Whateverman asks...
God regretted the way he'd created humanity - right?
regret
verb
1.to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.):
He no sooner spoke than he regretted it.
2.to think of with a sense of loss:
to regret one's vanished youth.
The Lord saw that the human beings on the earth were very wicked and that everything they thought about was evil. He was sorry he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will destroy all human beings that I made on the earth. And I will destroy every animal and everything that crawls on the earth and the birds of the air, because I am sorry I have made them." Genesis 6:5-7
Perhaps God did not regret "the way" he made humanity. Rather, the text seems to indicate that God regretted that he had made humanity at all.
What was the cause of God's disappointment? Verse 5 seems to indicate that it was man's choice to be evil that was the disappointment.
Because God is holy (set apart, perfect and pure), God cannot abide wickedness and evil of man.
So the humanity that God created chose evil rather than choosing God's righteousness, and by their own choice, they prevent themselves from being with God.
God has "lost" every one of the people that he created. God is troubled by the great loss of these people. By their own choice, all of these people are already "lost" to God. Even if God allows the people to live, they still cannot be with him. So there is no loss to God if they are all destroyed.
Except that God finds one man, Noah, who chooses God's righteousness.
cf. Isaiah 51
---
Perhaps the idea that God was "sorry" is a rudimentary illustration. Perhaps it serves as a picture we can understand, which illustrates an idea which we can not fully comprehend.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sight
Darmog asks...
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
The "sight" referred to here is a shadow. What God is concerned with is the condition of your heart. God wants the eyes of your heart opened, so that your heart can have "sight".
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you (Ephesians 1:18 NIV)
We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives (Colossians 1:9 NIV)
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
The "sight" referred to here is a shadow. What God is concerned with is the condition of your heart. God wants the eyes of your heart opened, so that your heart can have "sight".
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you (Ephesians 1:18 NIV)
We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives (Colossians 1:9 NIV)
Sacrifice
Darmog asks...
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Dear Darmog,
There is no need for you to offer burnt sacrifices to the Lord. You are not under the commands of the Old Covenant. God takes no delight in a mechanical sacrifice offered from a false heart.
(See Isaiah 1:4,14-17, Amos 5:21-24)
What pleases the Lord is a clean heart, and the actions that emanate from it.
The sacrifices of the Old Covenant were only a shadow, pointing to the only sufficient sacrifice, done once and for all.
(See e.g. Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12.)
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Dear Darmog,
There is no need for you to offer burnt sacrifices to the Lord. You are not under the commands of the Old Covenant. God takes no delight in a mechanical sacrifice offered from a false heart.
(See Isaiah 1:4,14-17, Amos 5:21-24)
What pleases the Lord is a clean heart, and the actions that emanate from it.
The sacrifices of the Old Covenant were only a shadow, pointing to the only sufficient sacrifice, done once and for all.
(See e.g. Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12.)
Monday, May 16, 2011
why should we try ...
Mudley asks...
Ray, regardless of whether or not Hell exists, why should we try to avoid going there?
It seems to me that the bible is clear that we are all deserving of hell. So why should we try to avoid the punishment we deserve? It seems like the whole Jesus thing is just some legal loophole to let people off the hook.
Dishonest people exploit loopholes for their benefit. Honest people take what they deserve.
So tell me why you are so desperately trying to avoid the punishment you admit that you deserve?
@Mudley
The short answer: it's what God wants.
It's not about what I desire, Mudley. It's about what God desires.
Ray, regardless of whether or not Hell exists, why should we try to avoid going there?
It seems to me that the bible is clear that we are all deserving of hell. So why should we try to avoid the punishment we deserve? It seems like the whole Jesus thing is just some legal loophole to let people off the hook.
Dishonest people exploit loopholes for their benefit. Honest people take what they deserve.
So tell me why you are so desperately trying to avoid the punishment you admit that you deserve?
@Mudley
The short answer: it's what God wants.
It's not about what I desire, Mudley. It's about what God desires.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
glaring error
RickA said...
Several people have posted evidence that disproves the Biblical account. Maybe you missed the posts but they are there. Go back and read through all the threads.
Here is just one of the things that prove Genesis wrong that was posted on the first day of this "trial":
Genesis claims that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness and that was the first morning and first evening. We know this is wrong because according to Genesis God didn't create stars that produce light until the 4th day.
You cannot have light without stars and you can't have a morning and a night without the earth rotating and pointing different parts of the earth towards the Sun.
Several people posted this glaring error and last time I checked not one Creationist even attempted a reply. Will you be the first?
@RickA
Actually, RickA, this point has been refuted numerous times. And not just by "creationists". (I seem to recall that even Steven_J weighed in on this.)
This "glaring error" you observe only appears when you inject an unwarranted assumption into the text, specifically, the idea that either of the creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
The apparent "contradiction" between the two creation accounts has also been raised, numerous times. And, again, the source of that "contradiction" is the assumption that both of the accounts are presented in chronological order.
We easily recognize that at least one of the two accounts is not presented in chronological order. That's pretty easy to figure out. What seems to be more difficult for some to decipher, is that there is no warrant for the idea that either of the accounts is ordered chronologically.
Instead, we find the ideas are presented in an order that emphasizes the author's main idea. It appears that the author is emphasizing the hierarchy of creation.
We observe the author includes a helpful mnemonic, a way for us to recognize God's creative power, and His creation, each and everyday of the week.
Several people have posted evidence that disproves the Biblical account. Maybe you missed the posts but they are there. Go back and read through all the threads.
Here is just one of the things that prove Genesis wrong that was posted on the first day of this "trial":
Genesis claims that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness and that was the first morning and first evening. We know this is wrong because according to Genesis God didn't create stars that produce light until the 4th day.
You cannot have light without stars and you can't have a morning and a night without the earth rotating and pointing different parts of the earth towards the Sun.
Several people posted this glaring error and last time I checked not one Creationist even attempted a reply. Will you be the first?
@RickA
Actually, RickA, this point has been refuted numerous times. And not just by "creationists". (I seem to recall that even Steven_J weighed in on this.)
This "glaring error" you observe only appears when you inject an unwarranted assumption into the text, specifically, the idea that either of the creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
The apparent "contradiction" between the two creation accounts has also been raised, numerous times. And, again, the source of that "contradiction" is the assumption that both of the accounts are presented in chronological order.
We easily recognize that at least one of the two accounts is not presented in chronological order. That's pretty easy to figure out. What seems to be more difficult for some to decipher, is that there is no warrant for the idea that either of the accounts is ordered chronologically.
Instead, we find the ideas are presented in an order that emphasizes the author's main idea. It appears that the author is emphasizing the hierarchy of creation.
We observe the author includes a helpful mnemonic, a way for us to recognize God's creative power, and His creation, each and everyday of the week.
Monday, April 25, 2011
never ever looked at nature
Ryk said...
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Genesis contradicts itself
Albert said...
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
original sin
JimDiver asks...
So the original sin isn't passed on to all?
Jim,
In answer to your question concerning original sin, the Bible teaches that original sin is "passed on" to all, in the sense that all are subject to the temporal consequences of original sin. But the Bible also teaches that we are not judged for the sins of our ancestors, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, Before the judge, we are held accountable only for our own sin.
(I offer this comment only in case you were seeking an answer to a question. My response is concise, and undoubtedly there are some that will have difficulty understanding it.)
(The difficulty for some is in recognizing that Bible speaks concerning two different realms, to both the temporal, earthly consequences of sin, and to the eternal, spiritual consequences of sin.)
So the original sin isn't passed on to all?
Jim,
In answer to your question concerning original sin, the Bible teaches that original sin is "passed on" to all, in the sense that all are subject to the temporal consequences of original sin. But the Bible also teaches that we are not judged for the sins of our ancestors, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, Before the judge, we are held accountable only for our own sin.
(I offer this comment only in case you were seeking an answer to a question. My response is concise, and undoubtedly there are some that will have difficulty understanding it.)
(The difficulty for some is in recognizing that Bible speaks concerning two different realms, to both the temporal, earthly consequences of sin, and to the eternal, spiritual consequences of sin.)
Friday, April 8, 2011
he has many vices
Cathy_Cooper said...
I just wanted to add, that if Jesus is [G]od, as many Christians believe, then Jesus is not perfect, as he has many vices according to the bible--vices such being jealous and angry--and his actions show he is vengeful, as he orders the slaughter of those who don't believe in him.
1Kings 11:19; Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; Deut 5:9; Zech. 13:13
@Cathy,
God describes himself as "jealous", that does not make his jealousy a vice. Nor is "vengeance" or "anger" a vice.
God is holy and just. God cannot abide sin, there can be no peace between God and sin. God hates sin. And God is angry with sinners.
The episodes you highlight demonstrate, quite vividly, that God is just, and that wickedness is judged. God does not make peace with sin.
There is no contradiction.
God's justice is supreme, and it will prevail in the end. Do not mistake God's timing, his temporary withholding of judgment against sin, as meaning that God will not judge.
I just wanted to add, that if Jesus is [G]od, as many Christians believe, then Jesus is not perfect, as he has many vices according to the bible--vices such being jealous and angry--and his actions show he is vengeful, as he orders the slaughter of those who don't believe in him.
1Kings 11:19; Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; Deut 5:9; Zech. 13:13
@Cathy,
God describes himself as "jealous", that does not make his jealousy a vice. Nor is "vengeance" or "anger" a vice.
God is holy and just. God cannot abide sin, there can be no peace between God and sin. God hates sin. And God is angry with sinners.
The episodes you highlight demonstrate, quite vividly, that God is just, and that wickedness is judged. God does not make peace with sin.
There is no contradiction.
God's justice is supreme, and it will prevail in the end. Do not mistake God's timing, his temporary withholding of judgment against sin, as meaning that God will not judge.
Monday, April 4, 2011
the hand I was dealt
LordBeans said...
"God made me this way, that's why there's a hell!"
There is a hell because God created it for Satan and his demons; he did not create it for you. (Matthew 25:41)
"Intelligent design leaves no room for tragedy"
Oh, how we all miss Dimensio. If he were here, he would certainly entertain us with his parrot squawking about unsubstantiated assertions.
"I'm doing what God planned for my life"
How certain are you, Lord Beans, that you are following God's plan for your life?
"I thought I was golden when I asked Jesus to save me"
I think there are many in your same shoes. I think many are led to believe that asking Jesus to save them is what is required. But that is not what the Bible teaches.
"but as it turns out, it wasn't the hand I was dealt."
You were dealt a hand, just as everyone was. And it's your privilege to play that hand. You are free to reject the dealer, and to do whatever you want with the cards. But don't presume that what you choose to with the cards was the plan of the dealer.
"There is only reason to rejoice!!"
There is reason for rejoicing when something of great value is found.
"God made me this way, that's why there's a hell!"
There is a hell because God created it for Satan and his demons; he did not create it for you. (Matthew 25:41)
"Intelligent design leaves no room for tragedy"
Oh, how we all miss Dimensio. If he were here, he would certainly entertain us with his parrot squawking about unsubstantiated assertions.
"I'm doing what God planned for my life"
How certain are you, Lord Beans, that you are following God's plan for your life?
"I thought I was golden when I asked Jesus to save me"
I think there are many in your same shoes. I think many are led to believe that asking Jesus to save them is what is required. But that is not what the Bible teaches.
"but as it turns out, it wasn't the hand I was dealt."
You were dealt a hand, just as everyone was. And it's your privilege to play that hand. You are free to reject the dealer, and to do whatever you want with the cards. But don't presume that what you choose to with the cards was the plan of the dealer.
"There is only reason to rejoice!!"
There is reason for rejoicing when something of great value is found.
Monday, March 28, 2011
why did you ... ?
godlesspanther asks...
Dear Evangelical Fundamentalist, Right-wing, Christians,
Why did you support slavery? Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans? Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings? Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote? Why did you oppose the integration of public schools? Why did you oppose racial integration? Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body? Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love? Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love? Why did you hate hippies? Why do you hate so many people? Why are you so hateful?
Why?
Because the great big goo-goo says so?
Pathetic excuse for being a hateful, violent, despicable cult.
I would like a real reason. Just one.
---
@godless panther
Why did you support slavery?
Because I have been exceedingly selfish.
Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans?
Because I have been inordinately greedy.
Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings?
Because I have been terribly wicked.
Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote?
Because I have been desperately distrustful.
Why did you oppose the integration of public schools?
Because I have been intensely jealous.
Why did you oppose racial integration?
Because I have been exceedingly egocentric.
Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
Because I have been a nosy busybody.
Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love?
Because I have been exceptionally uncaring.
Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love?
Because I have been fiercely confrontational.
Why did you hate hippies?
Because I have been abundantly unloving.
Why do you hate so many people?
Because I have been hysterically hateful.
Why are you so hateful?
I have been viciously vile.
Why?
In short, because I am so unlike Jesus.
I have done you so many wrongs, in so many ways, for so long. I owe you so much more than an apology. I owe an enormous debt, one that is long overdue and that I can never hope to repay. I have been a miserable failure.
I have utterly failed to be anything like Jesus.
Dear Evangelical Fundamentalist, Right-wing, Christians,
Why did you support slavery? Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans? Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings? Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote? Why did you oppose the integration of public schools? Why did you oppose racial integration? Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body? Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love? Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love? Why did you hate hippies? Why do you hate so many people? Why are you so hateful?
Why?
Because the great big goo-goo says so?
Pathetic excuse for being a hateful, violent, despicable cult.
I would like a real reason. Just one.
---
@godless panther
Why did you support slavery?
Because I have been exceedingly selfish.
Why did you support the genocide of Native Americans?
Because I have been inordinately greedy.
Why did you support the lynching, the cold-blooded hatred and murder of human beings?
Because I have been terribly wicked.
Why did you oppose the legal right for women to vote?
Because I have been desperately distrustful.
Why did you oppose the integration of public schools?
Because I have been intensely jealous.
Why did you oppose racial integration?
Because I have been exceedingly egocentric.
Why did you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
Because I have been a nosy busybody.
Why do you oppose a person's right to love who they choose to love?
Because I have been exceptionally uncaring.
Why do you oppose that person's right to marry the one they love?
Because I have been fiercely confrontational.
Why did you hate hippies?
Because I have been abundantly unloving.
Why do you hate so many people?
Because I have been hysterically hateful.
Why are you so hateful?
I have been viciously vile.
Why?
In short, because I am so unlike Jesus.
I have done you so many wrongs, in so many ways, for so long. I owe you so much more than an apology. I owe an enormous debt, one that is long overdue and that I can never hope to repay. I have been a miserable failure.
I have utterly failed to be anything like Jesus.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
if not, why not?
High Tempo asks...
The Old testament laws were set specifically for old Israel, correct?
Yes, the 613 Mitzvot of the Mosaic Law were given specifically to the descendants of Jacob.
This was done because Israel was God's chosen nation, correct?
The descendants of Jacob (Jews) are called God's chosen people because they were given the Law and the promise. Not the other way around, as you suggest.
Do you not aspire to be as good as the people of God's chosen nation?
It's not really about what I aspire to. What it's about is what God intends for me, what God wants me to become.
If not, why not?
Because I know that fall short of God's standard. I recognize that I am unable, under my own effort, to reach the goal which God intends for me.
I know that it is only through God's power, through God's effort, that I will be measured acceptable by Him.
If so, why do you not follow Old Testament laws?
Because the Old Testament law is utterly unable to make me the person God intends me to be. The Law fails to achieve the goal that God sets for me.
Fortunately, God has fulfilled the Old Testament law, he has filled out the Law to its full meaning in the person of Jesus.
I follow Jesus, who is the reality. The Law was and is a shadow of the truth.
More practically, no instruction is given for followers of Jesus to first become Jews, and follow the Old Testament laws. (According to the letters that Paul wrote, there were Jews that believed Gentiles should first become Jews, before they came to Jesus, but Paul makes clear that idea is wrong.)
The Old testament laws were set specifically for old Israel, correct?
Yes, the 613 Mitzvot of the Mosaic Law were given specifically to the descendants of Jacob.
This was done because Israel was God's chosen nation, correct?
The descendants of Jacob (Jews) are called God's chosen people because they were given the Law and the promise. Not the other way around, as you suggest.
Do you not aspire to be as good as the people of God's chosen nation?
It's not really about what I aspire to. What it's about is what God intends for me, what God wants me to become.
If not, why not?
Because I know that fall short of God's standard. I recognize that I am unable, under my own effort, to reach the goal which God intends for me.
I know that it is only through God's power, through God's effort, that I will be measured acceptable by Him.
If so, why do you not follow Old Testament laws?
Because the Old Testament law is utterly unable to make me the person God intends me to be. The Law fails to achieve the goal that God sets for me.
Fortunately, God has fulfilled the Old Testament law, he has filled out the Law to its full meaning in the person of Jesus.
I follow Jesus, who is the reality. The Law was and is a shadow of the truth.
More practically, no instruction is given for followers of Jesus to first become Jews, and follow the Old Testament laws. (According to the letters that Paul wrote, there were Jews that believed Gentiles should first become Jews, before they came to Jesus, but Paul makes clear that idea is wrong.)
Thursday, March 24, 2011
mutually exclusive?
JimDiver said...
It doesn't take faith to be an atheist. It takes understanding. You have no understanding. As an ex-christian I had faith; now I have understanding. The two are mutually exclusive.
@JimDiver
Actually, Jim, I think that's a false dichotomy between faith and understanding.
But, honestly, I haven't considered that assertion before.
I believe (up until I considered it now anyway) that I had both faith and understanding. Seems to me this is two different things, that they are not on the same scale.
You say they are "mutually exclusive", as if it's a binary on/off thing. I don't get that at all. I believe people have different levels of understanding, of all manner of different ideas. And I believe people have different levels of faith, in different things, like faith that a chair will hold my weight when I sit in it, or faith that 12 inches of ice over a lake will support my weight.
But, I'm going to consider the idea you propose.
If I know that I have faith, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have understanding. And if I have any understanding, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have any faith.
Something for me to think about.
Thanks!
It doesn't take faith to be an atheist. It takes understanding. You have no understanding. As an ex-christian I had faith; now I have understanding. The two are mutually exclusive.
@JimDiver
Actually, Jim, I think that's a false dichotomy between faith and understanding.
But, honestly, I haven't considered that assertion before.
I believe (up until I considered it now anyway) that I had both faith and understanding. Seems to me this is two different things, that they are not on the same scale.
You say they are "mutually exclusive", as if it's a binary on/off thing. I don't get that at all. I believe people have different levels of understanding, of all manner of different ideas. And I believe people have different levels of faith, in different things, like faith that a chair will hold my weight when I sit in it, or faith that 12 inches of ice over a lake will support my weight.
But, I'm going to consider the idea you propose.
If I know that I have faith, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have understanding. And if I have any understanding, then I must be wrong about my belief that I have any faith.
Something for me to think about.
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
right and wrong
Thousands of years from now, people will be looking back at our "modern" culture. But to them, it will be a study of an "ancient" culture.
They will look back, and make judgments at the ideas we hold.
For one thing, they will look at our cultural mores, and our laws, and look at our "ownership" of livestock like cattle.
They will be aghast, at the immorality of our idea, that an animal could be "owned". They will look at the laws we have concerning what we consider mistreatment of animals, and the punishment rewarded those offenses.
And they will ask questions like:
The laws of the ancient tribe allow for ownership of animals. Is it ever moral to own animals? Their laws allow for animals to be killed!
What we consider to be "moral" in our modern culture (the ownership of livestock), what seems to be acceptable and right to us, will be considered "immoral" in another culture, who will be aghast at the idea that livestock can be owned, and denied freedom.
When that future civilization looks back out ours, how should they judge the "morality" of our culture? Should they inject their standards of right and wrong, and inject their more advanced knowledge, upon our civilization and judge us to be immoral.
Or, will they allow our civilization to be judged by our own culture, by our own best understanding of the universe, and of what we consider to be right and wrong.
Just something for us to consider. Something for us to take into account, when we choose to look back at an illiterate tribe of nomadic goatherders, and pass judgment on their moral standards of right and wrong.
---
Steven J responded
But you're arguing that those illiterate nomadic goat herders had, as the basis of their laws and the authorization of their wars, a body of laws given to them by the omniscient, morally perfect, unchanging and all-powerful Creator of the universe. That they didn't know better, or couldn't do better, is unremarkable ... unless you argue that they had a perfect law given to them by a perfect Lawgiver and Judge able to remake the hearts of the faithful. Then you have to note that what struck that God's followers as "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what strikes that God's followers as "good" today.
---
Steven,
I made no remark in my comment about the basis of morality of any civilization. I am only acknowledging what you yourself have argued, that there is, in fact, a concept of right and wrong within the universe, held by a small subset of the universe, which we call humanity,
The comment I made stands for all (and any) cultures that claim to have a a concept of right and wrong. That we hold the ideas of "right and wrong" is not invalid because the universe as a whole (as you have stated) does not itself have such a concept.
"unless you argue that they had a perfect law ... able to remake the hearts"
It's not at all clear why you would suggest that this is an argument I would make. I have never suggested that the "law" was able to make anyone perfect, or to "remake hearts". I've not suggested that it is the intended purpose of the law, nor have I suggested it was suitable for such a purpose.
you have to note that what [was considered] "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what [is considered] "good" today.
I do note some significant differences in what would be considered "right" behavior and "wrong" behavior. But I also note some significant similarities.
I suggest to you that thousands of years from now, a future civilization may note significant differences between what they consider "right and wrong" and what we today consider "right and wrong".
My suggestion was that we consider taking these cultural differences into account, when we judge the mores of an ancient civilization.
---
Steven, in my comment, I made no mention of the origin, or "basis" of the morality for a culture.
We explored that topic in earlier comments, whether there was a "universal" origin of morality. I believe you were pretty clear that the universe itself, as a whole, had no concept of "right or wrong", and that only a small subset of the universe, "humanity" or "mankind" held the concept of right or wrong.
Since humanity had a beginning, we can only presume then that the concept of right and wrong had a beginning. The origin of the concept of right and wrong seems, then, to be intimately intertwined with the origin of man.
The idea that a "body of laws" is the origin or basis of morality doesn't seem to ring true. Consider, would a future civilization look back on ours and say that the "body of laws" that were encoded by our civilization was the "basis" of our morality?
Wouldn't they consider that our concept of right and wrong to be the basis or foundation of our laws, and the basis for our authorization for war. That is, we don't declare war because of a "body of laws", but because we have knowledge of right and wrong. Our "body of laws" is a rudimentary encoding of a subset of that knowledge.
I think we owe an ancient, illiterate civilization the same allowance we would have granted ourselves.
---
Steven, you suggest that what was considered to "right and wrong" in 3000 BC is significantly different than what is considered "right and wrong" in our modern culture.
To be a little more clear, you actually said the morality "doesn't look very much like", and you restricted the comparison to "what struck followers of God".
When you compared the moral codes of the "God followers" in the two cultures, what similarities and differences did you note? How different or similar are the moral codes?
They will look back, and make judgments at the ideas we hold.
For one thing, they will look at our cultural mores, and our laws, and look at our "ownership" of livestock like cattle.
They will be aghast, at the immorality of our idea, that an animal could be "owned". They will look at the laws we have concerning what we consider mistreatment of animals, and the punishment rewarded those offenses.
And they will ask questions like:
The laws of the ancient tribe allow for ownership of animals. Is it ever moral to own animals? Their laws allow for animals to be killed!
What we consider to be "moral" in our modern culture (the ownership of livestock), what seems to be acceptable and right to us, will be considered "immoral" in another culture, who will be aghast at the idea that livestock can be owned, and denied freedom.
When that future civilization looks back out ours, how should they judge the "morality" of our culture? Should they inject their standards of right and wrong, and inject their more advanced knowledge, upon our civilization and judge us to be immoral.
Or, will they allow our civilization to be judged by our own culture, by our own best understanding of the universe, and of what we consider to be right and wrong.
Just something for us to consider. Something for us to take into account, when we choose to look back at an illiterate tribe of nomadic goatherders, and pass judgment on their moral standards of right and wrong.
---
Steven J responded
But you're arguing that those illiterate nomadic goat herders had, as the basis of their laws and the authorization of their wars, a body of laws given to them by the omniscient, morally perfect, unchanging and all-powerful Creator of the universe. That they didn't know better, or couldn't do better, is unremarkable ... unless you argue that they had a perfect law given to them by a perfect Lawgiver and Judge able to remake the hearts of the faithful. Then you have to note that what struck that God's followers as "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what strikes that God's followers as "good" today.
---
Steven,
I made no remark in my comment about the basis of morality of any civilization. I am only acknowledging what you yourself have argued, that there is, in fact, a concept of right and wrong within the universe, held by a small subset of the universe, which we call humanity,
The comment I made stands for all (and any) cultures that claim to have a a concept of right and wrong. That we hold the ideas of "right and wrong" is not invalid because the universe as a whole (as you have stated) does not itself have such a concept.
"unless you argue that they had a perfect law ... able to remake the hearts"
It's not at all clear why you would suggest that this is an argument I would make. I have never suggested that the "law" was able to make anyone perfect, or to "remake hearts". I've not suggested that it is the intended purpose of the law, nor have I suggested it was suitable for such a purpose.
you have to note that what [was considered] "good" in 3000 BC doesn't look very much like what [is considered] "good" today.
I do note some significant differences in what would be considered "right" behavior and "wrong" behavior. But I also note some significant similarities.
I suggest to you that thousands of years from now, a future civilization may note significant differences between what they consider "right and wrong" and what we today consider "right and wrong".
My suggestion was that we consider taking these cultural differences into account, when we judge the mores of an ancient civilization.
---
Steven, in my comment, I made no mention of the origin, or "basis" of the morality for a culture.
We explored that topic in earlier comments, whether there was a "universal" origin of morality. I believe you were pretty clear that the universe itself, as a whole, had no concept of "right or wrong", and that only a small subset of the universe, "humanity" or "mankind" held the concept of right or wrong.
Since humanity had a beginning, we can only presume then that the concept of right and wrong had a beginning. The origin of the concept of right and wrong seems, then, to be intimately intertwined with the origin of man.
The idea that a "body of laws" is the origin or basis of morality doesn't seem to ring true. Consider, would a future civilization look back on ours and say that the "body of laws" that were encoded by our civilization was the "basis" of our morality?
Wouldn't they consider that our concept of right and wrong to be the basis or foundation of our laws, and the basis for our authorization for war. That is, we don't declare war because of a "body of laws", but because we have knowledge of right and wrong. Our "body of laws" is a rudimentary encoding of a subset of that knowledge.
I think we owe an ancient, illiterate civilization the same allowance we would have granted ourselves.
---
Steven, you suggest that what was considered to "right and wrong" in 3000 BC is significantly different than what is considered "right and wrong" in our modern culture.
To be a little more clear, you actually said the morality "doesn't look very much like", and you restricted the comparison to "what struck followers of God".
When you compared the moral codes of the "God followers" in the two cultures, what similarities and differences did you note? How different or similar are the moral codes?
hinge on semantics
ST35 asks (of Ray)
Why do your arguments so often hinge on semantics?
ST35,
Human language uses symbols to convey meaning. Symbols without meaning are, for lack of a better symbol, meaningless. I'm not sure of what your question is. Are you objecting to the symbols (words) that Ray selects to convey ideas, or is your objection to Ray's meaning.
One would note here, that you have conceded that the word sequences that Ray puts together do have carry some meaning (semantics), and that his arguments are somewhat "hinged".
This, I suppose, stands in sharp contrast to the style of argument you seem to be advocating: totally divorced of meaning and entirely unhinged.
Why do your arguments so often hinge on semantics?
ST35,
Human language uses symbols to convey meaning. Symbols without meaning are, for lack of a better symbol, meaningless. I'm not sure of what your question is. Are you objecting to the symbols (words) that Ray selects to convey ideas, or is your objection to Ray's meaning.
One would note here, that you have conceded that the word sequences that Ray puts together do have carry some meaning (semantics), and that his arguments are somewhat "hinged".
This, I suppose, stands in sharp contrast to the style of argument you seem to be advocating: totally divorced of meaning and entirely unhinged.
was that a picture of Jesus?
Steven J said...
When David killed the sons and grandsons of Saul (not counting the descendants of Jonathan) in response to an epidemic that he regarded as God's punishment because Saul had massacred the Gibeonites, was that a picture of Jesus? Because I'm having trouble tracing out the typology.
@Steven
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you wouldn't encounter difficulty in understanding Scripture.
First, we recognize that not every character in the Bible is a type of Christ.
I do think that passage you refer to is a picture of God's justice. The house of Saul has committed an offense (breaking the oath that was sworn, and the killing of the Gibeonites)
The offense of the house of Saul is a picture of our sin, and the consequences of our sin.
The offense of Saul had consequences, on the Gibeonites who suffered the offense, the house of Saul that committed the offense, AND consequences on all of Israel (the famine that was in the land).
God's justice demands full payment of the penalty due. This echos the idea of reciprocal justice, given e.g. in Exodus 21:23-25 et al. The penalty for the offense is "like for like", in proportion.
David, King of the Jews, makes atonement for the offense of Saul. God ends the famine endured by Israel, i.e. God extends His mercy, and ends the consequences.
One wonders why this episode is recounted in the Bible, whether it was necessary, Couldn't God have left that part out of the Bible?
Maybe God included this episode in the Bible, as a picture of His justice, a picture of the consequences of sin, and as a picture of atonement,.
This episode may point forward towards to the work of atonement that the Son of David (Jesus) will perform., offering full payment, as King of the Jews, for sin that was not his own sin, in obedience to the Father's will.
---
If we make the mistake of reading the Bible as if it were a set of rules for what _we_ should and shouldn't do, we miss the main point of the Bible.
The entirety of the Bible points to one main idea: what _Jesus_ has already done.
---
One of the main questions we need to ask, of course, is (according to the Bible) who is Jesus?
Jesus is not "part of God", Nor is Jesus "part God". Both of those ideas are inadequate, those ideas are not from the Bible.
The Bible teaches that Jesus IS the creator God, Jesus is fully God. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Creator God of the Old Testament. Jesus is one and the same.
When David killed the sons and grandsons of Saul (not counting the descendants of Jonathan) in response to an epidemic that he regarded as God's punishment because Saul had massacred the Gibeonites, was that a picture of Jesus? Because I'm having trouble tracing out the typology.
@Steven
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you wouldn't encounter difficulty in understanding Scripture.
First, we recognize that not every character in the Bible is a type of Christ.
I do think that passage you refer to is a picture of God's justice. The house of Saul has committed an offense (breaking the oath that was sworn, and the killing of the Gibeonites)
The offense of the house of Saul is a picture of our sin, and the consequences of our sin.
The offense of Saul had consequences, on the Gibeonites who suffered the offense, the house of Saul that committed the offense, AND consequences on all of Israel (the famine that was in the land).
God's justice demands full payment of the penalty due. This echos the idea of reciprocal justice, given e.g. in Exodus 21:23-25 et al. The penalty for the offense is "like for like", in proportion.
David, King of the Jews, makes atonement for the offense of Saul. God ends the famine endured by Israel, i.e. God extends His mercy, and ends the consequences.
One wonders why this episode is recounted in the Bible, whether it was necessary, Couldn't God have left that part out of the Bible?
Maybe God included this episode in the Bible, as a picture of His justice, a picture of the consequences of sin, and as a picture of atonement,.
This episode may point forward towards to the work of atonement that the Son of David (Jesus) will perform., offering full payment, as King of the Jews, for sin that was not his own sin, in obedience to the Father's will.
---
If we make the mistake of reading the Bible as if it were a set of rules for what _we_ should and shouldn't do, we miss the main point of the Bible.
The entirety of the Bible points to one main idea: what _Jesus_ has already done.
---
One of the main questions we need to ask, of course, is (according to the Bible) who is Jesus?
Jesus is not "part of God", Nor is Jesus "part God". Both of those ideas are inadequate, those ideas are not from the Bible.
The Bible teaches that Jesus IS the creator God, Jesus is fully God. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Creator God of the Old Testament. Jesus is one and the same.
Monday, March 21, 2011
cannot pen a story
Matt said...
But apparently your all knowing God cannot pen a story that even its adherents can agree with.
@Matt
You suggest that God is either incapable of communicating clearly, or that God has chosen not to.
Rather than assigning blame to God, consider that God is not the cause of disagreements among fallible men.
Your argument suggests that if God were more capable of penning a story, then men would have no disagreements about God.
It seems you suggest that as the standard which should be used to measure the Holy Bible, whether or not men have disagreements.
But apparently your all knowing God cannot pen a story that even its adherents can agree with.
@Matt
You suggest that God is either incapable of communicating clearly, or that God has chosen not to.
Rather than assigning blame to God, consider that God is not the cause of disagreements among fallible men.
Your argument suggests that if God were more capable of penning a story, then men would have no disagreements about God.
It seems you suggest that as the standard which should be used to measure the Holy Bible, whether or not men have disagreements.
understood by everyone
Matt said
Thousands of mere mortals manage to right notes, memos, books, papers, theses, essays and novels that are understood by everyone with no need for apologetics.
@Matt
You are suggesting that if God had chosen a different topic, it would be more understandable. Rather than speaking about spiritual things that are beyond human understanding, God should have written about things that humans can understand.
It seems that you think God would have been more capable, if he had chosen to communicate a recipe for chicken cacciatore, rather than the story of Jesus. Perhaps then there would be no need for man to exercise his capacity to interpret and understand spiritual things.
Thousands of mere mortals manage to right notes, memos, books, papers, theses, essays and novels that are understood by everyone with no need for apologetics.
@Matt
You are suggesting that if God had chosen a different topic, it would be more understandable. Rather than speaking about spiritual things that are beyond human understanding, God should have written about things that humans can understand.
It seems that you think God would have been more capable, if he had chosen to communicate a recipe for chicken cacciatore, rather than the story of Jesus. Perhaps then there would be no need for man to exercise his capacity to interpret and understand spiritual things.
if anyone makes mistakes
Matt said
If anyone makes mistakes reading or interpreting the bible then it shows that the author hasn't done a very good job conveying the message doesn't it.
@Matt
Making mistakes is part of the human condition, Matt.
Following your reasoning, if one were to give an organic chemistry textbook to a first grader to read, any mistakes or misunderstandings of the child had would be the fault of the author of the textbook.
The failure of a reader to understand the Bible is NOT the fault of the author, it is with the reader. Those that choose to read the Bible with the light off are not going to understand it.
If anyone makes mistakes reading or interpreting the bible then it shows that the author hasn't done a very good job conveying the message doesn't it.
@Matt
Making mistakes is part of the human condition, Matt.
Following your reasoning, if one were to give an organic chemistry textbook to a first grader to read, any mistakes or misunderstandings of the child had would be the fault of the author of the textbook.
The failure of a reader to understand the Bible is NOT the fault of the author, it is with the reader. Those that choose to read the Bible with the light off are not going to understand it.
chalk that up
z76 said...
As for your appraisal of my knowledge of how to understand the Bible, I will chalk that up to careless and unfounded pontificating on your part. You know nothing about my abilities concerning the Bible, and ought not to speak of things of which you are ignorant.
@z76
You are quite right, of course, that I am making a judgment, based on incomplete information. I have only what you say as evidence of how well you understand the Bible.
It is true that I am ignorant of many things.
But, to clarify a point, I made no statement that suggested that you were incapable of understanding the Bible, or that you lacked any capacity or ability for it.
That's certainly not what I think. Such a charge against me is disingenuous.
From the evidence I have, from what you have said, I stand by my assessment of your understanding of the Bible. You are not alone. Many choose to read the Bible with the "light off", and they fail to understand it.
As for your appraisal of my knowledge of how to understand the Bible, I will chalk that up to careless and unfounded pontificating on your part. You know nothing about my abilities concerning the Bible, and ought not to speak of things of which you are ignorant.
@z76
You are quite right, of course, that I am making a judgment, based on incomplete information. I have only what you say as evidence of how well you understand the Bible.
It is true that I am ignorant of many things.
But, to clarify a point, I made no statement that suggested that you were incapable of understanding the Bible, or that you lacked any capacity or ability for it.
That's certainly not what I think. Such a charge against me is disingenuous.
From the evidence I have, from what you have said, I stand by my assessment of your understanding of the Bible. You are not alone. Many choose to read the Bible with the "light off", and they fail to understand it.
maybe you're the one who's wrong
Bob sad ...
Maybe you're the one who's wrong about what the Bible teaches. Also, you would think that a book that was supposedly inspired by God Himself would be impossible to misunderstand.
Bob, I don't take offense when someone offers insight into the Bible. I welcome a discussion about what the Bible teaches. And I am open to recognizing the mistakes I have made, and correcting those mistakes.
You tell me what I would think. You suggest that I would expect that the Bible, authored by God, would be impossible to misunderstand.
Essentially, you are asserting that either God is not perfect, or the Bible is not perfect, since you can envision a "more perfect" Bible (i.e. one that "would be impossible to misunderstand".)
Please allow me to share an idea with you. I believe that a failure to understand the Bible is not a fault of the Bible itself, but is the fault of fallible man.
Please note that I'm not making a claim that understanding the entirety of Bible is easy, that it doesn't require some work, or that there are not some difficulties. (It's not, it does, and there are.)
The claim I make is that the Bible is complete and sufficient for the task to which God set it. If it is found to be incomplete or insufficient to a task, perhaps that is because it has been set to a task to which it is not suited.
Maybe you're the one who's wrong about what the Bible teaches. Also, you would think that a book that was supposedly inspired by God Himself would be impossible to misunderstand.
Bob, I don't take offense when someone offers insight into the Bible. I welcome a discussion about what the Bible teaches. And I am open to recognizing the mistakes I have made, and correcting those mistakes.
You tell me what I would think. You suggest that I would expect that the Bible, authored by God, would be impossible to misunderstand.
Essentially, you are asserting that either God is not perfect, or the Bible is not perfect, since you can envision a "more perfect" Bible (i.e. one that "would be impossible to misunderstand".)
Please allow me to share an idea with you. I believe that a failure to understand the Bible is not a fault of the Bible itself, but is the fault of fallible man.
Please note that I'm not making a claim that understanding the entirety of Bible is easy, that it doesn't require some work, or that there are not some difficulties. (It's not, it does, and there are.)
The claim I make is that the Bible is complete and sufficient for the task to which God set it. If it is found to be incomplete or insufficient to a task, perhaps that is because it has been set to a task to which it is not suited.
spoke only of Jesus?? I think not.
Cailan Ban said...
The Old Testament spoke only of Jesus?? I think not.
@Cailan Ban
I said that the Old Testament had a single subject, and that subject is Jesus.
Two questions for you:
1) According to the Bible, who is Jesus?
2) Which part of the Old Testament is not the story of Jesus?
You may choose to think whatever you like. But the truth is that the subject of the Old Testament is Jesus.
The Old Testament spoke only of Jesus?? I think not.
@Cailan Ban
I said that the Old Testament had a single subject, and that subject is Jesus.
Two questions for you:
1) According to the Bible, who is Jesus?
2) Which part of the Old Testament is not the story of Jesus?
You may choose to think whatever you like. But the truth is that the subject of the Old Testament is Jesus.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
a hat out of a rabbit
ST35 said...
Ah, another of [the] dodge team does butchery to Steven J's comments and makes a hat out of a rabbit.
Nasty business, deception, don't you think?
@ST35
Steven J said that it was impossible for nature to try to improve anything. (If I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Steven J was saying, then by all means please feel free to offer a correction.)
As has been said many times before, the worldview held by many atheists (metaphysical naturalism) declares that there is nothing beyond nature, everything is a part of nature.
1) everything that exists is "nature"
2) it's impossible for nature to try to improve anything
Please feel free to explain a man's effort to advance or improve something.
Are man's efforts to be considered a product of nature, or a product of something that is beyond nature?
Is it really impossible for nature to attempt to improve conditions?
Do you consider the "nasty business, deception" [sic] to be an advancement or a decline of nature?
One notes here that you have offered no insight that would help us resolve this apparent contradiction, other than cast aspersions and to imply that I have made false statements.
Ah, another of [the] dodge team does butchery to Steven J's comments and makes a hat out of a rabbit.
Nasty business, deception, don't you think?
@ST35
Steven J said that it was impossible for nature to try to improve anything. (If I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Steven J was saying, then by all means please feel free to offer a correction.)
As has been said many times before, the worldview held by many atheists (metaphysical naturalism) declares that there is nothing beyond nature, everything is a part of nature.
1) everything that exists is "nature"
2) it's impossible for nature to try to improve anything
Please feel free to explain a man's effort to advance or improve something.
Are man's efforts to be considered a product of nature, or a product of something that is beyond nature?
Is it really impossible for nature to attempt to improve conditions?
Do you consider the "nasty business, deception" [sic] to be an advancement or a decline of nature?
One notes here that you have offered no insight that would help us resolve this apparent contradiction, other than cast aspersions and to imply that I have made false statements.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
no concept of right and wrong
Jim Diver said...
The universe has no concept of right and wrong. Only empathic beings have that ability. To us, things are right and wrong. To the universe, they are only points in time and have no meaning....
@Jim Diver
Your axioms are:
a) the universe has no concept of right and wrong
b) humans do have a concept of right and wrong
Are we then to conclude that the human concept of right and wrong is not a part of the universe? That the human concept of right and wrong transcends nature?
The universe has no concept of right and wrong. Only empathic beings have that ability. To us, things are right and wrong. To the universe, they are only points in time and have no meaning....
@Jim Diver
Your axioms are:
a) the universe has no concept of right and wrong
b) humans do have a concept of right and wrong
Are we then to conclude that the human concept of right and wrong is not a part of the universe? That the human concept of right and wrong transcends nature?
nature isn't trying
Steven J asserts...
Nature isn't trying to make things better (and so can neither succeed nor fail in doing so).
@Steven J
Are you saying that the belief that nature is trying to make things better is incompatible with atheism?
Of course, you aren't suggesting that one of the logical consequences of atheism is the belief that nature cannot try to make things better.
Because that idea flies in the face of the definition of atheism that is repeated here so often, that atheism is distinguished ONLY by the absence of belief in God (or any Gods). According to the definition, the idea that "nature tries to improve things" is fully compatible with atheism.
Nature isn't trying to make things better (and so can neither succeed nor fail in doing so).
@Steven J
Are you saying that the belief that nature is trying to make things better is incompatible with atheism?
Of course, you aren't suggesting that one of the logical consequences of atheism is the belief that nature cannot try to make things better.
Because that idea flies in the face of the definition of atheism that is repeated here so often, that atheism is distinguished ONLY by the absence of belief in God (or any Gods). According to the definition, the idea that "nature tries to improve things" is fully compatible with atheism.
"I am not morally deficient"
Jim Delpy said...
Do you think there is a person who says "There is no God" and a person who doesn't believe there is a God?
Because I do.
Also, if you knew me, I am quite confident that you would admit that I am not morally deficient.
@Jim
You can be as confident as you want. But it doesn't really matter whether anyone judges you to be morally deficient or not.
What matters is that God will judge your words and your actions.
What matters is God's moral standard, and whether His perfect Law finds you to be morally deficient or not.
Do you think there is a person who says "There is no God" and a person who doesn't believe there is a God?
Because I do.
Also, if you knew me, I am quite confident that you would admit that I am not morally deficient.
@Jim
You can be as confident as you want. But it doesn't really matter whether anyone judges you to be morally deficient or not.
What matters is that God will judge your words and your actions.
What matters is God's moral standard, and whether His perfect Law finds you to be morally deficient or not.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
monsters
JimDiver said...
You can't call your God 'just', Raca. Any God that allows monsters like Dahmer into heaven just because he "believed and repented" isn't just by any standard.
@JimDiver
The evil, deplorable deeds of a man are monstrous.
But God does not call the man that commits those heinous acts a "monster".
God judges the evil deeds. God offers forgiveness to the one who committed the acts.
God's forgiveness is not offered "just because he believed and repented".
The forgiveness is offered only because God is able to offer it, and God is willing to offer it.
You can't call your God 'just', Raca. Any God that allows monsters like Dahmer into heaven just because he "believed and repented" isn't just by any standard.
@JimDiver
The evil, deplorable deeds of a man are monstrous.
But God does not call the man that commits those heinous acts a "monster".
God judges the evil deeds. God offers forgiveness to the one who committed the acts.
God's forgiveness is not offered "just because he believed and repented".
The forgiveness is offered only because God is able to offer it, and God is willing to offer it.
lambchopxoxo
"God will judge the EVIL that each man does. But that judgment is withheld until judgment day, the day of the Lord. "
lambchopxoxo said....
Not yours. Isn't that right? You will be viewed "through Christs righteousness" and it will be as if you never did anything wrong.
Think of the worst evil.... the most heinous thing that anyone could ever do. A little *heartfelt* confession/profession on the deathbed will take care of that all nice and neat. While the victims of whatever this act is could conceivably be burning forever in hell. This is not justice, ESPECIALLY by a human standard since this is the analogy that Ray so often loves to use.
@lambchpxoxo
No, lambchopxoxo. You are mistaken, the bible has no such teaching.
The evil that I do will be judged. The heinous acts will all be accounted. Every last one of them.
When you say "it will be as if you never did anything wrong", that idea is not from the Bible. That teaching is beyond foolish, it is an outright lie. All the wrongs I have committed will be judged. There will be no erasing of pain and suffering caused by my deeds.
The idea that "heartfelt confession" will "take care of that all nice and neat" is a foolish idea. That is not a teaching of the Bible.
All of my words and actions will be judged perfectly, by the ultimate judge. (The judge will not weigh the good that I have done against the evil I have done, that is not the measure) I will have full knowledge of the judgment. And the full penalty due my evil words and actions will be due.
And you will face the same judge, lambchopxoxo, on the appointed day. Your words and actions will be judged against the same moral standard.
All men will have their actions measured against the same, perfect standard.
Make no mistake, lambchopxoxo, God's justice will be perfect.
lambchopxoxo said....
Not yours. Isn't that right? You will be viewed "through Christs righteousness" and it will be as if you never did anything wrong.
Think of the worst evil.... the most heinous thing that anyone could ever do. A little *heartfelt* confession/profession on the deathbed will take care of that all nice and neat. While the victims of whatever this act is could conceivably be burning forever in hell. This is not justice, ESPECIALLY by a human standard since this is the analogy that Ray so often loves to use.
@lambchpxoxo
No, lambchopxoxo. You are mistaken, the bible has no such teaching.
The evil that I do will be judged. The heinous acts will all be accounted. Every last one of them.
When you say "it will be as if you never did anything wrong", that idea is not from the Bible. That teaching is beyond foolish, it is an outright lie. All the wrongs I have committed will be judged. There will be no erasing of pain and suffering caused by my deeds.
The idea that "heartfelt confession" will "take care of that all nice and neat" is a foolish idea. That is not a teaching of the Bible.
All of my words and actions will be judged perfectly, by the ultimate judge. (The judge will not weigh the good that I have done against the evil I have done, that is not the measure) I will have full knowledge of the judgment. And the full penalty due my evil words and actions will be due.
And you will face the same judge, lambchopxoxo, on the appointed day. Your words and actions will be judged against the same moral standard.
All men will have their actions measured against the same, perfect standard.
Make no mistake, lambchopxoxo, God's justice will be perfect.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
sporadic and rather random and careless
Steven J said...
First, Ray, you stated in your previous post, God ... is angry at humanity for all its evil. Disease, pain, suffering and death endorse the biblical account of both man's sin and God's holiness. That statement, in context, need not imply that the earthquake in Japan is God's immediate judgment on Japan for anything its people have done recently. Rather, it implies that the earthquake in Japan, the earlier ones in Chile and Haiti, and various other disasters, diseases, etc. are collectively God's judgments on humanity as a whole. But it still implies that the earthquake is God's judgment, just a sporadic and rather random and careless judgment.
Second, it is all very well to hand out the occasional meal voucher, monetary donation or jacket (or book) and tell us how much you love us. But when you go around and make statements that escape being defamatory simply because they are too absurd to be taken seriously, such as "atheists think that earthquakes are just nature improving itself," you obviously don't love us enough to refrain from insulting us in gratuitous and inane ways. And while only some of us are recipients of your charity, all of us are recipients of your falsehoods and insults (and note that you surely must have known that the above statement, when you made it, was both insulting and false).
@Steven J
No, that statement does not imply any such thing. God's judgment is neither sporadic nor random nor careless. Ray certainly never implied that.
God will judge the EVIL that each man does. But that judgment is withheld until judgment day, the day of the Lord.
The Lord's anger burns against those that commit evil, yes, but God's anger is not the same thing as God's judgment.
You lay claim to some higher moral ground, and accuse Ray of "falsehoods" and "insults", when you yourself make the deliberate choice to belittle Ray and misrepresent what Ray has said.
First, Ray, you stated in your previous post, God ... is angry at humanity for all its evil. Disease, pain, suffering and death endorse the biblical account of both man's sin and God's holiness. That statement, in context, need not imply that the earthquake in Japan is God's immediate judgment on Japan for anything its people have done recently. Rather, it implies that the earthquake in Japan, the earlier ones in Chile and Haiti, and various other disasters, diseases, etc. are collectively God's judgments on humanity as a whole. But it still implies that the earthquake is God's judgment, just a sporadic and rather random and careless judgment.
Second, it is all very well to hand out the occasional meal voucher, monetary donation or jacket (or book) and tell us how much you love us. But when you go around and make statements that escape being defamatory simply because they are too absurd to be taken seriously, such as "atheists think that earthquakes are just nature improving itself," you obviously don't love us enough to refrain from insulting us in gratuitous and inane ways. And while only some of us are recipients of your charity, all of us are recipients of your falsehoods and insults (and note that you surely must have known that the above statement, when you made it, was both insulting and false).
@Steven J
No, that statement does not imply any such thing. God's judgment is neither sporadic nor random nor careless. Ray certainly never implied that.
God will judge the EVIL that each man does. But that judgment is withheld until judgment day, the day of the Lord.
The Lord's anger burns against those that commit evil, yes, but God's anger is not the same thing as God's judgment.
You lay claim to some higher moral ground, and accuse Ray of "falsehoods" and "insults", when you yourself make the deliberate choice to belittle Ray and misrepresent what Ray has said.
i think you both agree ...
Milocat said..
I think you both agree that the unsaved are depraved, evil, children of Satan, and the object of God's wrath.
@Milocat
No, I don't agree that the "unsaved" are the object of God's wrath.
God's wrath is directed at evil. God's judgment is against the EVIL things that people do. God's love is directed at ALL people. God desires for ALL people to be saved.
God does not intend for ANY person to go hell (the place that destroys both body and soul.) Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. It is not the intended destination for people.
Everyone is a sinner. All have fallen short of God's standard. There is no one that deserves to be saved. No, not one.
Fred Phelps is wrong to pick out homosexual acts as somehow being especially despicable and somehow being more deserving of God's wrath than any other sin.
Fred Phelps is wrong that "God hates fags". The truth is that God loves people and desires all people to be saved. God hates the sin. God loves the sinner.
So, no, I don't agree that the "unsaved" are the object of God's wrath.
I think you both agree that the unsaved are depraved, evil, children of Satan, and the object of God's wrath.
@Milocat
No, I don't agree that the "unsaved" are the object of God's wrath.
God's wrath is directed at evil. God's judgment is against the EVIL things that people do. God's love is directed at ALL people. God desires for ALL people to be saved.
God does not intend for ANY person to go hell (the place that destroys both body and soul.) Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. It is not the intended destination for people.
Everyone is a sinner. All have fallen short of God's standard. There is no one that deserves to be saved. No, not one.
Fred Phelps is wrong to pick out homosexual acts as somehow being especially despicable and somehow being more deserving of God's wrath than any other sin.
Fred Phelps is wrong that "God hates fags". The truth is that God loves people and desires all people to be saved. God hates the sin. God loves the sinner.
So, no, I don't agree that the "unsaved" are the object of God's wrath.
Monday, March 14, 2011
No justice.
Matt Volpato said...
Non-believers: Burn forever.
Serial rapists who repent: Reward forever.
No justice.
Matt,
God invites EVERYONE. God desires EVERYONE to be saved. His invitation goes out to EVERYONE.
Some choose to accept God's invitation, some choose not to.
God's judgment is against the EVIL that a person does.
God's justice demands that a PENALTY is due, and that the penalty be paid in full.
You object to the penalty that is due.
Or, you don't like the way that God has chosen to pay that penalty.
You choose refuse the invitation.
Non-believers: Burn forever.
Serial rapists who repent: Reward forever.
No justice.
Matt,
God invites EVERYONE. God desires EVERYONE to be saved. His invitation goes out to EVERYONE.
Some choose to accept God's invitation, some choose not to.
God's judgment is against the EVIL that a person does.
God's justice demands that a PENALTY is due, and that the penalty be paid in full.
You object to the penalty that is due.
Or, you don't like the way that God has chosen to pay that penalty.
You choose refuse the invitation.
how do i bless somebody's name?
captain howdy asks...
How? How do I bless somebody's name? Do I need to get some Holy Water?
Why does His name need to be blessed if it's already holy, anyway?
Captain Howdy,
"Holy" means "set apart".
"Blessed" means "revered".
We have a choice in how we approach God. We choose either to be reverent or to be profane.
When one says "Blessed be His holy name", what they are saying is that they are making a choice, that they hold God's name to be of great value. They are saying that God's name is worthy of reverence.
How? How do I bless somebody's name? Do I need to get some Holy Water?
Why does His name need to be blessed if it's already holy, anyway?
Captain Howdy,
"Holy" means "set apart".
"Blessed" means "revered".
We have a choice in how we approach God. We choose either to be reverent or to be profane.
When one says "Blessed be His holy name", what they are saying is that they are making a choice, that they hold God's name to be of great value. They are saying that God's name is worthy of reverence.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
any person explain why
blackswandiaries said...
I've yet to hear any person explain why homosexuality, pornography, or fornication is wrong outside of "Well, God says it wrong." If it's wrong, we should be able to deduce why we think that's the case as opposed to just taking someone's word for it. I'll always demand a proof of a mathematical theory and never take the mathematician's word on it for instance. Why can't the same apply here? (Other than there is no ultimate moral lawgiver or consistent morality between all humans beings).
@blackswandiaries
It's unfortunate that you are unable to hear. Because, there are certainly explanations as to why pornography is "wrong", beyond "God says it wrong" [sic].
I've yet to hear any person explain why homosexuality, pornography, or fornication is wrong outside of "Well, God says it wrong." If it's wrong, we should be able to deduce why we think that's the case as opposed to just taking someone's word for it. I'll always demand a proof of a mathematical theory and never take the mathematician's word on it for instance. Why can't the same apply here? (Other than there is no ultimate moral lawgiver or consistent morality between all humans beings).
@blackswandiaries
It's unfortunate that you are unable to hear. Because, there are certainly explanations as to why pornography is "wrong", beyond "God says it wrong" [sic].
Do you?
Cola Boy Jr said....
As yes, the typical Christian retort. You see, I don't follow a religion that tells me to do so:
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Mat 19:21
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.Luke 12:33
Don't you want to be perfect? Don't you want the ultimate treasure in Heaven?
I don't have a deitiy who i profess to follow without question telling me to give up my possesions and follow him.
Do you?
It's so very convienant that followers of Christ take everything he says to heart., except for giving everything away to the poor. That part gets skipped or re-written to fit into their own lives.
Cola Boy Jr,
It's unfortunate that you misrepresent the teaching.
Instead of demonstrating a clear understanding what Jesus taught, you instead substitute your own misguided ideas.
You do others a great disservice by claiming that your bad ideas are a teaching from the Bible.
It's evident that you aren't interested in what Jesus actually taught, but that you are instead intent on spreading misinformation about what Jesus taught.
The truth is "that part" is not "skipped over or re-written" [sic]. It is well understood by many who have chosen to follow Jesus.
"That part" was a specific instruction given to a specific individual. That specific instruction was not incumbent upon every member of the Church.
For the rich young man, his wealth was in the way of his obedience to Jesus. His money and his possessions stood between him and his following Jesus.
Jesus was teaching about the things that stand between you and following Him. For the rich young man, Jesus knew what that thing was. From the text, we know the man desired to follow Jesus, he acknowledged God, and had kept all of God's commandments.
But there was still one thing that stood between the rich young man and his decision to follow Jesus. There was one thing that he was unwilling to surrender.
The question for you, Cola Boy Jr, is what is it that stands between you and God? What is it that you are unwilling to give up, in order to follow Jesus?
As yes, the typical Christian retort. You see, I don't follow a religion that tells me to do so:
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Mat 19:21
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.Luke 12:33
Don't you want to be perfect? Don't you want the ultimate treasure in Heaven?
I don't have a deitiy who i profess to follow without question telling me to give up my possesions and follow him.
Do you?
It's so very convienant that followers of Christ take everything he says to heart., except for giving everything away to the poor. That part gets skipped or re-written to fit into their own lives.
Cola Boy Jr,
It's unfortunate that you misrepresent the teaching.
Instead of demonstrating a clear understanding what Jesus taught, you instead substitute your own misguided ideas.
You do others a great disservice by claiming that your bad ideas are a teaching from the Bible.
It's evident that you aren't interested in what Jesus actually taught, but that you are instead intent on spreading misinformation about what Jesus taught.
The truth is "that part" is not "skipped over or re-written" [sic]. It is well understood by many who have chosen to follow Jesus.
"That part" was a specific instruction given to a specific individual. That specific instruction was not incumbent upon every member of the Church.
For the rich young man, his wealth was in the way of his obedience to Jesus. His money and his possessions stood between him and his following Jesus.
Jesus was teaching about the things that stand between you and following Him. For the rich young man, Jesus knew what that thing was. From the text, we know the man desired to follow Jesus, he acknowledged God, and had kept all of God's commandments.
But there was still one thing that stood between the rich young man and his decision to follow Jesus. There was one thing that he was unwilling to surrender.
The question for you, Cola Boy Jr, is what is it that stands between you and God? What is it that you are unwilling to give up, in order to follow Jesus?
Friday, March 11, 2011
Earthquakes
AnnaSethe asks:
Why do you think about what to do during an earthquake? Don't you trust your God to save you?
Anna, those are reasonable questions.
Do we trust God to keep his promises?
Does God promise to protect us from earthquakes?
Why do you think about what to do during an earthquake? Don't you trust your God to save you?
Anna, those are reasonable questions.
Do we trust God to keep his promises?
Does God promise to protect us from earthquakes?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
some such nonsense
Bullhorn Twotails says:
Christianity's exhortations to the faithful: "Feel small, despised & worthless, & What'sHisName will coming running to mop your sweaty brow." Or some such nonsense.
@BT
That's not a message of Christianity. The nonsense you spout speaks very little about Christianity. But it does speak volumes to how little you understand about Christianity.
Christianity's exhortations to the faithful: "Feel small, despised & worthless, & What'sHisName will coming running to mop your sweaty brow." Or some such nonsense.
@BT
That's not a message of Christianity. The nonsense you spout speaks very little about Christianity. But it does speak volumes to how little you understand about Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)