snatchbalance

Kent,

OK, so JC was a hypocrite; so I should emulate that? I am capable of being a hypocrite.

sb

Kent Symanzik

Hi Keith,

The problem that you speak of here is that of proving one's ultimate presuppositions. The Christian God of scripture is my ultimate authority. If God requires independent verification then he is no longer the ultimate authority.

This problem exists for everyone's worldview. You cannot prove ultimate presuppositions. What is your ultimate presupposition? Is it that you are autonomous? How can you prove that? You can't.

The only way to prove ultimate presuppositions is by indirect methods. The indirect method that I have been using is to show how all atheistic worldviews that have been presented cannot justify the use of logic, ethics, and science, and are therefore irrational. At the same time I have been trying to show that the Christian worldview does justify all of these things.

Hopefully, I am making this understandable. If not, please ask questions.

Kent

snatchbalance

Kent,

OK, JC and god are one and the same. God, at one point, commanded animal scrafice and human slaughter. Should I now go and kill some sheep?
(it's now against secular law to kill people in god's name, at least in places that have a secular government)

sb

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

snatchbalance, picking things from the bible out of context is just going to waste your time and mine. You probably don't do this with any other book, why would you do this with the bible?

If you want to look at the bible seriously you will find that God's program of redemption is progressive. In the OT, people were commanded to kill animals as a sacrifice which was a type pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Christ was crucified as a sacrifice for sins. So no, the command to kill animals is no longer in effect.

Same thing in principle for the command to the nation of Israel to kill. They were a theocracy and no longer exist as a theocracy now.

I apologize in advance if these were really serious questions. But, it seems that you are just taking potshots at the bible without doing your homework.

Kent

sir drinks-a-lot

How do you evaluate ultimate suppositions? It seems like you are suggesting a process similar to the following:

1) Consider all possible ultimate propositions.
2) Begin constructing worldview by constructing propositions of the form "If x, then...." where x is the ultimate proposition you are evaluating.
3) If worldview does not "justify the use of logic, ethics, and science", discard it and move on to next possible ultimate proposition.

Of course, my schematic needs to be fleshed out a bit.

I have two questions:

1) Wouldn't this method be an ultimate presupposition?

2) Wouldn't the presupposition "Sir Drinks-a-lot can answer all questions correctly" lead to a worldview that justifies the use of logic, ethics, and science?

snatchbalance

Kent,

1. Back to my original contention, god, as illustrated by the bible, simply acts acts in an expidient manner. Where is the absolute morality inherant in any aspects of your story?


2. JC was quoted as saying that he was sent to preserve the law, not change it. Hence, all of god's command's are still in force.

3. Should one act as as a hypocrite, like JC?

4. If you want to talk about bible research, you may want to support your contentions about god's "progressive plan for redemption" with some appropriate passages.

5. If god wanted the isrealites to practice sacrafice on animals, why did he have the Romans do the dirty work on JC?(and why torture the animals?)

sb

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi snatchbalance,

These are good questions.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The absolute morality is in the absolute character of God.

He came to fulfill the law not preserve it. There are some aspects of the law that pertain to our redemption which is now changed with the new convenant. Hebrews 10:1 says, "For the law, having a shadow fo the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

This is just scratching the surface but hopefully gives some explanation.

Obviously my explanations have not satified you and I do not believe you have shown Jesus to be hypocritical.

Yes, good point. Hebrews 10, quoted above speaks to this. Hebrews 7 also. Immediate after the fall of Adam, God began the work of redemption. God spoke of Christ in Genesis 3:15 as one who is coming. He continues to speak of the new convenant in the future but during the time of the OT the type of what was to come was the animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ is the final sacrifice and we now look forward to our final redemption at the second coming of Christ.

God uses people and nations to accomplish his purpose throughout scripture. I do not know why. The animals were a type pointing forward to Christ. Their blood was shed just as Jesus's was later.

Good questions.

Kent

snatchbalance

Kent,

"I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The absolute morality is in the absolute character of God.

So at various times god proscribes and prescribes various and conflicting things. There is no absolute character; Sometimes genocide, sometimes meekness, all very random.
--------------------------------------------------
"He came to fulfill the law not preserve it. There are some aspects of the law that pertain to our redemption which is now changed with the new convenant. Hebrews 10:1 says, "For the law, having a shadow fo the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect."

Mathew 5:19
-------------------------------------------------
"Obviously my explanations have not satified you and I do not believe you have shown Jesus to be hypocritical."

Jesus said "don't judge"; then turned around and judged and damned. He was hypocrite; no escaping it.
--------------------------------------------------

"Yes, good point. Hebrews 10, quoted above speaks to this. Hebrews 7 also. Immediate after the fall of Adam, God began the work of redemption. God spoke of Christ in Genesis 3:15 as one who is coming. He continues to speak of the new convenant in the future but during the time of the OT the type of what was to come was the animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ is the final sacrifice and we now look forward to our final redemption at the second coming of Christ."

Hebrews is simply comment on past books. There is no prophesy involved.

in Genisis 3:15 god is addressing eve. there is no prophsey involved.(Talk about pulling things out of context, you would know this if you simply read verse 16.)

--------------------------------------------------
"God uses people and nations to accomplish his purpose throughout scripture. I do not know why. The animals were a type pointing forward to Christ. Their blood was shed just as Jesus's was later."

Where does god say that the death of animals points to the death of JC? How do you know what god's purpose is when it's message keeps changing? (remember, genocide vs. meekness)

sb
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Let's see, he died at 3PM Friday and was already resurrected by dawn on Sunday. How do you get 3 days out of that?

Kent Symanzik

Hi sir drinks-a-lot,

It's not possible to consider all possible ultimate propositions. That why I usually qualify it by saying all atheistic worldviews that I know of cannot justify logic, ethics, and science.

But, yes you seem to understand what I have been saying.

No, because this method was arrived at rationally. It depends on the laws of logic so it is not ultimate. The logic would be something like this:
p1. We think logically.
p2. Our worldview must support logic.
conclusion: Therefore, if our worldview does not support logic it must be rejected.

This is a good question. I've had dialogues with people who tried to show that they could be an ultimate authority just like God. But, what happens is that as I challenge them they just describe themselves more and more like the Christian God of theism. Since the Christian God already exists and he says there is no other god then it would be impossible for the god sir drinks-a-lot to be a rational choice.

Thanks sir drinks-a-lot, for the good questions.

Kent