Interesting Theological Point

[A Twig]

This is purely an academic exercise so please don't flame me with accusations that I am unGodly, Im just interested to hear what people make of this.

2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

I.e. everything in the Bible is true 'cos it comes from God. YET there are contradictions in the Bible between OT and NT. At this point many counter that this is because in the times of the OT God had to make himself manifest in more obvious and dramatic ways, and he makes his message clear in differing ways.

 Ok, that I can handle

A Christian God is by nature omnipotent, personally benevolent, omnipresent and transcendent. Surely then, if he was truly all of these things the above would have been no way possible. If he is truly personally benevolent, why doesn't he use his omnipotence to get the message across and save everyone?

So, the fact that this does not happen, and God kills a few million Egyptians (where's the benevolence there) surely casts doubts on Christianity as it exists today.

Christians then say that Christianity is based on the NT, and that Jesus' teachings replace that which has gone before. Ok fair enough, but then 2 Tim 3:16 is wrong! And not everything in the Bible is suitable, so then therefore what is and what isn't? Does it then become subjective? Do we end up with radicalisation as in the German Reformation, with everyone trying to find their own route to salvation, and social disruption, iconoclasm, and general chaos resulting? Or do we go a more structured route, as in the RC Church.

The RC's option of the penitential cycle is all well and good, but on what authority do such things rest? The Bible? Well that could be wrong. The Pope as God's given representative? But man is fallen, we are tainted etc, how can we truly interpret what God wants from us? And again, the fact that God has to transmit the word throuhg a contradictory book, and an elected official - omnipotence? Hardly I think. So how therefor can God exist in the state which Christianity declares that he does?

Anyways, that is one of the main planks upon which my current Athiesm rests. However, I am always interested in academic debate, if there are any who can find fault with this please go ahead, who knows, I may still yet be converted!

[TeaLeaf]

OK, I'll bite and take the agnostic route to deal with the below comments.

Originally posted by A Twig+Aug 31 2004, 01:14 AM-->

[A Twig]

I could take the HHGTTG line of argument here and claim 'proof denies faith' but instead I'll run with the 'why should he save us?' argument, and the 'Save yourself, don't wait for some omnipotence to save you' argument. If your postulation falls here, then the rest of your statement has a long way to walk.

Surely being personally benevolent is a good justification for saving us?

Originally posted by A Twig@Aug 31 2004, 01:14 AM
Christians then say that Christianity is based on the NT, and that Jesus' teachings replace that which has gone before. Ok fair enough, but then 2 Tim 3:16 is wrong! And not everything in the Bible is suitable, so then therefore what is and what isn't? Does it then become subjective? Do we end up with radicalisation as in the German Reformation, with everyone trying to find their own route to salvation, and social disruption, iconoclasm, and general chaos resulting? Or do we go a more structured route, as in the RC Church.

Ok, put in a slightly more structured way, where is the justification for the Bible? How do Christians know that the Bible is the word of God, other than 2 Tim 3:16?
I won't write it out again, but surely then, with 2 Tim 3:16 saying everything in the Bible is right, surely to question one part, or for a contradiction to exist casts doubt on the validity of the rest?
Ok my German Ref. comparison was slightly over the top, but still, how do you then decide which parts of the Bible are "right" (for want of a better word), and which aren't?

Going back to the light-hearted 'proof denies faith' argument does illustrate point. The value and understanding of various religious standards would not be appreciated if it were just delivered gift-wrapped. If you are an atheist it is difficult for you to state that man is fallen and tainted as that statement assumes you start from a position of faith from which you have fallen or become tainted. No God, no fallen; no God, no tainted.

In the same way that good cannot exist without evil, then faith cannot exist without its absence? I assume that's the point you're making.
My whole fallen thing is addressing percieved flaws within a particular religion, Christianity, and Christianity makes the basic assumption that you have an omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent and personally benevolent God. Hence I, although not personally believing in it, think I am perfectly justified in using Christian teachings to refute other Christian teachings to point out what I see as their flaws.

Surely God's creation, to result in the Fall of Man, must have been flawed. Yet Genesis states consistently that creation was good. Which casts doubt therefore either on God's personal benevolence, or onto his omnipotence, which is to deny that God exists in the state that Xianity says he does. If this can be re-conciled that would be fantastic, but I cannot see how this is possible.

Surely in a world where Man often has to choose between the lesser of two evils, surely that is an imperfect world? How has this come about therefore? From Man's free will? There is a case as to whether free will exists or not, but surely God, being transcendent, could see problems, and so why the need to resort to drastic measures such as Noah's Flood? Hardly very personally benevolent, drowning all these people?

But I will stop here as you will no doubt say "This paragraph has way too many massive leaps of faith (to coin a phrase) and you should really re-word it after some carefull thought about whether or not your broad-brush conclusions can be made after such short, sweeping and unconfirmed statements" TL

[TeaLeaf]

Originally posted by A Twig+Aug 31 2004, 12:59 PM-->

[A Twig]

Actually I was arguing that as you are a person of great faith, you have measured another person using standards in which you yourself do not believe. If you assess them as tainted, you must have applied to them a set of criteria in which you do not believe. Therefore you cannot logically conclude that tainted people cannot correctly interpret what is or may be God's will.

You can judge a person by his own standards. According to Xian's (which is simply an abbreviated form of Christian by the way, Zian/Zion and Zian/Zionists may be what you're thinking of) the Bible is the word of God. God is perfect. Man however is not, due to original sin. The only perfect Man (i.e. without sin) was Jesus, and that is because he was the son of God. Sin is seperation from God. Therefore if you have original sin you are at least in some way seperate from God. How then, with this seperateness, and lack of perfection can you comprehend that which is perfect? How can an entity which is not perfect complete the actions of one that is. There will be mistakes, purely by definition of those who wrote the Bible being fallible human beings. Therefore what of the Bible is "true" and what isn't?

And as much as the story made me laugh, it is largely wrong.

The dictionary states:
per·fect  adj.
1) Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2) Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3) Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4) Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

Without defect or blemish. Therefore a perfect system must have perfect components otherwise there are by definition defects and blemishes.
Completely suited again everything in its entirity must be completely suited, otherwise it itself is imperfect.

"Yes yes," I hear you say, "all these natural disasters are perfect, they help to regulate population size, prevent overcrowding etc etc." Surely the fact that these measures are necessary points to imperfection, and the fact that control is needed points to imperfection. This also assumes that God created the Earth, which is largely I think what you assume by saying that his Creation is in fact perfect.

Hence I nicely come onto the creationism Argument

There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most creationists probably aren’t aware of it.  By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove.  Purpose is a human concept.  In the Universe, I maintain, things have no intrinsic purpose; they just exist.  Does an atom have any purpose?  Does a rock?  Does a star?  Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose?  We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating, of creating more life.  However, we must realize that this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation.  Rocks, trees, people, and the Universe have no intrinsic purpose.  We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good; but it’s important to understand that purpose is a human construct.  Thus when creationists begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove.

A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the Universe.  The idea of God used to make sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an Earth and everything else.  The Universe was much simpler then.  The Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament.  It contained the stars and held back the celestial waters.  Above that were heaven and God.

We now know that the Universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient.  It is the height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole Universe was made just for us.  Our perspective has changed.  We are no longer at the center of the Universe â€" not our planet, not our star, and not even our galaxy.  As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center.  It is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either.

It is also necessary to note that in order for creationism to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.  These fields of science make predictions and get results.  Creationism makes no verifiable predictions and gets no results.

Right, a philosophical refutation then, based on your favourite weapon, logic.

I quote from a source to save me typing it all out. The concept of God is incoherent, that there are logical problems with the existence of such a being. Perhaps the best known of these is the paradox of the stone: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do (i.e. create the stone), and he is therefore not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is something else that he cannot do (i.e. lift the stone), and he is therefore not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist.

Morality
An important objection against the existence of the god of the Bible focuses on this god’s character. The god of the Bible isn’t simply an ideal abstraction; in Western religious traditions we find many stories about what God has done or commanded believers to do. Often such actions are contrary to basic moral principles; at the same time, God is described as the source of morality. How can this be?

What are we to make of a god which is supposed to be morally perfect and represent a moral ideal when, at the same time, religious tradition makes this god out to be a moral monster? How can a god that commands mass slaughter and rape also be the source for morality in the universe?

These are important questions because religious theists in the West believe both the truth of the claim that God is the source of morality and of the claim that God has committed or commanded atrocious acts which people today would recoil in horror from.

If these two claims are contradictory, the people are worshipping a god that cannot exist.
An argument against such a god can be formally stated thus:

God is morally perfect (premise)
Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

Omniscience and Transcendence

Omniscience is not in any way compatible with free will. It has been observed many times that if a god knows the future with infallible certainty, then what this god knows will necessarily happen - there is no possibility for anything else to occur. We are, then, incapable of altering the future. Although the concept of human "free will" is hotly contested, I'm not aware of any theory of free will which could be conidered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future. If a god knows who will win the next presidential election, then it isn't possible for anyone else to win. That's predestination - and some theologians have unflinchingly embraced it, for example John Calvin.

Others, however, have recognized that this is a tremendous problem and have sought to remedy it. A few try to argue that their god is transcendant, and hence sees the whole course of history all at once. This doesn't ultimately solve the problem at hand: even if a god is simply sitting outside of time and observing the whole of history, then that means that only one course of history is possible - otherwise the picture for this god would keep shifting and it wouldn't have perfect knowledge of what happens. At best, it means that we are predestined without this god forcing it - but we are still predestined, just with an unintelligible god acting as an audience.

Still others reach for a more popular solution, namely to argue that their god has a "limited omniscience." This god knows everything, where everything means only what it can logically know. Everything doesn't really mean "everything" anymore - instead it means a limited but not yet defined set of things which will become more limited as more problems with the concept of omniscience are discovered.

Thus, certain realms of knowledge are closed to the supposedly "omniscient" god. We will revisit this again later, but from the outset it seems clear that a "limited omniscience" linguistically nonsensical. The word "limited" and the prefix "omni-" logically contradict each other. If a god is in any fashion limited in its knowledge, then it isn't really omniscient - and to say that it is becomes an exercise in confusion, if not deception.

The Free-Will Argument Re-phrased

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.
Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.


Argument from Religious Faith
Now, let’s look at religious faith.  What is faith?  It is the firm belief in something for which no proof exists.  As Mark Twain once said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."  Faith proves nothing, except the bullheadedness of the believer.  If you have faith, you don’t need proof.  If you have proof, you don’t need faith.  Therefore, any attempt to use faith as a basis for proof is intrinsically doomed to failure.  A recent example of absolute faith and its possible consequences can illustrate the objective failures of religious faith.  I ask you, on September 11, 2001, whose faith was the most effective?  I say that it was the suicidal pilots of those three planes that crashed into the buildings.  If you believe in the primacy of religious faith, there is no way to differentiate between yours and theirs, for it is all purely subjective.  Religious faith fails as a proof for God.

Well, there we go, dredged all that little lot up, this is quite a fun way to do my research actually! I always make my last bite worthwhile!

[A Twig]

Just realised quite how long it is.  :huh:  Sorry  

[TeaLeaf]

Originally posted by A Twig+Sep 1 2004, 01:21 AM-->

[Anonymous]

Bible = History Book

History book = Some fact, some fiction, some lies, some misunderstandings, some distortions and some embellishments

Ergo don't believe everything you read especially as it was written by human beings

[A Twig]

:withstupid:

Exactly!

There are errors, so the Bible cannot be totally right! So, what I am asking, is what bits are right, and what bits aren't?

QUOTE (A Twig @ Sep 1 2004, 01:21 AM)
Morality
SNIP


Sorry, but that was boring. It goes over old ground of context, believing everything you read and assuming that a perfect system can only contain perfect components. As we have already debunked that myth I have not bothered arguing specifics.

Disagree with you there. God says he does not tempt us, He does not use evil to test us (James 1:13). YET, many examples show him testing the faith of believers, giving Isiah to the Devil to allow him to be tempted, allowing evil to happen to Jonah? Is that moral? When he was capable of stopping it. Inaction is just as bad as inappropriate action.

ISAIAH 48:10 NKJ
10 Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.

Oh and of course, Abraham.
"Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham .  And He said, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . ."

Why? Why if he is transcendant, etc etc does he need to test?

Snipping out bits isn't an excuse not to answer them properly!  

[TeaLeaf]

Thank you for waiting, your call is important to us.
Please hold the line until an operator becomes available.
In the mean time, please remember that you are all out of cherries.

TL.

[A Twig]

             Git  

[smilodon]

The reality is that we can theorise about the Bible or any religious text that supposes to be whe word of God until the end of time and sadly we'll get nowhere according to Christians.

The simple truth is God is infalable and we're not. God understands and knows us utterly and we cannot begin to understand or know God in her entirety. That we don't understand the Bible, or see contradictions or flaws in logic proves we are falable and cannot know the mind of God. Christianity sees this arguement as an illustration of our arrogance in that we feel we must understand everything about our world. If we don't then rather than us being wrong, God must be wrong. A humble person would accept that they will never know the mind of God and that we wern't put her to do so.

Any flaw in the texts of the bible is  due to us not understanding the message.  God is omnipotent and we're children.

That's the given Christian doctrine which it's hard to argue against. Stating that I'm too stupid to understand the enormous complexities of Gods mind or her plan for the world is something of a conversation killer. I either have to accept it or reject it. I can't argue effectively about it.  

[A Twig]

Thankyou, a decent counter from a Christian perspective. That's what I was kind of after with all this. Cheers, what with that and my research my investigation should be a blinder!  

[Gh0st Face Killah]

:lmfao: Rofl @ Smilo :lmfao:

Madam God!! :lmfao: