CJD

Ipetrich, you've missed the obvious: According to Saint Paul, of course those who worship other deities like Zeus, Brahman, Marduk or even the "Unkown God" (cf. Acts 17:22�34) do not think of themselves as rejecting the one, true God. That's his whole point! Their unfamiliarity is no excuse. Because, to repeat, "[God's] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made," &co (Rom. 1:20).

To the apostle, the retort that "only he seems to know this" is irrelevant.

This brings us to the Queen:What I am saying Saint Paul said is that no matter where a person is born, what culture he or she grew up in and what religion he or she was taught, that person should be able to see that there is only one true God. Paul makes no mention of the "Judeo-Christian" God in the related discussion of Romans chapter one. The "eternal power" and "divine nature" of which he writes in Romans 1:20 are not the idiosyncracies of the Christian faith (Triunity, etc.); they have more to do generally with this God's sovereignty as Creator, attributes which Paul writes are not exhibited in any writing but in nature itself. Have you been corrected?

This should cause you to redefine your scenario about the Hindu child, Queen. The Hindu child will presumably continue believing in Ganesha's creation, and will in the end be judged according to his or her works (as I explained in the earlier post).

Regards,

CJD

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by CJD
What I am saying Saint Paul said is that no matter where a person is born, what culture he or she grew up in and what religion he or she was taught, that person should be able to see that there is only one true God.

Why should they be able to see this? I would like to know the precise means or mechanism by which a person comes to this conclusion (especially if that person was born today and raised as an atheist).

they have more to do generally with this God's sovereignty as Creator, attributes which Paul writes are not exhibited in any writing but in nature itself. Have you been corrected?

The only way nature shows a god is if one is so ignorant of natural processes that one attributes them to a god (without realizing that one's lack of knowledge does not imply a god's existence). The more I learn about the natural world, the less a god seems responsible for it.

Yahzi

It's quite clear that we are reading different Bibles. Mine says lots of things quite clearly, some of which are absurd or even contradictory. Yours seems to speak solely in allegory, which can all be resolved once you understand the message. Apparently the people who wrote your Bible were unable to say what they wanted to say, (like, for instance, that picking up sticks on Sunday is ok as long as you are not purposefully spurning God's will), and so had to say a lot of other things that you claim allegorically say what you want it to say.

In any case: if living a moral life is enough to please God and get me into Heaven, then the message of the Bible is less about believing or obeying than it is about being good. But - if you want to be a good person, the Bible isn't much help. The Bible, for instance, never once points out that slavery is bad and you shouldn't own other people like property. The Bible never points out that women should have the same rights as men. The Bible seems to think masturbation is a terrible sin instead of a healthy and necessary function. Etc. So, if you wanted to just be as morally good as possible, I think you'd be better off never even looking at the Bible, and getting your morality somewhere else, that won't lead you astray with crazy bronze age misogny.

And, of course, the truly moral person is moral not for desire of heaven or fear of hell, but because it is the right thing to do. So one would think that practicing ethical, moral atheism is the surest path to God's heart.

CJD

Queen, this thread is not about you nor your beliefs. It is about the xian response to the "innocent" native dilemma posed in the OP.

You can take it or leave it. In order to leave it, however, you'll have to do a little better than just poisoning the well: "The only way nature shows a god is if one is so ignorant of natural processes," blah, blah, blah.

Regards,

CJD

Clutch

Er... as opposed to "milk-toasts" (sic)?

The problem was always predicated on the assumption that there's something rebarbative about attributing to a perfectly loving god the policy of condemning those who by an intuitive standard have no way of coming to some requisite belief.

One can just appeal to different intuitive standards about this, to be sure -- either you get it or you don't -- but by the very nature of the problem this amounts to saying that those who just happen not to "get it" thereby earn a guarantee of the worst conceivable punishment. Which was just one horn of the dilemma in the first place, because it smacks of arbitrariness.

The problem illustrates what is, I submit, familiar from a cluster of scriptures anyhow: that (pauline) Christianity requires that there can be no good-faith demurral from it. If you insist on being an atheist (or a theist of any other stripe), you are, at some level or other sufficient for blame-worthiness, wilfully abandoning what you know to be true.

As a tactic for vitiating the need to give actual reasoning, in any other domain this would be earn contempt. In this domain it certainly earns mine for Paul and those who treat his word as... well, gospel.

lpetrich

CJD:
Ipetrich, you've missed the obvious: According to Saint Paul, of course those who worship other deities like Zeus, Brahman, Marduk or even the "Unkown God" (cf. Acts 17:22�34) do not think of themselves as rejecting the one, true God. That's his whole point! Their unfamiliarity is no excuse. Because, to repeat, "[God's] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made," &co (Rom. 1:20).

CJD, you are contradicting yourself. First you claim that the Xtian God is apparent to everybody who has ever lived, and then you are claiming that he is not really that apparent. Which is it?

To the apostle, the retort that "only he seems to know this" is irrelevant.

That's beside the point. What makes him so sure about that? Has he done detailed studies of other people's beliefs?

What I am saying Saint Paul said is that no matter where a person is born, what culture he or she grew up in and what religion he or she was taught, that person should be able to see that there is only one true God.

Except that they don't.

Paul makes no mention of the "Judeo-Christian" God in the related discussion of Romans chapter one. The "eternal power" and "divine nature" of which he writes in Romans 1:20 are not the idiosyncracies of the Christian faith (Triunity, etc.); they have more to do generally with this God's sovereignty as Creator, attributes which Paul writes are not exhibited in any writing but in nature itself. Have you been corrected?

But without such idiosyncrasies being apparent, one would have no way of telling that it was the Xtian God, and not some other. It's a strange sort of god, one who seems to be happy to be mistaken for a variety of other deities.

CJD

Come on, Clutch, there's a difference here. One (milk-toasts) has to do with those who have scruples regarding this issue and re-define Paul's writings to mean something wholly other than what I have offered. The other (the ignorant) makes an unfair sweeping � albeit a posteriori in some cases � judgment.

Essentially, yes, this is what Paul seems to be saying. I am not defending it so much as I have pointed out its not being represented in the OP. I am glad to hear you (and others, to be sure) hold it in contempt; Paul might have responded that that is to be expected when the natural man is faced with truth.

Also, to be fair, Paul certainly didn't think this was arbitrary. This is precisely what he argues against in his letter. He clearly writes that everybody "gets it." The problem is (so Paul), we humans suppress it. He covers this retort of yours, Clutch, right at the outset of his letter to the Romans.

What is more, consider his audience. He is not addressing his cultured despisers, or the noble readership (to steal a phrase from Doc X) here at iidb; he is addressing a fledgling Christian church in the heart of the Roman Empire. He is attempting to explain how the Gentiles have entered the new covenant en masse while the majority of Jews are not only not joining in, they are persecuting the newcomers as heretics.

Why (the Gentile is asking here), if your prophets spoke of the coming of the Messiah as a great culmination of time and space, where heaven would come to earth and peace would rule, are people not entering the new covenant�especially those to whom it was initially intended (i.e., the Israelites)? The response at this forum would be obvious: because it's a farce. But Paul was a church leader; his response was intended to shore up their doubts: the blame lies with those who reject, for God has made certain things clear to all people. What is more, God calls whomever he desires out the mass of people who by nature reject this truth, &co. If you read the letter within its cultural milieu, keeping in mind its implied audience, it will make a lot more sense�at which point you (plural) have every right to hold it in contempt.

Once again, all I intended to do here was add what was missing in the OP. We can always go the route of Job: "I'm God; I created everything, so tough shit; shut your mouth."

Regards,

CJD

Clutch

Milque-toast -- as a term describing those who see the moral consequences of your interpretation of Paul as motivating a reinterpretation more consistent with, say, the words of this Jesus character (also held to be of some importance in the theology, I think, though my grasp of the cultural milieu is shaky) -- is as much well-poisoning as any allusion to ignorance. Maybe that's not what you were saying, though.

Anyhow.

The dispute is between, on one hand, those who find your version of Paul self-refuting because it attempts to stipulate facts contrary to manifest experience, and verging on incoherence (ie, unbelievers are actually believers), and those who will simply point to the text and sayIn short: No, really -- Paul says unbelievers are believers. See? The answers are all right there in the text!
Which is what I have done, and continue to do.

I recognize that you are not defending Paul here. I also find your interpretation very plausible. The dialectical role of his remarks have an important function, quite similar to "The fool hath said..." and "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...": In each case, they provide a scriptural justification for not taking sceptical remarks at face value, for interpreting them as bad faith eo ipso. Of course such remarks were addressed to the converted; and of course they are intellectually contemptible.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by CJD
Queen, this thread is not about you nor your beliefs.

Who said it was?

It is about the xian response to the "innocent" native dilemma posed in the OP.

What little xian response there is so far, and how poorly substantiated it is.

You can take it or leave it. In order to leave it, however, you'll have to do a little better than just poisoning the well:

I take it you are unable to answer the points I raised?