no pretense, and I can only hope you appreciate my bluntness. However, I was raised “fundie” (so I know how ridiculous the doctrine of inerrancy is—I couldn’t agree with you more). Due largely to this worldview, I’ve never understood how anyone can believe and simultaneously ignore verses that contradict his doctrine. This approach, in my eyes, is just as flawed as the doctrine of inerrancy.

I’m trying to get to the bottom of this without being rude. For this reason, I keep coming back to the question: How do you know what to keep and what to toss? (If you wish, we may open another thread on this subject.)
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Me: …if Xst had two "choices": go through with the plan or refuse/back out and make a liar out of God. Is the latter really an option?
You: I would say that the later probably isn't an option….

(Later)…despite the plan existing "before" the choice the choice was still Free.</font>
(Should I sacrifice clarity for brevity, please tell me and I’ll go back to full quotes.)

So are you saying that Christ’s (God’s) decision “in the beginning” to crucify himself constitutes free will, even though from that moment forward, he couldn’t back out?

Oh…wait. You went on to say:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">“I do disagree with the last sentence [basically what I just said again] though because the "plan" was what Jesus chose to do and when "the plan was in action" Jesus chose to do what he chose.”</font>
OK. There’s a third factor you’re not sufficiently explaining, and that is the problem of the prophesies throughout the OT. God said, “This is GONNA happen.”

So Christ had two “choices”:
a. Go through with the plan (and fulfill the prophesies), or
b. Back out/change his mind (and prove God a liar).

As you already admitted, “b” is not an option.

That brings us to the fact that Christ had these “choices”:
a. Go through with the plan (and fulfill the prophesies).

One choice does not constitute “free will.” We usually call it “predestination.”

Perhaps the prophesies are what Jeremiah meant by “the lying pens of the scribes.” (If we toss them, you have an argument pertaining to the free will of Christ.)

Scriptures noted in support of your “Xst’s blood was retroactive” belief. Thank you. I stand corrected. We clearly have hearts and mouths after death with which we may believe and confess our “faith” in Xst, according to the bible. I take issue with the “fairness” of it, though. If you’re alive after death and in hell….Hang on. I think Jewish belief gives them Sheol, which is neither heaven nor hell—it’s just a holding bin. So you’re in Sheol, so you already know that there really IS life after death. Along comes Xst, who gives you a chance to get out. Wouldn’t you take it? Where does faith enter into it? (“For without faith it is impossible to please him.”) And when do you get the chance to act on your beliefs? (“For faith without works is dead.”)

It’s still unfair and illogical.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You: The "genocide" was actually religicide and the genocide part was coincidental. The religicide was necessary to preserve the true faith from corruption.
Me: Nazi.
You: Please do not resort to emotional appeals. If you cannot actually present a logical argument against it, I'll take it you agree my point is valid.</font>


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't even follow what you're trying to say. Why would anyone think that God's plan changed between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent? You keep pointing out the it was planned before the world was made, so how can it change?</font>
My fault. I was using “God’s plan” to refer to two different concepts. I apologize for the ambiguity. To clarify: God’s plan was in place before the world was made; it was inalterable. What I meant to say here was that what it took to please God changed drastically between the old covenant and the new. God’s chosen people were under a different system than we are. God changed his mind.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I make every attempt to make sure my beliefs are supportable and consistent. If you cannot see this from what I have posted in this thread then I am sorry.</font>
I can see it, and I appreciate it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I have a lot of respect and time for atheists who can show me that they have a sound understanding of Christian doctrine and keep an open mind, yet do not believe.
What I do not have so much respect for are atheists who have a closed minds or do not have a good understanding of Christianity but think they do or who think that Christianity is clearly stupid because of one minor point and who immediately make up their minds without considering real solutions or reading appropriate material.</font>
I can only hope I fall into the first category. However, you’ve managed to imply that I don’t have a good understanding of Xnty (I find this amusing, as most Xns with say the same thing about Xns in other denominations), so I suspect I don’t. As to those who “think Xnty is clearly stupid because of one minor point,” I must assure you that I for one am definitely not in this basket. The only message that Xnty has that does not cause me cognitive dissonance is that one should treat others as he’d like to be treated…but Confucious beat Jesus to the punch on that one, anyway.

diana
 
Old 07-04-2001, 11:26 AM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
... demonination ...
</font>
Diana your Freudian slip is showing.

Amen-Moses
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.