Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 06-01-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Hello Biff.... Hi Sabine, I hope I don't upset you again. I'll try to watch my P's & Q's.
I think the confusion may come from the fact that most christians believe that they have the ability to choose to follow Christ or not follow Christ. The choice remains an act of free will from the human perspective. But in God's " eyes" only one is the right and rewarded choice for mankind.
That's true, the novel "The Bible" does say that so they are correct. However the same book says that "salvation" does not come from a persons deeds, 'least they boast', but by grace alone. This "grace' is something vague and magical that only comes from the God and not people. This completely contradicts the "act" of deciding to follow Jesus being necessary and makes "free will" superfluous.
Yet the bible is quite clear on both points. And both points contradict one another. Why is this so? Poor copy editing.
This poor editing shows the bible up as being a work of fiction.

What is interesting is the fact that God made Adam and Eve aware of the existence of the Tree of Knowledge. There would have been no dilemna of choice in their minds had God not made them aware of its existence.
Can we consider that God actualy created the concept of choosing between His Will and ours? and with that notion, the concept of personal accountability in our choices?
This would not be a problem in the earlier "Pagan" versions of this same story. But when the Jews retold it they changed it and made it ridiculous.
The magic forbidden fruit gives the eater the ability to tell the difference between good and evil. In the Pagan version it contained the knowledge of "culture" instead. Genesis makes it quite clear that Adam & Eve did not have that ability, and clearly says that having that ability would make them like gods.
The ability to tell the difference between good & evil, right & wrong IS "free will." Then in the Jewish version of the story the God punishes them because they chose evil. They used their free will to do wrong. Except they couldn't possibly have done that according to the same story because they didn't know what evil was, and so couldn't possibly have "chosen" to be evil.
Again, this blatant contradiction is only poor copy editing. A good editor could have fixed this before it ever hit the presses

Take the laws of the land....
Yes do take the laws of the land. If their lawyer can prove that the defendant is unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, good & evil they are not sent to prison to be punished. Rather they are sent to a mental institution to be helped.
This would imply that our legal system is more humane that God.

Do you feel that your choice of action is not depending on your will to abide or not abide to speed limit restrictions?
But I know the difference between right and wrong. I can tell good from evil.
If the arresting office pulled me in because because I wfghted instead of jkletred then I would be in the same boat as Adam and Eve because I haven't a clue as to what these concepts mean.

Can we consider that God actualy created the concept of choosing between His Will and ours? and with that notion, the concept of personal accountability in our choices?
This can be reduced to, let's say, I pull a gun and stick it to your head and demand "your money or your life." I am honoring your free will; I am presenting you with a choice. However if your free will runs counter to my desires I'll blow the top of your head off. So in reality I am circumventing and proscribing your free will by my threat of violence. This means that I am a criminal and an evil person.
The novel "The Bible" makes the God character out to be even more evil. As a robber and murder I could only steal from you and kill you. The God character tortures you in flames that burn yet consume not forever. This makes him out to be infinitely more evil than Biff the murder and thief is. But the same novel claims that the God character is good and loving. Again poor copy editing. The character has different and diametrically opposed personalities in different parts of the same story.

There's nothing "deep", and "mysterious", and "unknowable by mere human intelligence" going on here. The book is just poorly written. It's funny, if a paperback mystery had the same problems with plot and character development you would toss the unfinished book on the shelf and never bother with it again.

Salut Biff......good job on not assuming any of my thoughts. Thank you. ( you will see me " upset" when thoughts that are not mine are attributed to me......).
I totaly agree with the contradiction you describe found in the character of God. I am not one to defend the OT and as a christian I focus on the teachings of Christ.
Let me try to explain what I understand of the concept of grace. Grace is an unmerited or undeserved favor. One would think that it then should apply to all without any condition including believing that salvation can be soly attained thru Christ. It is a fact that a God who would welcome all in his afterlife heaven no matter what belief or lack of would be the ultimate graceful God. And of course no matter what actions good or bad people would have commited in their lifetime.( since grace is not earned by any of our deeds). Is that last concept something you could accept as a human being? if not... how would you dispense grace without any conditions? if yes...and in your opinion does it intefere with the sense of justice?
I understand grace to be the result of what God decides to dispense once a human being expresses regrets for his or her actions no matter how wrong his or her actions may have been.

AJ113 · 06-01-2003, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
...... I am not one to defend the OT and as a christian I focus on the teachings of Christ.......

So how do you view the frequent referral to the OT by Christ, and his insistance that it is valid?

Biff the unclean · 06-01-2003, 11:00 AM

I totaly agree with the contradiction you describe found in the character of God. I am not one to defend the OT and as a christian I focus on the teachings of Christ.
Gee I'm sorry Sabine. I should really keep a separate notebook to write down what each Christian poster means when they say they are Christian. Everyone is different. Are you a Unitarian?
It had been my understanding that Christians not only accepted and venerated the OT but that they considered Jesus to be the God talked about in it.
But frankly it is the teachings of Jesus that are the problem here. His character in the book taught that the only way to get to heaven was by your act of deciding to believe in him. He also taught that you couldn't get into heaven by anything you did. In the NT you'll find both cases stated a fairly equal amount of times each.
Grace is an unmerited or undeserved favor.
Which ignores the other concept of "Sin."
Sin assumes personal responsibility for an individuals own actions. Grace assumes that a persons own actions are irrelevant and only the actions of the books superhero count.
Again there is nothing mysterious going on here. These are works of fiction. Sin/Grace has no bearing on reality but are products of the authors' fertile imaginations. They contradict one another, but again that is only poor copy editing and shows the book to be a work of fiction. Were it a work of fact the authors would have had a single source whose concepts they would retell. They would not be making them up by themselves as we see is the case here.

One would think that it then should apply to all without any condition including believing that salvation can be soly attained thru Christ.
Which it would if it were what it claimed to be in the story. Stories "by committee" always have problems like this.
It is a fact that a God who would welcome all in his afterlife heaven no matter what belief or lack of would be the ultimate graceful God.
And would be the only way to make sense of God coming to Earth to Save mankind. But only saving a select few makes God a failure as a Savior. Another logical problem with the stories plot. The superhero who can do anything--but then can't. And then blaming the very people the hero can't save for not being saved.
Can you imagine Lois Lane being killed by Lex Luthor because Superman didn't get there in time? And then Superman blames Lois!!!! "Of couse I didn't save Lois (who I love) from the Death Ray of Doom, fellow members of the Justice League of America. Lois doubted in me so of course I had to let her be disintegrated!!" That's what we have in the NT.

Is that last concept something you could accept as a human being?
Accept as what?
As part of the plot exposition of a fictitious story? Sure, I enjoy good science fiction and fantasy books now and then. It would be a cool literary device like vampires can't come out in day light or Tarzan can swing through the jungle.
As a condition of reality? No, that's just silly.

if yes...and in your opinion does it intefere with the sense of justice?
Sure it interferes with justice. Superman doesn't "save" Lex Luthor. He brings Lex to justice!!
But then the people over at DC comics have a fine editorial department. Their story line isn't filled with contradictions like the Bible is.
When they want to write against type they tell you that that is what they are doing.
I understand grace to be the result of what God decides to dispense once a human being expresses regrets for his or her actions no matter how wrong his or her actions may have been.
Which means the ACT of expressing your regrets saves you. Except your Acts can't save you, unless they can, but they can't, only if�.
REWRITE!!!

BadBadBad · 06-02-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Again there is nothing mysterious going on here. These are works of fiction. Sin/Grace has no bearing on reality but are products of the authors' fertile imaginations. They contradict one another, but again that is only poor copy editing and shows the book to be a work of fiction. Were it a work of fact the authors would have had a single source whose concepts they would retell. They would not be making them up by themselves as we see is the case here.

Exactly, and not one word has been spoken in this entire thread that contradicts this. There is nothing written in the Bible that harmonizes savior through grace, faith, or works. Everything I've read is a firm statement for one or the other. That's kind of important don't you think? If anything in the Bible is "God Breathed," don't you think it would be the revelation of salvation?

You can't just say I don't get it because I'm "blinded spiritually" either. Am I "blinded spiritually:"
A. because I am chosen by God from the beginning of time to not be saved by grace and God has summarily hardened my heart(who am I to question that?)?
B. because god knew my choices in advance before I was born and hardened my heart because he knew I'd turn out to be kind of a bad guy (I'm still responsible for that)?
C. because I'm just simply hard headed and won't listen to reason?

Christians, please provide a cannonized version of the answer. In other words give us the God inspired answer. Not your answer. Not some church guys' answer. Not some guy that I understand wrote a book defining the concept of free will in the 60's. People have been debating this for centuries.

This is a huge problem in the Bible. If I am to be held accountable by God for an eternity of potential hell fire and damnation, God should at least give us a simple understanding of salvation. Don't you think? It's not that complicated. "I'm God, you're saved by my grace and my grace alone." "I'm God, believe in me or be damned to hell." "I'm God, be a good person or you'll be damned to hell." He could have said simply and exclusively one of the three answers in the Bible. Enough said. End of centuries of debate. He could wisper it in my ear now. Ssssh! I'm listening for the answer!

BadBadBad · 06-02-2003, 04:30 PM

If you can't give me a God inspired cannonized answer, why don't you admit you don't know. Admit the Bible says all three. Try to understand our point of view that none of them make sense individually and especially not all three combined. Then you can always still fall back to the tried and true like the preacher in the OP that says:

"We cannot understand god and we cannot understand this subject."

Then we'll finish up just like JakeJohnson with:

"Then why the hell did you waste 45 minutes of our time and not say that in the first place."

Biff the unclean · 06-02-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brettc
Admit the Bible says all three.

Four if you count the copy line that says that women can gain salvation by having children.

Sabine Grant · 06-03-2003, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113
So how do you view the frequent referral to the OT by Christ, and his insistance that it is valid?

Can you please give specific refs to the passages you mention. thanks!

Sabine Grant · 06-03-2003, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Grace is an unmerited or undeserved favor.
Which ignores the other concept of "Sin."
Sin assumes personal responsibility for an individuals own actions. Grace assumes that a persons own actions are irrelevant and only the actions of the books superhero count.
Again there is nothing mysterious going on here. These are works of fiction. Sin/Grace has no bearing on reality but are products of the authors' fertile imaginations. They contradict one another, but again that is only poor copy editing and shows the book to be a work of fiction. Were it a work of fact the authors would have had a single source whose concepts they would retell. They would not be making them up by themselves as we see is the case here.
Which it would if it were what it claimed to be in the story. Stories "by committee" always have problems like this.

And would be the only way to make sense of God coming to Earth to Save mankind. But only saving a select few makes God a failure as a Savior. Another logical problem with the stories plot. The superhero who can do anything--but then can't. And then blaming the very people the hero can't save for not being saved.
Can you imagine Lois Lane being killed by Lex Luthor because Superman didn't get there in time? And then Superman blames Lois!!!! "Of couse I didn't save Lois (who I love) from the Death Ray of Doom, fellow members of the Justice League of America. Lois doubted in me so of course I had to let her be disintegrated!!" That's what we have in the NT.

[/B]

Salut again Biff !
I percieve grace as the solving issue to sin if sin is defined as part of human nature which cannot be resolved by the obedience to laws. So to me, grace makes sense. It is the very point Christ makes.
No I am not of any specific denomination or church doctrine. My belief is the result of my personal walk with Christ. You will find that outside of the US, christians do not necessarly fit the stereotyped definition given to christianity with the assumption that all christians abide to that definition. I firmly believe that both life experience and cultural upbringing do influence the personal aspect of individual faith.
Human justice as we know it promotes retribution for what is defined as evil actions by our society. The divine grace promotes a way to be restored in a relationship with God despites of evil actions. It does not interfere with human justice though..... it deals only with the spiritual aspect of a human being.

BadBadBad · 06-03-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Can you please give specific refs to the passages you mention. thanks!

Sabine, we're still waiting on you to respond to the specific passages I've already posted in response to similar questions from you. Now that I've posted them, are you ever going to respond?

Biff the unclean · 06-03-2003, 09:41 AM

Salut again Biff ! Good morning Sabine

I percieve grace as the solving issue to sin if sin is defined as part of human nature which cannot be resolved by the obedience to laws.
Which means that you have to redefine sin. A sin is a offence against God. An action (thought, word, or deed--or omission of deed) taken by an individual.
If you redefine it as being part of human nature punishable by the God who created human nature you have eliminated "justice" from the equation.
So to me, grace makes sense. It is the very point Christ makes.
If the Jesus character had made a single and clear point on the subject we wouldn't be having this thread. But the Jesus character makes multiple and contradictory points on the subject. That's because the different authors were drawing from their own imaginations. There wasn't any Jesus for the authors to report on what he declared; instead you find the different personalities of the different authors emerging in the guise of Jesus the superhero.
No I am not of any specific denomination or church doctrine. My belief is the result of my personal walk with Christ.
Oh I knew that already. It puts you in the same ecclesiastical boat we Atheists are in.
But I've gotta say that unless you are several thousand years older than you seem to be then you have never had a "personal walk with Christ."
Back where I come from Christians are very concerned about humility (in fact I still find myself saying "the" mother instead of "my" mother). To claim that your reading and thinking about Jesus is "my personal walk with Christ" is the sin of Pride. Considering that you have rejected Church doctrine and all denominations because you've decide that you know better than they do is not only Prideful (inflated ego) but --by definition--makes you a Heretic.

You will find that outside of the US, christians do not necessarly fit the stereotyped definition given to christianity with the assumption that all christians abide to that definition.
Please spare me your Euro-centrism. I am a naturalized American. My profession has required that I be a "world traveler."
I am well aware of all the forms of Christianity that this planet suffers from.
I am also well aware that you are using the weighted word "stereotype" not because Christianity doesn't have a definition, but because you don't want to use that definition though you still want to call yourself a Christian.
Most of the people here who call themselves Christian are doing exactly the same thing. I do find it somewhat odd that so many "freelancers" should come to the Atheist web boards to promote Christianity--when what they call Christianity is nothing more than their individual musings.

Human justice as we know it promotes retribution for what is defined as evil actions by our society.
" That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

The divine grace promotes a way to be restored in a relationship with God despites of evil actions. It does not interfere with human justice though..... it deals only with the spiritual aspect of a human being.

You are still missing the point. By GRACE God decides to forgive you, out of no personal merit of your own but by the actions of Jesus. Which completely negates personal responsibility and eliminates any possibility of justice. The NT is quite clear on this point.
However it is also quite clear that the exact opposite is true and that personal responsibility & justice are of the utmost importance.
"Cheery Picking" Christians tend to choose whichever version suits their own personalities and then either completely ignore the other or attempt to double-talk it away.
But both contradictory versions are clearly there in the NT. Desperate theologians try to present this as a "mystery," something beyond human intelligence. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!!!! (flash, pop!) The�umm, er�the Great and, er, Powerful OZ has spoken!!!" But these contradictions let us see the little man behind the curtain quite clearly. No Gods beyond time and space, no conquering of death, no miracles�just some little scribbler sitting at his desk �who can't even keep his story straight.

06-03-2003, 09:41 AM	#120
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	And Toto too? Salut again Biff ! Good morning Sabine I percieve grace as the solving issue to sin if sin is defined as part of human nature which cannot be resolved by the obedience to laws. Which means that you have to redefine sin. A sin is a offence against God. An action (thought, word, or deed--or omission of deed) taken by an individual. If you redefine it as being part of human nature punishable by the God who created human nature you have eliminated "justice" from the equation. So to me, grace makes sense. It is the very point Christ makes. If the Jesus character had made a single and clear point on the subject we wouldn't be having this thread. But the Jesus character makes multiple and contradictory points on the subject. That's because the different authors were drawing from their own imaginations. There wasn't any Jesus for the authors to report on what he declared; instead you find the different personalities of the different authors emerging in the guise of Jesus the superhero. No I am not of any specific denomination or church doctrine. My belief is the result of my personal walk with Christ. Oh I knew that already. It puts you in the same ecclesiastical boat we Atheists are in. But I've gotta say that unless you are several thousand years older than you seem to be then you have never had a "personal walk with Christ." Back where I come from Christians are very concerned about humility (in fact I still find myself saying "the" mother instead of "my" mother). To claim that your reading and thinking about Jesus is "my personal walk with Christ" is the sin of Pride. Considering that you have rejected Church doctrine and all denominations because you've decide that you know better than they do is not only Prideful (inflated ego) but --by definition--makes you a Heretic. You will find that outside of the US, christians do not necessarly fit the stereotyped definition given to christianity with the assumption that all christians abide to that definition. Please spare me your Euro-centrism. I am a naturalized American. My profession has required that I be a "world traveler." I am well aware of all the forms of Christianity that this planet suffers from. I am also well aware that you are using the weighted word "stereotype" not because Christianity doesn't have a definition, but because you don't want to use that definition though you still want to call yourself a Christian. Most of the people here who call themselves Christian are doing exactly the same thing. I do find it somewhat odd that so many "freelancers" should come to the Atheist web boards to promote Christianity--when what they call Christianity is nothing more than their individual musings. Human justice as we know it promotes retribution for what is defined as evil actions by our society. " That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." -- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica The divine grace promotes a way to be restored in a relationship with God despites of evil actions. It does not interfere with human justice though..... it deals only with the spiritual aspect of a human being. You are still missing the point. By GRACE God decides to forgive you, out of no personal merit of your own but by the actions of Jesus. Which completely negates personal responsibility and eliminates any possibility of justice. The NT is quite clear on this point. However it is also quite clear that the exact opposite is true and that personal responsibility & justice are of the utmost importance. "Cheery Picking" Christians tend to choose whichever version suits their own personalities and then either completely ignore the other or attempt to double-talk it away. But both contradictory versions are clearly there in the NT. Desperate theologians try to present this as a "mystery," something beyond human intelligence. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!!!! (flash, pop!) The�umm, er�the Great and, er, Powerful OZ has spoken!!!" But these contradictions let us see the little man behind the curtain quite clearly. No Gods beyond time and space, no conquering of death, no miracles�just some little scribbler sitting at his desk �who can't even keep his story straight.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2003, 11:00 AM	#113
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I totaly agree with the contradiction you describe found in the character of God. I am not one to defend the OT and as a christian I focus on the teachings of Christ. Gee I'm sorry Sabine. I should really keep a separate notebook to write down what each Christian poster means when they say they are Christian. Everyone is different. Are you a Unitarian? It had been my understanding that Christians not only accepted and venerated the OT but that they considered Jesus to be the God talked about in it. But frankly it is the teachings of Jesus that are the problem here. His character in the book taught that the only way to get to heaven was by your act of deciding to believe in him. He also taught that you couldn't get into heaven by anything you did. In the NT you'll find both cases stated a fairly equal amount of times each. Grace is an unmerited or undeserved favor. Which ignores the other concept of "Sin." Sin assumes personal responsibility for an individuals own actions. Grace assumes that a persons own actions are irrelevant and only the actions of the books superhero count. Again there is nothing mysterious going on here. These are works of fiction. Sin/Grace has no bearing on reality but are products of the authors' fertile imaginations. They contradict one another, but again that is only poor copy editing and shows the book to be a work of fiction. Were it a work of fact the authors would have had a single source whose concepts they would retell. They would not be making them up by themselves as we see is the case here. One would think that it then should apply to all without any condition including believing that salvation can be soly attained thru Christ. Which it would if it were what it claimed to be in the story. Stories "by committee" always have problems like this. It is a fact that a God who would welcome all in his afterlife heaven no matter what belief or lack of would be the ultimate graceful God. And would be the only way to make sense of God coming to Earth to Save mankind. But only saving a select few makes God a failure as a Savior. Another logical problem with the stories plot. The superhero who can do anything--but then can't. And then blaming the very people the hero can't save for not being saved. Can you imagine Lois Lane being killed by Lex Luthor because Superman didn't get there in time? And then Superman blames Lois!!!! "Of couse I didn't save Lois (who I love) from the Death Ray of Doom, fellow members of the Justice League of America. Lois doubted in me so of course I had to let her be disintegrated!!" That's what we have in the NT. Is that last concept something you could accept as a human being? Accept as what? As part of the plot exposition of a fictitious story? Sure, I enjoy good science fiction and fantasy books now and then. It would be a cool literary device like vampires can't come out in day light or Tarzan can swing through the jungle. As a condition of reality? No, that's just silly. if yes...and in your opinion does it intefere with the sense of justice? Sure it interferes with justice. Superman doesn't "save" Lex Luthor. He brings Lex to justice!! But then the people over at DC comics have a fine editorial department. Their story line isn't filled with contradictions like the Bible is. When they want to write against type they tell you that that is what they are doing. I understand grace to be the result of what God decides to dispense once a human being expresses regrets for his or her actions no matter how wrong his or her actions may have been. Which means the ACT of expressing your regrets saves you. Except your Acts can't save you, unless they can, but they can't, only if�. REWRITE!!!

06-02-2003, 04:30 PM	#115
BadBadBad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WHERE GOD IS NOT!!!!! Posts: 4,338	If you can't give me a God inspired cannonized answer, why don't you admit you don't know. Admit the Bible says all three. Try to understand our point of view that none of them make sense individually and especially not all three combined. Then you can always still fall back to the tried and true like the preacher in the OP that says: "We cannot understand god and we cannot understand this subject." Then we'll finish up just like JakeJohnson with: "Then why the hell did you waste 45 minutes of our time and not say that in the first place."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.