bgponder

Hey Y'all,

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Ahhh, Koy. Thou art the extreme that defines the mean.

Seak'er:

Good to be back at ya. Hope all your holidays are going well.

One of my peeves that I think kind of rolls together relation to this thread, and argument against internal consistency is the Sermon on the Mount, Mt.7, where Jesus states the "Golden Rule",(7:12) and then further declares that not all those who are prophesying and doing works in his name will enter heaven(7:21), but only those who are doing the will of the Father(we'll leave alone the strange circumstance of the wonderworkers being able to do this at all for another thread, as he doesn't say that they are doing it by the power of Satan/Beelzebub).

I think it was Bill Snedden who used these passages before, and his quotes were the same as my Catholic Bible Press edition; the footnotes there say that in the day of judgement Jesus will reject morally corrupt prophets and miracle workers. However, it's clear to me that the prophets and miracle workers at least thought they were doing the right thing.

Now, you said earlier,

Since the Golden Rule implies reciprocity, how can Christianity be consistent, considering God has meted, and continues to mete punishments that do not fit the crime, re your example of that no innocent child can be found, and myriad others in the Bible (I assume that the non-innocence of the child would be attributable to Adam's sin, but even so, how can it be reciprocal to punish all humankind for Adam's sin); and further, how can you know where God's use of evil for an ultimately good purpose (Providence) will end, i.e., as has been brought up before, how can you fully know that you will not end up in hell, even though you believe you are elect?

Sincerely, Peace, Cbd, Joy for the Season Barry

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

I_C_THE_LITE

God is just and Good if one defines just according to 'his actions, or the actions of his chosen people, which most sane, rational people don't. He supported Genocide on a mast scale, for no other reason that peoples of differing beliefs wanted to maintain such. For what reason did they have to believe a backward tribal people with no land or wealth of their own.

Bill Snedden

You're quite welcome.

Using Paine's analogy, this becomes, "I cannot pay for your debts because I have debts myself. However, Christ was debt-free; he was payee and payor. Being a perfect payor, He could assume the debts of another (as He had none of His own), and being the payee, He could take all of the debts of the elect, not just one (since He endured the payee's anger), and being a payor, he could take all payor's debts."

Unfortunately, the question is not whether an analogy can be drawn between sin and debt; for clearly, one can be.

The question is whether such an analogy is valid. Many, including myself would argue that moral culpability (like sin) is non-transferrable; that is, there is no way that any being can make reparations for the guilt of another. I'm not guilty of murder; can I take upon myself the guilt of my brother's murder?

Of course not, and the reason has nothing to do with any culpability I possess for other actions. The reason is that guilt (or sin) are the result of a moral choice, not a contract, and cannot therefore be passed from one being to another, freely or otherwise.

I very much fear that any comments I make will be largely useless in any event.

The asylum inmate who believes he is Napoleon Bonaparte has likewise constructed a completely consistent worldview. Like yours, it is also completely impervious to "external" criticisms. However, internal consistency, in and of itself, is useless in demonstrating truth.

Consistency is cheap and easy. Isomorphism with reality is a different matter altogether.

At any rate, here's an interesting "internal" inconsistency to ponder:

If "good" and "just" derive their meanings from the will or nature of the Christian God, why do Christians insist on using the words as though they had some particular, universally-recognized meaning?

For example, few Christians would hesitate to acknowledge that the killing of children is neither good nor just. However, absent clear & unequivocal revelation from God that it is His will that children never be killed (and the Bible presents no such revelation; indeed, God Himself orders the killing of children when it suits His purpose), what justification lies behind such an assertion? Aren't Christians simply being hypocritical? Isn't it quite possible that God does ordain the death of certain children? Aren't their deaths therefore "good" and "just"?

Indeed, to Calvinists (like yourself, unless I'm much mistaken), God has ordained all that is to be and His will cannot fail to obtain. Under this viewpoint, every human action (including sin) must be labeled as "just" and "good" as they are all in accord with God's will. By definition, therefore, we already live in paradise. How much better could heaven possibly be?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Antipus2002

I am not going to waste a lot of my time reading these same lame arguments that have been hashed and rehashed ad infinaseum, I simply want to say to the is God all good, all just, all kind, all whatever attributes of human characteristics that I wish to ascribe to Him, etc, etc, etc.....
LAME!!!! First a message to all you people who think that God is shaking on His throne because you don't believe in Him, uh, no...A persons existence doesn't depend on allowence from others, belief in that existence, or any input from any person as a matter of fact.
As to the is God all good? God is God. He wiped out the philistines because He wanted to. He had the children of Israel kill men, women, and children because He wanted them to. He can do anything that He wants to do because He has the right, the perogitive to do so.
The only thing that makes God so is His power to be God. He doesn't have to be good, kind, wise, or any other noble or ignoble thing to be God. The only thing that He needs to be God is POWER. Thats all, just power. To those who use the verse out of 1 John, God is love, study your Greek man! It is an anarthrous predicate that is used there. Love is not God, God does love but that is not His sole characteristic. God is vengence, God is light, God is justice, God is jealous, God is wroth, etc, etc...God is many things, not just love.
Once you figure out that God is a person with likes and dislikes and He gets angry, gets jealous, creates and destroys, etc, it will clear up this infernal questioning of is God an automaton that can only act like we think He should?
Remember this, the only thing that makes God, God, is this, POWER. Nothing else, just power.
Just thought I would throw my 1 and a half cents in there...
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Deu 32:41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
Deu 32:42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

Grizzly

Antipus2002,

Nice first post! Way to kick in the door and say what you feel. This may be one of the first posts I've read that plainly states what God is saying in the Bible. Worship me or I will kick your ass. Ask questions? I will bitch-slap you for eternity. What is justice? It's what I say it is. Now shut up and devote your lives to me.


Nice work. My only point of disagreement is on his existence. I still say no one's home at the big house in the sky.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

bgponder

Well By God!!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I gotta agree with Griz, Antipus, that's a hell of a first post to come out swinging with!

Only problem is, don't all those person-like attributes kind of sound familiar? Like, ummmm, I dunno--human???

Yer big ol' temperamental genocidal tantrum' throwin' Power Guy is also invisible!!! Did ya think of that?? And no one alive has ever seen him? But wait--maybe I'm wrong--have you seen him?

And that book you quote there--you do realize that, it's humans who write books, don't you? (Unless maybe you know a whole lot of stuff about books that I don't, and I fully admit that that is totally possible!) And you do realize that there's a whole big ol' bunch of problems with accepting the stuff in that book as true?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

In short, Antipus, now that I have the year's-end condescension syndrome out of my system, do you have more than a tirade and chap-verse to share with us about your Big Power Guy?

By all means, let it fly!

Peace, Cornbread, Happy New Year!! Barry

Antipus2002

Sorry but I am just not going to discuss the existence of God. I was majoring in philosophy in my college days and I just don't have the heart or the time anymore trying to prove that the tree does indeed make a sound when no one is there to hear it.
I will say this, and this was my original point. I never accepted someone elses version of truth, you have to find this truth on your own. Now many of us stop without any really decent study time to see what others thought before us. We are for the most part content with just gathering a collection of opinions without any real facts and bolstering our position with non-essentials when cornered. When you ask most Christians why they think God is real, you oftentimes get this answer, well I know He is real because I feel Him, or He is in my heart, or something related to their personal experience. This is completely and totally subjective. What does that mean to me, not living inside them? Absolutely nothing. When you ask for objective truth, something that will stand on its own two legs and doesn't have anything to do with someones subjective opinion, thats where it gets a bit sticky. As far as objectivism goes, you can't prove that you exist.
I settled the issue of the existence of God by studying the facts surrounding the resurrection. As you know the only "truth" that exists in an infinite objective form is mathmatics. 2 + 2 is 4, here in America as well as China, Indonesia,etc. All historical fact and historicity of literature surrounding historical fact is subject to lesser and greater degrees of probability. As far as that goes, even when you have eyewitnesses to a historical event, it becomes a bit murky due to subjectivity. So the best we can do with all other known or supposed facts is place it on a sliding scale of the aforementioned greater and lesser degrees of probability. I have studied the material surrounding the historical event of a man named Jesus of Nazereth extensively and the myriad of literature surrounding this event. I have read both sides of the argument for years now. I can only come away with this conclusion, and this for about a thousand different reasons, this event happened, this person was real, this person was crucified and raised from the dead. Thats it. None of this was accepted on blind faith. I spent about 2 or three years studying this subject before I thought that it was so. That is my reason for believing.
My original reason for posting was that I get so sick and tired of people trying to sell God. God is not on trial. Mankind is on trial, not God. So instead of polishing any rough edges that we think will drive people away from "the truth" we try and gloss it over with statements like, well God really loved the Philistines and His original plan was.......BUNK!! God does what He wants, when He wants because He can do so, period.
He isn't looking for friends, He is looking for servants, slaves to His will. Now that message goes over as well as a turd in a punchbowl. Sorry to say but thats the truth.

Bill Snedden

That's all very well and good, but it certainly begs the question: why on earth would anyone worship such a being?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Optimistic

The mind is a black box, people. Fight or put your mind to rest, strive or settle, kill or live in peace? You can bitch and moan, and throw in a peice of your mind, or spend more time with your families.

It seems stating your 'beliefs' loudly is more important than actually 'knowing' something. Take some intiative and live happy.

Sorry if this offends, but it seems like the whole world has gone lame. I throw the contention open to debate.

CodeMason

For an optimist, you seem very pessimistic.