Rational Ag

So, according to you, Jesus didn't have free will?

Very interesting.

-Rational Ag

Synaesthesia

It seems to me that humans are free insofar as their actions conform to their motives and desires. The fact that our motives and desires may themselves be the result of forces beyond our direct control does not appear to me to eliminate freedom and responsibility.

luvluv

Koya, I think it's a pretty well established tennent of Christianity that when the Bible speaks of "fearing" the Lord, it means respecting Him, being in reverence of Him. God does not show up at any time in the Bible in person and try to terrify people into doing what he wants them to do. He always offers what He wants as a choice. People saying that one should have a fear of the Lord (and by fear meaning respect and reverance) is not the same as GOD HIMSELF openly using fear as a tool to get His way. The Bible writers never portray such a God.

Typhon

You may personally think so, "Luvluv" but you are not necessarily correct. In fact, I would challenge you to support this (on something OTHER than faith please).

Fear is a long standing and accepted component of belief in Christianity. It has been discussed and used since the very beginning of the church. Its use continues today, across a wide spectrum of denominations and sects. You may have this strange, non-Biblical interpretation, but I assure you, it is NOT shared by the vast majority of Christians. If you think so, then I'd like to see your numbers and where and when this remarkable change in Christian attitude and interpretation of the Bible first surfaced.
That is simply, and demonstratively not true. Have you read much in the way of the Bible "Luvluv?" God, especially in the OT, frequently appears in a visible wrath that cowers his followers. If you doubt this, I'd be happy to quote you a number of verses where this occurs, with great regularity. However, I'm surprised you don't know this already, as I assumed, you being a supposed Christian, had taken the time to actually read the Bible.
Again, patently untrue. You are welcome to re-interpret your take on your own personal Christianity all you want (as you do with for example, the whole concept of hell), and pick and choose what you support of the Bible. However, you can't change the fact that the "Bible writers" visibly and repeatedly do not agree with you on this point just as they do not on the subject of hell.

.T.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

luvluv

Okay Typon the more I think about it you are right. The OT God does threaten various ancient cities with destruction unless they discontinue various heinous acts. I suppose God at various times, if the OT writers are correct, did use fear of punishment to get people to adhere to certain forms of behavior. But that is not the same as scaring people into a relationship with Him, which is what Christianity clearly mantains He is after. Again, this may be considered a cop out to you guys, but I am not a Biblical literalist. I consider what the latter writers of the Bible say about God to be a more accurate description of who He is than the earlier writers. As I said before, most Christians consider personal experience and Church history to be as valid in determining the nature of God as the scriptures. I can safely say I can never picture the God I know doing many of the things that are described in the old Testament. But again, whether or not God actually did the things that He is described of as doing in the Bible (in reference to cities like Sodom and Gomorah) I conceed that you are right, it cannot be said that Bible does not show God using fear to motivate people into certain types of behavior.

But I do think I can say that God never very emphatically used the concept of Hell in order to frighten people into a relationship with Him. I think if He intended to do so He could have been much more explicit in it's description. The same holds if you believe the Bible was solely an act of man's imagination: if the writers were intent on getting people to obey out of fear, why is there so little description of what we are supposed to be afraid of? And why does the threat lessen as the book goes on? Why aren't you guys anti-Judaism, (most of God's objetionable acts are in the OT) rather than anti-Christian (as you appear to be). Most of God's descriptions in the New Testament are unobjectionable, as far as I can see. But perhaps this is the subject for another post.

I maintain however, that the bulk of the quotes pulled by Koya connotate something closer to "respect" than "terror". I'm betting I can find as many verses as He quoted from the Bible with the words "Fear not" in the title, were I so inclined.

MadMordigan

I'm betting I can find as many verses as He quoted from the Bible with the words "Fear not" in the title, were I so inclined.

One's that refer to your god? I'll take that bet.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, I know what the spin doctors try and equivocate, but the bible directly contradicts such forced semantics:

Fear is first, then "awe." There is a clear and obvious delineation between fearing and standing in reverence.

Nice try, though.

I'm curious, since you addressed none of the other points I made, how do you spin this next one?

And, so we're clear, here's the version from the team of biblical scholars who translated the NIV:

The New American Standard:

The Revised Standard:

Even Young's Literal Translation:

I find it interesting that all of the teams of translators provided differing interpretations of "mercy," yet consistently used the word "fear" (and "fearing"), not "respect" or "show reverence for."

The Amplified Bible had this translation:

Interesting that these translators went so far as to clearly and succinctly separate out "reverent" and "worship" as adjectives describing the manner in which we are to fear God so that he takes pleasure.

It is obvious that respect is not being discussed here.

You also didn't address this little gem from the NT:

There just is no honest way to conclude the author of Luke is saying, "respect him!"

Nor is there any honest way to conclude that this isn't clearly a threat.



That's so thin it's transparent and exceedingly dishonest. God doesn't "show up at any time in the Bible in person" at all!

Almost every single one of God's inspired authors (as I just demonstrated) have delivered this unmistakable message, so you can dance around and around it, but it's nothing more than direct and obvious denial on your part.

"I will either punch you or hug you." Do you have any actual (i.e., relevant) "choice" in that scenario?

No, you do not. I will act upon you. You have no choice, other than in the manner in which I will act upon you, which is nothing more than an obvious sham.

Besides, the issue is free will, not "choice," which is continuously misconstrue here. Free will does not mean "choice" or "ability to choose," it means freedom from God's will, the ability to act independently of God's will so that God is not ultimately to blame for our evil actions just because he created us.

That ipso facto means that we cannot be punished for our free will decision not to obey God's will, since any form of punishment either directly or indirectly would necessarily mean that we never had a free will to begin with.

Please don't play any more childish semantics games like SOMMS always hides behind. Fear is fear, not "respect" and punishment is punishment, not "consequences."

The bible is quite, unmistakably clear that we are meant to fear God, i.e., to be afraid of God's power to destroy our souls in the fires of hell and that this fear is to keep us in line at all times.

Think of where this mythology was created and who created it. Would it be an honest assessment of the Middle East (at any point in history, let alone at the various specific times we're referencing) to conclude (as the teams of translators from the bibles listed above did) that the original authors meant "fear," as in terror, or "fear," as in respect and what would the qualitative difference be in regard to whether or not these passages are clear indicators of threatened behavior?

Again, that is a dishonest splitting of hairs. If I demonstrate my power to be that of universal creation ex nihilo, global floods, resurrection from the dead, plagues, torture and mass murder into the fourth generation, etc., etc., and then all of my servants walk around saying on my behalf, "Fear him or you will burn in the fires of hell," the conclusion is inescapable to anyone not trying desperately and blatantly to reconcile the irreconcilable as you are here attempting.

Only to the blind.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Then how do you reconcile:
The translation is the same across the board and the intention, threat and message unmistakeable.

madmax2976

Yes, but luvluv isn't about to accept that reasonable conclusion.

Luvluv has no logical argument whatsoever. I've asked her to lay out the objective standards for what should be considered "coercive" and she has failed to do so. She fails to recognize that what one person might consider coercive, another person might not.

I have asked to present a scenario in which something is coercive, but has no "consequences" and she has failed to do that. She has failed to recognize that consequences are what make things coercive in the first place.

Her arguments are an attempt to rescue the deity she believes in from valid criticism, but unfortunately for her, she has chosen poor ones for doing so.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's such a bitch to have to reconcile the irreconcilable.

I'll leave you with Matthew 10:28 for solace, luvluv:

That spells it out succinctly, don't you think?