God's Villainy

[Sophus]

To forgive is to excuse. You shouldn't excuse a killer because in doing so you allow the possibility for him to do it again. You cannot work toward bettering the world if every horrible thing is to be "forgiven".

I don't know if I agree with that.  I forgive my ex husband for beating me up, but I don't feel like I've excused his actions by any stretch of the imagination.  Maybe I don't understand your full meaning here?

I think there's a difference between not holding a grudge against a person or moving on with one's life versus excusing an awful action that a person did. In a sense, to forgive can have two different meanings, the way I see it.

Sophus, there is a difference in comparing Christianity to a drug verses comparing it to a drug addiction. Knowledge can be compared to a drug. Alcohol, for instance, is not necessarily bad in and of itself, whereas alcoholism obviously is. To compare Christianity, then, to something like alcoholism is vulgar at best.

Any religion can be compared to an addiction of any kind for some religious people. Not all. Some people eat a lot after a death in the family. Others pray a lot or become more religious for their own soul's sake.

As far as your point goes, yes, all virtues have goals, and yes, we do things for a reason. It does not follow, however, that those reasons must be related to what we get out of it.

This is a blatant contradiction.

Give one example of something you do that you get absolutely nothing out of.

[pinkocommie]

I think you're right.  I think the forgiveness I feel toward my ex might not even be considered "real forgiveness" by some people since I won't go so far as to ignore that it ever happened or forget it completely.  Also, I don't know if I would have forgiven him were it not for our son and wanting to facilitate a relationship between the two of them.  Having said that, I don't think I'm capable of the kind of forgiveness that excuses the person's actions.  I feel like if you can excuse someone's actions, you shouldn't have to forgive them to begin with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Certainly we may derive something from our relationships, but that does not mean that our relationships are based on what we derive from them, and that if what we get ceases to come from it that we should therefore abandon it. I would submit that isn't love at all.

Hmm.  What if your wife cheated on you?  Or what if she stopped treating you decently?

Edit: I see you've already answered this.  You can disregard this, sorry.

1. The word "better" in "know better" implies that you have a superior idea than another. You can only "know" your idea is superior if you know that it better fits all the variables. If you don't know all the variables, you can't know whether or not your idea is better at all. To use a very earthly analogy, I refrain from discussing foreign policy issues (in terms of actual policy; philosophy is another matter). While I disagree in principle with some of Obama's policies, I don't criticize them for the simple reason that I know that he is in possession of far more information than I am. Perhaps there is a reason he can't reveal for security reasons that, were I aware of it, I would agree--or at least would be more likely to agree. The same is true with God. The only way to say that you have a better idea is to claim that you not only are aware of all existing facts, but of all potential facts given different circumstances. I can't make such a claim, so I can't claim to know better than God. I have my doubts that you can either.

By this logic, you cannot say anything is better than anything else.  I should hope the fallacy is plain to you.  It is obvious to me.  Demanding perfect information before a judgment is rendered is simply another way of saying "My god is perfect, and you're not, so you have no right to judge him," when in fact you've not evidenced him yet.  As such, I am entitled to use my personal judgment to assess your claim of his "perfect" morality.  Therefore, I reject this argument.  You can only claim that your god's knowledge trumps mine when you can demonstrate that 1) God exists, and 2) that he knows more than I do.

2. I'll refrain from discussions on Hell until we get to that thread. Until then, I'll simply agree that God does know your skepticism better than you do, which means He knows better than you do why you are a skeptic. It will be very difficult to tell God that He was wrong about anything come judgment day (oh, look, another veiled PW!).

Then in that event, for him to judge men is immoral, as he is withholding information that he knows would prevent the evil of eternal torment.

Also, if you wish to introduce sarcasm into this conversation, I'm more than willing to oblige you.  Be forewarned.

3. Poets make their ideas intentionally obscure for their own reasons. The analogy holds. The question is whether or not God could have a reason to be intentionally obscure.I answer, most emphatically, yes. Yes he could.

Until you posit a credible premise that doesn't violate his omnipotence, this sort of posting is merely dodging the point.  I ask you now:  Why could not an omnipotent, omnibeneficent god devise a more humane method of dealing with Adam and Eve's disobedience aside from sentencing to death every man, woman, and child in history?  Are you honestly arguing that this could possibly be just?  Tell me, would it be just for a teacher to fail all the children on an exam if he caught one cheating?  Was it just for Roosevelt to imprison over 100,000 Nisei simply because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?

Again, we can discuss questions about Hell later.

Well, it goes to the issue of omnipotence and injustice.  I will grant this deferral, on your promise to open that thread.

Nonsense. This is an idea we've long ago gotten passed. Who is your favorite sports team? I'm in Atlanta, so let's say, for the sake of argument, it is the Braves. Does the fact that you like the Braves mean that you cannot give an objective account of the game? In fact, would not your fondness for the team make you more inclined to be sure that every detail is accurate? In fact, if you really love the team, you would insist that even their flaws be properly reported so that they could fix them.

Personally, yes, unless they were a jealous team, who would not tolerate me speaking ill of them, and if I did would doom me to fire for all eternity.  If when I was three or four you told me this about the Braves, you can be damned sure I would kiss Ted Turner's ass.  Every Sunday.  

Also, it's funny that you'd compare your faith to sports fandom.  

I am an extremely devout Christian. At the end of the day, after the scholarship and philosophy have done their work, I deeply love my God and savior and enjoy the communion I have with Him. When I read the Bible, which I firmly believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I insist on absolute objectivity for one very basic reason: if God has something to say that contradicts what I say, I want to know it. To read into the text what I want it to say is not to love God, but a caricature of my own making. C. S. Lewis once said the greatest prayer we can utter is 'Lord, let me know You, not as I know You, but as You know Yourself to be.' (Paraphrased, of course.)

True objectivity would consist of questioning the very premise of his existence, and right now, I sincerely doubt your ability, or willingness, to do so.

Full disclosure: I am deeply in the minority opinion on this in both Christian and non-Christian scholarship. It is a common assumption that objectivity is impossible. That is another debate for another thread. But your objection that one cannot be objective because they are inclined to agree with the worldview of the text they are studying itself at least goes too far.

You would deny that social programming happens?

They get that from Rev. 3:20, where Jesus says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (KJV) Unfortunately, they don't pay close attention to what they are reading. They read "I will come in to him" as if it says "I will come into him." It is actually rather heretical. Salvation is not by prayer. It is by faith (John 3:16). To say a person must pray a "sinner's prayer" and "invite Jesus into your heart" denies the Gospel. Here is an excellent little essay titled Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart. I highly recommend it.

Second, look again at my words. God is not, philosophically speaking, located anywhere. He is the case of every where, since He is the First Cause (see the first argument). Theologically we can say God is "everywhere," but by that we only mean that no matter where you go, you can't get away from God.

So say ye.

1. Pi is an irrational number, not an exact number.

I'm well aware of this.  That is why when the Bible uses the exact number three, it is wrong.  Thank you for reinforcing my point.

 

As far as the verse you are referring to, it says, "And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick..." (1 Ki 7:23, 26). I don't see a statement there that says "pi equals three." It describes the measurements of a round object that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. Since a cubit wasn't standardized (it was the measurement from the elbow to the end of your finger, usually around 20 inches), you can hardly say that the Bible declares pi to equal three. This is rather petty.

If your god cannot finesse such a "petty" detail as this in his self-inspired book, then I dunno, he doesn't look all that grand anyway.  You expect me to believe that he can create a universe, but cannot formulate a simple equation?  

Also, have you had grade-school math?  One of the basic requirements is the ability to formulate an equation given a word problem.  Now, do I need to lay out how this passage translates into "pi=3"?  After all, you plead interpretation of your bible to explain away inconvenient passages.  Now it is you who are trying to have it boths ways.  If you can plead "interpretation", I can as well, and do so here.  Furthermore, my interpretation is unassailable, because it is based mathematically, and not on vague linguistics.

2. The theology we get out of the OT is derived from its history. It makes very few normative statements. Therefore, you cannot derive prescriptive statements from the OT (or even the Gospels and Acts, for that matter) without treating the texts historically. Therefore, since you cannot do history without carrying about what the author believed (read Baruch Halpern's The First Historiansi], no Christian, and no conservative for more on this), you cannot know what the OT means for your faith, or lackthereof, without considering what the Israelites believed.

Okay, since I need to spell out everything, I will.  I do not care what they think, because I have considered it, and I consider them to be greatly in error, both factually and morally.  I have presented examples of both.

3. My use of the word "little" refers to pettiness and difficulty to overcome. There are "little" contradictions and "major" contradictions, all of which turn out to be no contradiction at all upon examinations. Now, have I looked at all the supposed contradictions in the Bible? No, but I have literally looked at hundreds (and written papers galore on them). There is no contradiction on this issue.

What you seem to not understand here is that a perfect god cannot make an imperfect communication.  Your only reasonable answer to this is that your god is obscurantist, but then than undercuts any claims of him wanting humans to be saved from hell.  If he wants us saved, he can make it so, indirectly, by making the Bible clear enough to understand -- or directly, by cancelling the evil rules he makes, like "You were born human.  Unless you worship me you will burn forever."

Odd that you would think that God would have had them write using modern taxonomic terms. Or why those terms at all? Perhaps in the future, we will classify animals differently. Perhaps God should have used those classifications instead?

Perhaps if god was really interested in saving men, he would place unmistakable signs of his presence in the bible, such as modern terminology that the Hebrews would have no way of knowing.  "Hey, Moses, bats are gonna be called Chiropterae.  I know you don't know how to spell it, just hold on, I'll spell it out for you.  Look, I know you didn't study Latin.  Would quit griping and get back to writing?"  It would've been that easy.  Now, if little old ignorant human me can think of such an easy way to remove doubt, why couldn't your god have thought so?  That is my point -- not biological accuracy.

The fact is rather simple - a bat can properly be called a tsippowr. If you would prefer, simply translate it "winged creature."

True, but this sentence is based on a misapprehension of my argument, as explained above.

There are no deep contradictions in the Christian conceptualization. There may be deep contradictions in the way people look at God who haven't wanted to do the hard work of studying history, theology, and philosophy. The Bible, however, is abundantly clear on the important things, i.e., that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. John 3:16 is rather clear: "For this is how God loved the world: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who puts their faith in Him will never perish, but will instead have everlasting life" (my translation, but pick any you like).

No, there are deep contradictions.  The fact that you choose to apologize for them rather than examine them is a pity, and what I regard as a misuse of an obviously fine mind.

Maybe pi and bats are what is keeping you from believing, but I'm willing to bet that isn't the case. Again, God knows your skepticism very well--better than you do. He knows the root of it--better than you do. He's provided a solution (assuming He is real, of course). If He is real, and if you stand before Him in unbelief, it will be no problem for Him to point at the exact place and moment where you made the conscious choice. Now, perhaps that place and moment hasn't come yet. I don't know. But He does. In the meantime, however, there's not much to say in regard to His being unclear. Of all the things He's been, clarity is most definitely not the problem. Or, to quote that great philosopher Mark Twain, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

What an unfortunate choice of quote.  

To answer your supposition, I object to the obvious immorality of your god, his obvious evil, and it saddens me that Christians cannot see it.

You are assuming God is obligated to justify Himself to you. He's told you what He has done and will do. You get to respond to it, and before you complain again about PW, I'm not saying you belief on this basis. Fear is no motivator to belief. But with that said, it does not follow therefore that God is obligated to fully explain Himself to you. He has provided sufficient reason for humans to believe. I am one of billions of people who are evidence of that, and there are people who have been far more intelligent than either one of us who have believed. Asking God to treat you differently is just special pleading. That's one of the things about God -- He's no respecter of persons.

His reasons are insufficient to rational people.  That you find them sufficient says much more about you than it does about god.

Also, I have emphasized another unjust quality of your god: he has no respect for lesser beings.  I cannot remember who it was who said, "We as a society are judged by how we treat the weakest amongst us," but I damned sure agree with the sentiment.  Simply because he is claimed to be all-powerful is no excuse for his evils.  "Might makes right" doesn't work for me.  If it does for you, I don't know what to say

If you only view Christianity as a set of ethical teachings, then you would be right. As an aside, that is part of my beef with the western church. Because of its underlying philosophy, it has turned to moralism, which any philosophy can give you (and many have throughout history).

Remember, I believe that morality is objective, and therefore, you don't need the Bible to tell you right from wrong. You know how you ought to treat others. My complaint that you were ridiculing my faith is one simple example. If you didn't think you ought not ridicule people's most deeply cherished beliefs, you would have just said, "So what? Why should I care if you don't like it!" But you know it's wrong to do so, for whatever reason you assign it as wrong (take your pick -- you will likely be right). So, yes, on that count, if Christianity is true, it probably wouldn't change your life very much. It will, however, change your motivation in your behavior, your belief system as it relates to your position in the world, and, ultimately, your eternal fate.

Thank you for at least acknowledging this.  Being slurred by theists gets pretty old.  

My signature answers this. God is sovereign, and my personal opinion is that this, above all, is the great offense to the non-Christian mind (and, by the way, to many a Christians!). We constantly assume that God must be under the same standard we are, which in effect makes Him accountable to us. God, however, is accountable to no one. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. He would be within His rights to throw us all into Hell for eternity just the heck of it and we could say nothing about it. We could complain "That isn't fair!" to which He could retort, "So what? Who makes fair?" And there would be nothing to say, because it would be a simple matter of our word against His.

You realize that your are arguing "might makes right" here, as well, no?

The fact that God does not act that way is a matter of His mercy and grace and fundamental goodness. He is not under the moral law. He is the moral law. He is the standard.

Wait, you just said you believed morality was objective.  Now you're arguing that it's subjective.  Simply because your god decrees it doesn't make it objective, that makes it absolute, which is a very different thing.

Now, please, is something moral because your god says it is, or does your god say it's moral because it is objectively so?

You aren't asking Him to aid you in the process of belief. You are asking for it on your own terms. You are asking for special treatment. You are asking Him to crown you as sovereign. There's no middle ground on this. There is no co-sovereignty. Either you rule or He does.

You don't know how long I was faithful, nor the depth of my faith, no how long or deep I prayed to retain my faith, before I lost it.  Kindly don't presume things about me.  It's rude as well as wrong.

It is only PW if it is intended as a motivation to belief. I'm not arguing "better safe than sorry." I am answering your question as to why God doesn't play by your rules. The reason is simply that He makes the rules, not you. You can play by your own rules, but eventually, the day will come when you will run into His. Someone's rules will override the other's. It's hardly prudent or rational of you to think they will be yours.

I followed his rules.  He didn't show up. That leads me to believe that he doesn't exist.  If he does, he'll get an earful, and I'll march off to hell to burn for eternity, because he loves me.

Does this mean you ought to believe? No. It means that you have no logical basis on which to demand that He submit to you.

I'm not demanding his submission, Jack.  I'm rejecting his existence on reasonable grounds.

I'll let this go. If you can't see how there's no justification for comparing someone's most deeply cherished beliefs to alcoholism, I don't know what else to say.

[/quote]

When your most deeply-cherished beliefs are wrong, and they are the topic of discussion, I will point out every flaw I see in them.  One of those flaws is that it has the character of a mental crutch.  If you don't like that, so be it.  If that offends you, I'm sorry.  The truth is not a kind mistress.

[tymygy]

"You can't handle the truth."

Oh man, I've wanted to use that phrase for a long-ass time.  

[Sophus]

I'll let this go. If you can't see how there's no justification for comparing someone's most deeply cherished beliefs to alcoholism, I don't know what else to say.

When your most deeply-cherished beliefs are wrong, and they are the topic of discussion, I will point out every flaw I see in them. One of those flaws is that it has the character of a mental crutch. If you don't like that, so be it. If that offends you, I'm sorry. The truth is not a kind mistress.

I'll add that there is actually a bit of a "placebo effect" to alcohol. There have ben experiments done where they'll tell a guy they're giving him vodka or something but it's really a non-alcholic liquid that just tastes as nasty as vodka. Yet he still begins to act more drunk with each drink and actually liking the taste of the fake vodka. He believed it would have that effect on him. In a similar manner, people believe their religion will take a certain effect on them, make them lighter, take away their problems; like alcohol.

I feel like if you can excuse someone's actions, you shouldn't have to forgive them to begin with.

I think so too. There's something ironic about forgiveness. It is often considered an important mark of character to have in oneself, yet if we are to have strong morals how can select individuals to be exempt from them? Usually when I hear forgiveness now, I only think of it as letting go of a grudge or bitter feelings that are causing hang ups in ones own life; or seeing things from another perspective, perhaps, if it is something much less black and white or severe.

Sorry about you situation, by the way. Hope it's working out for the best now.

[Jac3510]

To forgive is to excuse. You shouldn't excuse a killer because in doing so you allow the possibility for him to do it again. You cannot work toward bettering the world if every horrible thing is to be "forgiven".

I disagree. To forgive and to excuse are deeply opposed. If there is an excuse, there is, by definition, no need for forgiveness. For example, if I am speeding and run a red light and a cop sees me and tries to pull me over, but I don't until I get to my destination, I'd pretty clearly be in serious trouble. Now suppose, however, I offer this excuse: my child is dying, and I didn't have time to stop for any of those things. I am not asking for forgiveness because I did nothing wrong. I have an excuse.

It's rather interesting that few people ask for forgiveness. We typically say something like, "I'm really sorry I did that. It is just that <insert excuse>." The implication in such a statement is, "If you really understood why I did what I did, you would see that it wasn't so much my fault after all. I didn't really do anything wrong." In such a case, there is no need for forgiveness. To ask for forgiveness is to fully admit wrong doing without excuse. It stops at "I'm sorry."

So, no, to forgive is not to excuse. The two are mutually exclusive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think we need an ethicist for this.  We just need to have an understanding of what unconditionally means.  In the same post you agree that there are conditions under which it would be prudent for a wife to not continue to be giving and loving to her spouse and then talk of unconditional love.  

I don't think you properly addressed my last question.  If my wife is cooking cleaning and sexing, and she ceases to do those things because I'm beating the living crap out of her, is she still showing unconditional love?

edit: by ceasing to do those things I mean divorcing me and ceasing to do those things.

It is possible to your wife to show unconditional love even if she leaves you. This is where we do need to get into ethics, because the moment you start talking about specific actions (rather than values and the definition of love) you are talking about ethics. Let me give you three example of how this could go several way:

1. Suppose your wife, unbeknownst to you, has met someone else. She is looking for a reason to get out of the marriage so that she can be with Mr. X. She then uses this as an excuse to leave you. Is she loving you unconditionally? Obviously not.

2. Suppose you have children, and you not only beat your wife, but you also beat them. Suppose she loves you unconditionally, but she also loves them. In other words, she is looking for what is best for you and what is best for them. If she stays with you, she may or may not be doing what is best for you, but she is almost certainly not doing what is best for them. Here, then, we have competing interests. So suppose she leaves you. Does that mean that she does not want what is best for you in every way? Of course not. She could still be loving you unconditionally, but other factors necessarily enter into the equation as to what to do.

3. Suppose you have no children, but you are abusive to your wife. She only wants what is best for you. She decides that it is in your best interest to leave, because to remain in the situation is tantamount to endorsing your behavior. She recognizes that your abusiveness, while a problem for her, is actually your problem, and you, like all people with a problem, cannot get help until you admit you have a problem. Further, you will not admit to the problem so long as you have her in your life.

In all of these situations, she leaves you, but in two of them she can be said to be really loving you, but in one, not. To love someone, quite simply, is to act in their best interest (or, at least, to act in a manner you sincerely belief is in their best interest; we can, of course, be wrong in our beliefs) out of a concern for them (whatever the connotation of that concern may be). What is "best," of course, is highly contingent, and sometimes means doing something we actually don't want to do because it may bring the person we love pain. We can graphically illustrate that as follows: suppose you walk in and find me kneeling over my semi-conscious wife, and just as you walk in, you see me stab a metal pin into her throat. That hardly seems loving! Murder, after all, doesn't top the "what-best-for-you" list . . . but suppose you come rushing in to discover she is suffocating, and I am having to perform an emergency procedure to allow her to breathe until medical help arrives. Though I am certainly bringing her pain in the short term, it is intended for her good.

And again, all this is further complicated when you consider that what is best for one person may possible conflict what is best for another (i.e., I manage a local company, and I have two friends desperately in need of a job, but I only have one opening). An ethicist, then, distinguishes between the goal of an action and the action in itself. To close with one last example, suppose a person breaks into my home and I use deadly force to stop him. Did I do something right or wrong? That depends on many things, first of which being my intentions. On one hand, if the man is black, and I am looking for a reason to kill a black man, then whatever else may be true, the action was simply murder (even if such force would have been necessary to stop him!). On the other hand, suppose I have no desire to kill anyone, but I do have a desire to protect my family, and it so happens that deadly force is necessary to stop him. In that case, the goal is not to kill him; that is simply an accidental aspect (that is, an unintended, albeit necessary, aspect) of my action. The goal was good: protecting my family.

So if actions are right or wrong in some part contingent on our motivations, then the question of whether divorce can be an expression of love likewise depends on motivations. It can be, depending on a wide set of circumstances, or it obviously cannot be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as your point goes, yes, all virtues have goals, and yes, we do things for a reason. It does not follow, however, that those reasons must be related to what we get out of it.

This is a blatant contradiction.

Give one example of something you do that you get absolutely nothing out of.

I didn't say we ever do something we don't get anything out of. I said we can, and often do, things that are not based on what we will get out of them. For instance, suppose I see a man mugging a woman, and I step in to protect her. In the scuffle, I kill the man. What do I get out of that? Harassment by the police and all sorts of legal headaches? You may say, "The feeling that you did something right," but is that to say that the only reason I protected the woman was so that I would have a nice-feeling? Who is to say that entered the calculation at all? I find that notion deeply cynical and far more negative than we should entertain. Perhaps some people are so extremely selfish that the only reason they would protect another would be for an emotional high, by I venture to say that wouldn't be the case in many, and possible even most.

In other words, who is to say that I can't do things just because they ought to be done?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The word "better" in "know better" implies that you have a superior idea than another. You can only "know" your idea is superior if you know that it better fits all the variables. If you don't know all the variables, you can't know whether or not your idea is better at all. To use a very earthly analogy, I refrain from discussing foreign policy issues (in terms of actual policy; philosophy is another matter). While I disagree in principle with some of Obama's policies, I don't criticize them for the simple reason that I know that he is in possession of far more information than I am. Perhaps there is a reason he can't reveal for security reasons that, were I aware of it, I would agree--or at least would be more likely to agree. The same is true with God. The only way to say that you have a better idea is to claim that you not only are aware of all existing facts, but of all potential facts given different circumstances. I can't make such a claim, so I can't claim to know better than God. I have my doubts that you can either.

By this logic, you cannot say anything is better than anything else.  I should hope the fallacy is plain to you.  It is obvious to me.  Demanding perfect information before a judgment is rendered is simply another way of saying "My god is perfect, and you're not, so you have no right to judge him," when in fact you've not evidenced him yet.  As such, I am entitled to use my personal judgment to assess your claim of his "perfect" morality.  Therefore, I reject this argument.  You can only claim that your god's knowledge trumps mine when you can demonstrate that 1) God exists, and 2) that he knows more than I do.

Not at all. There are many times when people offer their reasons for doing something, and we can see that they are simply wrong. If I run a red-light because I don't want to be late for work, I'm wrong. There's no other hidden reasons. In fact, the vast majority of discussions are exactly like this. People do something and they tell us precisely why they did it.

Secondly, when dealing with other people, it is often the case that we can have access to the same information that they do. In those cases, we can rightly disagree. One of us may be wrong, but we can rightly disagree as we have access to the same information, even if one or both of us doesn't take full advantage of it. The question that arises is this: do I have an justification in thinking that I am in possession of enough facts to pass a judgment on this action? Sometimes, the answer is yes. Often, it is no, because we cannot answer negatively to this question: "Could that person have been in possession of information to which I am not privy?" It's clear that there are, however, situations in which we can answer it negatively, and thus, we are free to make our decision.

Finally, far from making any such judgments impossible, your stance actually justifies a horrible tyranny: it would allow juries to render verdicts at the beginning, rather than at the end, of a trial. If you have the right to judge an accused God without hearing all the evidence, what don't you have the right to judge an accused person without hearing all the evidence?

Also, if you wish to introduce sarcasm into this conversation, I'm more than willing to oblige you.  Be forewarned.

There was absolutely no sarcasm in my statement, Thump. I know text is hard to read such things. That's why I don't use it.

3. Poets make their ideas intentionally obscure for their own reasons. The analogy holds. The question is whether or not God could have a reason to be intentionally obscure.I answer, most emphatically, yes. Yes he could.

Until you posit a credible premise that doesn't violate his omnipotence, this sort of posting is merely dodging the point.  I ask you now:  Why could not an omnipotent, omnibeneficent god devise a more humane method of dealing with Adam and Eve's disobedience aside from sentencing to death every man, woman, and child in history?  Are you honestly arguing that this could possibly be just?  Tell me, would it be just for a teacher to fail all the children on an exam if he caught one cheating?  Was it just for Roosevelt to imprison over 100,000 Nisei simply because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?

Roosevelt was wrong, as would the teacher be, and as would God be if we died for Adam's sin. Now, I fully admit that there is a large part of the Christian theological community that holds to variants of this absolutely absurd position, usually expressed in seminal or federal headship (although always adhering to the concept of the imputation of Adam's sin). They base that on Romans 5:12, which says, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (NIV).

I reject this view, as does a substantial part of the Christian community (both theological and lay). No one dies because Adam sinned. Rom. 5:12 should be translated, "For just as through one man Sin came into the world and death came through sin, even in the same way death spread to all men, because all men sin." (For a very detailed argument between myself and a Reformed theologian who holds the traditional view that you and I both reject, in which I defend this translation, see this thread). Men die because they sin, not because Adam sinned.

Now, this raises other theological questions that we can address if you would like (such as why we sin, why children die, the relationship between sin and spiritual death, etc.), but I'll hold off on preemptively answering those.

Nonsense. This is an idea we've long ago gotten passed. Who is your favorite sports team? I'm in Atlanta, so let's say, for the sake of argument, it is the Braves. Does the fact that you like the Braves mean that you cannot give an objective account of the game? In fact, would not your fondness for the team make you more inclined to be sure that every detail is accurate? In fact, if you really love the team, you would insist that even their flaws be properly reported so that they could fix them.

Personally, yes, unless they were a jealous team, who would not tolerate me speaking ill of them, and if I did would doom me to fire for all eternity.  If when I was three or four you told me this about the Braves, you can be damned sure I would kiss Ted Turner's ass.  Every Sunday.  

Also, it's funny that you'd compare your faith to sports fandom.

Then the point is simply that just because a Christian or Jew wrote an Old or New Testament account doesn't mean that what they said can't be trusted as history.

True objectivity would consist of questioning the very premise of his existence, and right now, I sincerely doubt your ability, or willingness, to do so.

Hey, another personal attack. Again, as I've said, I question it on a regular basis. I find the arguments in favor of His existence absolutely compelling.

You would deny that social programming happens?

No.

They get that from Rev. 3:20, where Jesus says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (KJV) Unfortunately, they don't pay close attention to what they are reading. They read "I will come in to him" as if it says "I will come into him." It is actually rather heretical. Salvation is not by prayer. It is by faith (John 3:16). To say a person must pray a "sinner's prayer" and "invite Jesus into your heart" denies the Gospel. Here is an excellent little essay titled Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart. I highly recommend it.

Second, look again at my words. God is not, philosophically speaking, located anywhere. He is the case of every where, since He is the First Cause (see the first argument). Theologically we can say God is "everywhere," but by that we only mean that no matter where you go, you can't get away from God.

So say ye.

You asked me.

1. Pi is an irrational number, not an exact number.

I'm well aware of this.  That is why when the Bible uses the exact number three, it is wrong.  Thank you for reinforcing my point.

The Bible doesn't say "Pi is three." You are factually mistaken. It says a round object was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference, which is perfectly acceptable.

As far as the verse you are referring to, it says, "And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick..." (1 Ki 7:23, 26). I don't see a statement there that says "pi equals three." It describes the measurements of a round object that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. Since a cubit wasn't standardized (it was the measurement from the elbow to the end of your finger, usually around 20 inches), you can hardly say that the Bible declares pi to equal three. This is rather petty.

If your god cannot finesse such a "petty" detail as this in his self-inspired book, then I dunno, he doesn't look all that grand anyway.  You expect me to believe that he can create a universe, but cannot formulate a simple equation?

Also, have you had grade-school math?  One of the basic requirements is the ability to formulate an equation given a word problem.  Now, do I need to lay out how this passage translates into "pi=3"?  After all, you plead interpretation of your bible to explain away inconvenient passages.  Now it is you who are trying to have it boths ways.  If you can plead "interpretation", I can as well, and do so here.  Furthermore, my interpretation is unassailable, because it is based mathematically, and not on vague linguistics.

How precise would you like for Him to have been? If 3 wasn't precise enough, what about 3.14? No? What about 3.1415? 3.141592? It is impossible to give a precise measurement of pi. You are just as wrong when you say pi is 3.14 as when I say pi is 3.14159265.

Also, I really am going to insist that you stop with the personal insults. Our conversation isn't helped in the least by them.

2. The theology we get out of the OT is derived from its history. It makes very few normative statements. Therefore, you cannot derive prescriptive statements from the OT (or even the Gospels and Acts, for that matter) without treating the texts historically. Therefore, since you cannot do history without carrying about what the author believed (read Baruch Halpern's The First Historiansi], no Christian, and no conservative for more on this), you cannot know what the OT means for your faith, or lackthereof, without considering what the Israelites believed.

Okay, since I need to spell out everything, I will.  I do not care what they think, because I have considered it, and I consider them to be greatly in error, both factually and morally.  I have presented examples of both

You have no rational basis on which to consider them in moral error, as I have demonstrated, and from a historical perspective, if you say you don't care what they believe, you aren't capable of doing history, as I've demonstrated. You can make bare assertions all you like, but shy of demonstration, they carry no weight and they matter about as much as my opinion on ice cream.

3. My use of the word "little" refers to pettiness and difficulty to overcome. There are "little" contradictions and "major" contradictions, all of which turn out to be no contradiction at all upon examinations. Now, have I looked at all the supposed contradictions in the Bible? No, but I have literally looked at hundreds (and written papers galore on them). There is no contradiction on this issue.

What you seem to not understand here is that a perfect god cannot make an imperfect communication.  Your only reasonable answer to this is that your god is obscurantist, but then than undercuts any claims of him wanting humans to be saved from hell.  If he wants us saved, he can make it so, indirectly, by making the Bible clear enough to understand -- or directly, by cancelling the evil rules he makes, like "You were born human.  Unless you worship me you will burn forever."

And I've demonstrated that God wasn't making an imperfect calculation. A cubit isn't a set measurement. It is only an approximate. You keep talking about evidence this, evidence that. Fine, let's do a little Hebrew if you want evidence. If you want to render "cubit" into appropriate modern fixed distances, we must render the verse as follows:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea,

about 200 inches from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of about 600 inches did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick..." (1 Ki 7:23, 26).[/list]

Now, if you insist on being so technical, you should be able to se how this is no contradiction.

Finally, as for God being an obscurantist keeping people how of Hell, the way to salvation is very clear: trust Jesus to save you (see John 3:16, Acts 16:31, or about a hundred other such verses if you want support). What you do with that is up to you.

Odd that you would think that God would have had them write using modern taxonomic terms. Or why those terms at all? Perhaps in the future, we will classify animals differently. Perhaps God should have used those classifications instead?

Perhaps if god was really interested in saving men, he would place unmistakable signs of his presence in the bible, such as modern terminology that the Hebrews would have no way of knowing.  "Hey, Moses, bats are gonna be called Chiropterae.  I know you don't know how to spell it, just hold on, I'll spell it out for you.  Look, I know you didn't study Latin.  Would quit griping and get back to writing?"  It would've been that easy.  Now, if little old ignorant human me can think of such an easy way to remove doubt, why couldn't your god have thought so?  That is my point -- not biological accuracy.

And if He had done that, then the people to whom He was writing would not have understood what He was talking about. You are making the common mistake of assuming that Scripture was written to you. It wasn't. It was written to them.

Besides, there is an analogy in our own conversations. You complain that I use too technical language in the philosophy discussions. You want me to communicate more clearly in more understandable terms. And yet you demand God communicate in terms that His readers couldn't follow? That's rather disingenuous of you. Further, why should God write based on 21st century terminology? What makes you so special? Why not write in 31st century terminology? In fact, why not just have Moses write in detailed mathematics that no human yet understands, but someday, we will?

Your request is just special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. You want God to forget the needs of His immediate readers and instead communicate on your level, but why yours? Why not of people from one hundred years ago or one hundred years in the future? God inspired the biblical writers to write to certain people. If they couldn't understand what they were reading, then it wouldn't have been much in terms of a message, now would it have?

The fact is rather simple - a bat can properly be called a tsippowr. If you would prefer, simply translate it "winged creature."

True, but this sentence is based on a misapprehension of my argument, as explained above.

No "but." You are saying there is a contradiction in tsippowr by calling a bat a bird. There is no such contradiction. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. I thoroughly expect you to retract your accusation of contradiction here.

There are no deep contradictions in the Christian conceptualization. There may be deep contradictions in the way people look at God who haven't wanted to do the hard work of studying history, theology, and philosophy. The Bible, however, is abundantly clear on the important things, i.e., that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. John 3:16 is rather clear: "For this is how God loved the world: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who puts their faith in Him will never perish, but will instead have everlasting life" (my translation, but pick any you like).

No, there are deep contradictions.  The fact that you choose to apologize for them rather than examine them is a pity, and what I regard as a misuse of an obviously fine mind.

Then present them. Start a thread. I've shown why all the ones suggested so far are nothing of the sort. Shy of your demonstration, all we have, again, is your bare assertions.

Maybe pi and bats are what is keeping you from believing, but I'm willing to bet that isn't the case. Again, God knows your skepticism very well--better than you do. He knows the root of it--better than you do. He's provided a solution (assuming He is real, of course). If He is real, and if you stand before Him in unbelief, it will be no problem for Him to point at the exact place and moment where you made the conscious choice. Now, perhaps that place and moment hasn't come yet. I don't know. But He does. In the meantime, however, there's not much to say in regard to His being unclear. Of all the things He's been, clarity is most definitely not the problem. Or, to quote that great philosopher Mark Twain, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

What an unfortunate choice of quote.  

To answer your supposition, I object to the obvious immorality of your god, his obvious evil, and it saddens me that Christians cannot see it.

It saddens me that you make a judgment call you have no rational right to make.

You are assuming God is obligated to justify Himself to you. He's told you what He has done and will do. You get to respond to it, and before you complain again about PW, I'm not saying you belief on this basis. Fear is no motivator to belief. But with that said, it does not follow therefore that God is obligated to fully explain Himself to you. He has provided sufficient reason for humans to believe. I am one of billions of people who are evidence of that, and there are people who have been far more intelligent than either one of us who have believed. Asking God to treat you differently is just special pleading. That's one of the things about God -- He's no respecter of persons.

His reasons are insufficient to rational people.  That you find them sufficient says much more about you than it does about god.

Rational people recognize that they can't make judgment calls until they are in possession of all the facts, which you are not. Rational people don't call reasons that they don't have insufficient.

Also, I have emphasized another unjust quality of your god: he has no respect for lesser beings.  I cannot remember who it was who said, "We as a society are judged by how we treat the weakest amongst us," but I damned sure agree with the sentiment.  Simply because he is claimed to be all-powerful is no excuse for his evils.  "Might makes right" doesn't work for me.  If it does for you, I don't know what to say

Who says he is no respecter of lesser beings? On the contrary, "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" (Ps. 8:4)

If you only view Christianity as a set of ethical teachings, then you would be right. As an aside, that is part of my beef with the western church. Because of its underlying philosophy, it has turned to moralism, which any philosophy can give you (and many have throughout history).

Remember, I believe that morality is objective, and therefore, you don't need the Bible to tell you right from wrong. You know how you ought to treat others. My complaint that you were ridiculing my faith is one simple example. If you didn't think you ought not ridicule people's most deeply cherished beliefs, you would have just said, "So what? Why should I care if you don't like it!" But you know it's wrong to do so, for whatever reason you assign it as wrong (take your pick -- you will likely be right). So, yes, on that count, if Christianity is true, it probably wouldn't change your life very much. It will, however, change your motivation in your behavior, your belief system as it relates to your position in the world, and, ultimately, your eternal fate.

Thank you for at least acknowledging this.  Being slurred by theists gets pretty old.

I've acknowledge it since our earliest discussions (remember the thread on PW?). My point, however, stands: if Christianity were true (and you believed it), it would change a great deal of your life--not necessarily your ethical behavior, but life is obviously more than how you behave.

My signature answers this. God is sovereign, and my personal opinion is that this, above all, is the great offense to the non-Christian mind (and, by the way, to many a Christians!). We constantly assume that God must be under the same standard we are, which in effect makes Him accountable to us. God, however, is accountable to no one. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. He would be within His rights to throw us all into Hell for eternity just the heck of it and we could say nothing about it. We could complain "That isn't fair!" to which He could retort, "So what? Who makes fair?" And there would be nothing to say, because it would be a simple matter of our word against His.

You realize that your are arguing "might makes right" here, as well, no?

No. It's saying that someone has to make the rules. Someone has the right to make the rules, either you or society or God or something more powerful than all of us. So long as their are moral obligations (i.e., don't murder), there is someone who sets them. God setting them is no more "might makes right" than if some super-God did or if you did or if society does.

The fact that God does not act that way is a matter of His mercy and grace and fundamental goodness. He is not under the moral law. He is the moral law. He is the standard.

Wait, you just said you believed morality was objective.  Now you're arguing that it's subjective.  Simply because your god decrees it doesn't make it objective, that makes it absolute, which is a very different thing.

Now, please, is something moral because your god says it is, or does your god say it's moral because it is objectively so?

I've answered this before. God wills morality from His goodness. Let me try to make this clear by putting your argument in a logical form.

1. If God willed the moral law arbitrarily (that is, subjectively), then He is not essentially good; and if He willed it according to an ultimate standard beyond Himself, then He is not God (because there is something ultimate beyond Him).
2. But God willed the moral law either arbitrarily or according to an ultimate standard.
3. Therefore, God is either not essentially good or not God.

Now, the form of this argument is perfectly appropriate. It is valid in every way. In response, there are always two ways to get out of a dilemma. The first is to deny one of the propositions in the major premise. If either one is false, the entire argument falls apart. That won't work here, because both propositions are true. The other is to deny the minor premise, which we can only do if it does not exhaust all logical possibilities. In this case, it is very easy to deny the minor premise, because we can offer another way by which God wills the moral law: from His own goodness.

In fact, the argument itself suggests this answer to us. In both the major premise and conclusion, the problem is that if God wills something objectively, then He is not good. Look at those last few works: "He is not good." But if God is good, then what He wills will be good!

So, your argument is easily answered. Things are not moral because God wills them, and God does not will things because they are moral; rather, God wills certain things because He is moral.

You aren't asking Him to aid you in the process of belief. You are asking for it on your own terms. You are asking for special treatment. You are asking Him to crown you as sovereign. There's no middle ground on this. There is no co-sovereignty. Either you rule or He does.

You don't know how long I was faithful, nor the depth of my faith, no how long or deep I prayed to retain my faith, before I lost it.  Kindly don't presume things about me.  It's rude as well as wrong.

No, I don't, nor am I pretending to, but your past has nothing to do with the present fact. You are right now asking God to answer you on your terms, which is to ask for special treatment. You are asserting, in the present, that God submit to your sovereignty. It's a logical fact here -- if you are sovereign, God is not; if God is sovereign, you are not. In placing demands, you assume sovereignty, which is not your place. In short, you have no right to make your claim.

So we see now that not only have you assumed omniscience in your argument against God, but now you have assumed sovereignty. Now, omniscience and sovereignty are only attributes of God. You are, in effect, making yourself out to be God Himself. In other words, you reject the claim that God exists because you, exercising your rights as God, have found tried Him and found Him to not fulfill His obligation to you. It looks very much like you have committed your own "might makes right" argument.

It is only PW if it is intended as a motivation to belief. I'm not arguing "better safe than sorry." I am answering your question as to why God doesn't play by your rules. The reason is simply that He makes the rules, not you. You can play by your own rules, but eventually, the day will come when you will run into His. Someone's rules will override the other's. It's hardly prudent or rational of you to think they will be yours.

I followed his rules.  He didn't show up. That leads me to believe that he doesn't exist.  If he does, he'll get an earful, and I'll march off to hell to burn for eternity, because he loves me.

And someone will pay dearly for giving you the impression that this is what God is after. On the contrary:
"However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5)
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort [works]?" (Gal. 3:3)
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (Gal 3:10)

I could go on and on and on. I'm terribly sorry that someone told you that God expects us to follow a big rulebook. It's a terrible shame, and people will pay very dearly for that. You, however, are more than capable of finding out what God actually does expect. It's written down in black and white (and sometimes, red and white).

Does this mean you ought to believe? No. It means that you have no logical basis on which to demand that He submit to you.

I'm not demanding his submission, Jack.  I'm rejecting his existence on reasonable grounds.

But you are demanding his submission. You have given Him the conditions by which you will believe. If He chooses to condescend to you, you will believe. If not, you won't. That's demanding He play by your rules.

I'd just encourage you to reconsider. God does love you. Unconditionally. Nothing you can ever do will ever change that in the least, anymore than anything my wife could do would ever stop me from loving her. He isn't going to force Himself on you, though. Divine rape is just as evil as human rape.

[PoopShoot]

I disagree. To forgive and to excuse are deeply opposed. If there is an excuse, there is, by definition, no need for forgiveness. For example, if I am speeding and run a red light and a cop sees me and tries to pull me over, but I don't until I get to my destination, I'd pretty clearly be in serious trouble. Now suppose, however, I offer this excuse: my child is dying, and I didn't have time to stop for any of those things. I am not asking for forgiveness because I did nothing wrong. I have an excuse.

Then what exactly is forgiveness?

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

Do you love me?

[i_am_i]

Divine rape is just as evil as human rape.

Human rape is evil? There sure is a lot of "God-approved" rape taking place in the Old Testament. Lot offered his daughters to be raped by a whole crowd of angry guys. It all worked out in the end for old Lot, though. He got to have sex with both of them, although he swears that they got him drunk and he didn't know what was going on.

What a life that must have been!

Jac,

Do you love me?

Yeah. What about me, Jac? Do you love me too?

[Sophus]

I disagree. To forgive and to excuse are deeply opposed. If there is an excuse, there is, by definition, no need for forgiveness. For example, if I am speeding and run a red light and a cop sees me and tries to pull me over, but I don't until I get to my destination, I'd pretty clearly be in serious trouble. Now suppose, however, I offer this excuse: my child is dying, and I didn't have time to stop for any of those things. I am not asking for forgiveness because I did nothing wrong. I have an excuse.

It's rather interesting that few people ask for forgiveness. We typically say something like, "I'm really sorry I did that. It is just that <insert excuse>." The implication in such a statement is, "If you really understood why I did what I did, you would see that it wasn't so much my fault after all. I didn't really do anything wrong." In such a case, there is no need for forgiveness. To ask for forgiveness is to fully admit wrong doing without excuse. It stops at "I'm sorry."

So, no, to forgive is not to excuse. The two are mutually exclusive.

From the Oxford dictionary:

excuse - 1 to forgive somebody for something that they have done, for example not being polite or making a small mistake

From thefreedictionary.com:
excuse -To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood
1. An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness.
2. A reason or grounds for excusing: Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

forgive-
1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.


The examples you gave are why I think there can be two different meanings to forgiveness. In those cases, it's simply clarifying a misunderstanding by seeing things from another's perspective, who happens to have a valid excuse.

I didn't say we ever do something we don't get anything out of. I said we can, and often do, things that are not based on what we will get out of them. For instance, suppose I see a man mugging a woman, and I step in to protect her. In the scuffle, I kill the man. What do I get out of that?

The intention would have been most likely to get a sense of moral gratification. You would have most likely acted on empathy. It could have been done just as easily to avoid any feeling of guilt, just as it could have been to make a friend, feel you did the honorable thing, be happy with yourself, have an interesting story to tell. It is all an act of will, which is why every action you do is based on what you want. How well thought out it was is irrelevant.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Jac3510]

I disagree. To forgive and to excuse are deeply opposed. If there is an excuse, there is, by definition, no need for forgiveness. For example, if I am speeding and run a red light and a cop sees me and tries to pull me over, but I don't until I get to my destination, I'd pretty clearly be in serious trouble. Now suppose, however, I offer this excuse: my child is dying, and I didn't have time to stop for any of those things. I am not asking for forgiveness because I did nothing wrong. I have an excuse.

Then what exactly is forgiveness?

Broadly, it is to pardon someone for something they have done. That is, to not hold something against them. More technically, it is to separate the offense from the person who committed it so that it can no longer be held against them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jac,

Do you love me?

As a Christian, of course. [silly]I luvs evrybodiez!!1![/silly]

Seriously, though, love isn't an emotion, although it is accompanied by it. It is best reduced to grace in action. The nature of our relationship is of course highly limited, and therefore any expression of such is highly limited. But, in general, do I hold toward you a generally benevolent attitude that seeks your best in whatever means I can offer? Yes, of course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Divine rape is just as evil as human rape.

Human rape is evil? There sure is a lot of "God-approved" rape taking place in the Old Testament. Lot offered his daughters to be raped by a whole crowd of angry guys. It all worked out in the end for old Lot, though. He got to have sex with both of them, although he swears that they got him drunk and he didn't know what was going on.

What a life that must have been!

Just because the Bible says something happened doesn't mean it approves of the action. Moses assumes, like any other writer does, that some things are obvious and don't need to be commented upon.

Yeah. What about me, Jac? Do you love me too?

Just as I do HS.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. To forgive and to excuse are deeply opposed. If there is an excuse, there is, by definition, no need for forgiveness. For example, if I am speeding and run a red light and a cop sees me and tries to pull me over, but I don't until I get to my destination, I'd pretty clearly be in serious trouble. Now suppose, however, I offer this excuse: my child is dying, and I didn't have time to stop for any of those things. I am not asking for forgiveness because I did nothing wrong. I have an excuse.

It's rather interesting that few people ask for forgiveness. We typically say something like, "I'm really sorry I did that. It is just that <insert excuse>." The implication in such a statement is, "If you really understood why I did what I did, you would see that it wasn't so much my fault after all. I didn't really do anything wrong." In such a case, there is no need for forgiveness. To ask for forgiveness is to fully admit wrong doing without excuse. It stops at "I'm sorry."

So, no, to forgive is not to excuse. The two are mutually exclusive.

From the Oxford dictionary:

excuse - 1 to forgive somebody for something that they have done, for example not being polite or making a small mistake

From thefreedictionary.com:
excuse -To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood
1. An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness.
2. A reason or grounds for excusing: Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

forgive-
1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.


The examples you gave are why I think there can be two different meanings to forgiveness. In those cases, it's simply clarifying a misunderstanding by seeing things from another's perspective, who happens to have a valid excuse.

Words, Sophus, are merely conventional signs with no inherent meaning. In other words, they mean what we agree upon them to mean. So it is certainly true that in popular vernacular, to forgive and to excuse can be used synonymously.

Now, I first mentioned forgiveness when I said that we are to forgive everyone. You then said that "You cannot work toward bettering the world if every horrible thing is to be "forgiven," by which you meant an excuse. In response, I strongly disagreed. I am not talking about offering an excuse for everyone. I am talking about forgiving everyone.

I didn't say we ever do something we don't get anything out of. I said we can, and often do, things that are not based on what we will get out of them. For instance, suppose I see a man mugging a woman, and I step in to protect her. In the scuffle, I kill the man. What do I get out of that?

The intention would have been most likely to get a sense of moral gratification. You would have most likely acted on empathy. It could have been done just as easily to avoid any feeling of guilt, just as it could have been to make a friend, feel you did the honorable thing, be happy with yourself, have an interesting story to tell. It is all an act of will, which is why every action you do is based on what you want. How well thought out it was is irrelevant.

Wrong. It is completely relevant. You asked what I could do without getting something out of it. I said the issue is not what we get out of it, but why we do it. The shear fact that every action has consequences means we get something out of it by definition. This all goes back to your original assertion, "If you want to treat someone with respect then you must want to do so for a reason." I've offered a simple reason: because certain things ought to be done. The reason does not necessarily have to be because I want something out of it. You may assert that all you want, but you're just wrong. I certainly hope you don't do things only because you want something out of what you are doing. That would prove to be a terribly selfish way to live.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. There are many times when people offer their reasons for doing something, and we can see that they are simply wrong. If I run a red-light because I don't want to be late for work, I'm wrong. There's no other hidden reasons. In fact, the vast majority of discussions are exactly like this. People do something and they tell us precisely why they did it.

And why does god command genocide?  You don't know, I know.  But you'll accept that without question, while you parse every doubting word you read.

Actually, that's a very easy question to answer. See God gave the Canaanites 400 years to turn from their child-sacrificing wickedness. They didn't, so God destroyed them. Second, your question is phrased wrong. He does not command genocide. He commanded it under a strictly theocratic setting.

Secondly, when dealing with other people, it is often the case that we can have access to the same information that they do. In those cases, we can rightly disagree. One of us may be wrong, but we can rightly disagree as we have access to the same information, even if one or both of us doesn't take full advantage of it. The question that arises is this: do I have an justification in thinking that I am in possession of enough facts to pass a judgment on this action? Sometimes, the answer is yes. Often, it is no, because we cannot answer negatively to this question: "Could that person have been in possession of information to which I am not privy?" It's clear that there are, however, situations in which we can answer it negatively, and thus, we are free to make our decision.

I am apparently privy to information your god doesn't know: bashing out the brains of babies is not good.  Corporate punishment for individual sins is not good.  Eternal torture for finite errors is not good.  If even I, a mere mortal -- not to mention, a redneck -- can figure this out, how dumb, or evil, is this god which you adore?

Sarcasm doesn't help, Thump.

Regarding the death of children in Joshua's conquest and other such cases, your objection is too weak. You should strengthen it by pointing to the deaths of all children in the history of the world (including the Flood). Why get mad at God over the death of a few hundred babies in a war when you can get mad at the babies who starve to death every day, or the untold thousands, millions even, who died during the Flood?

The reason it is immoral to kill is that life does not belong to us. God can give or take away whatever He wants. Unlike you and me, He can restore whatever He takes away He is perfectly capable of restoring if He so desires. How do you know all of those children were not immediately taken into Heaven for an eternity of bliss? Had they lived, they likely would have become resentful of the people who destroyed their parents and revolted, not only against Israel, but against Israel's God, which would have resulted in their condemnation (and much of Israel's, as well, for as it happened, those who did live grew up and kept their ancestors' ways and led Israel off into idolatry). Or how do you know that God will not give them an opportunity to live in the Millennial Kingdom?

God gives life. He has the right to take it away. Your life is not yours anymore than mine is mine. He certainly desires for everyone to keep theirs, but sometimes, sin gets in the way and brings about death. The good news is that God will restore all things and destroy both sin and death.

Finally, far from making any such judgments impossible, your stance actually justifies a horrible tyranny: it would allow juries to render verdicts at the beginning, rather than at the end, of a trial. If you have the right to judge an accused God without hearing all the evidence, what don't you have the right to judge an accused person without hearing all the evidence?

What evidence am I lacking?  Be specific.  Exactly how does your god justify his evil acts?  Be specific, or resign the point.  Don't plead "Well, we don't  know."  If you have exculpatory evidence, present it now.  If you don't, quit begging it, because that's only an appeal to faith, and I am faithless.

I don't have to give such evidence. You are the one claiming what God did was wrong, which is to say, that God had no right to do what He did. To say that is to assume that you know all possible scenarios under which God could do whatever He did. Let's take only the Flood. Mankind was extremely evil. Murder was all the rage. The violence was extreme. Had God let it continue, we would have wiped our own selves off the planet, and everyone would be in Hell forever. There was one man who followed God, and God rescued him from the judgment.

Here, then, is yet a third place where you make yourself God, for only God is judge, a position you claim for yourself. You would condemn Him for condemning others.

There was absolutely no sarcasm in my statement, Thump. I know text is hard to read such things. That's why I don't use it.

Sorry, but your attempt to portray me as hypersensitive to mention of Hell is an obvious bit of sarcasm.  Don't dissemble, lest you lose credibility.  You haven't much left.

No intention to portray you as anything. You can read into my words whatever you like. I am telling you to read them plainly.

Now, I fully admit that there is a large part of the Christian theological community that holds to variants of this absolutely absurd position, usually expressed in seminal or federal headship (although always adhering to the concept of the imputation of Adam's sin). They base that on Romans 5:12, which says, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (NIV).

I reject this view, as does a substantial part of the Christian community (both theological and lay). No one dies because Adam sinned. Rom. 5:12 should be translated, "For just as through one man Sin came into the world and death came through sin, even in the same way death spread to all men, because all men sin." (For a very detailed argument between myself and a Reformed theologian who holds the traditional view that you and I both reject, in which I defend this translation, see this thread). Men die because they sin, not because Adam sinned.

Gen 3:22

What about it? God couldn't let man live forever in his evil state. That would have been a worse punishment than anything else.

Then the point is simply that just because a Christian or Jew wrote an Old or New Testament account doesn't mean that what they said can't be trusted as history.

Simply because something is written does not make it so.  I don't trust your Bible.  Show me why it is right.  Don't appeal to my "trust."

Of course, but assumption of invalidity has no rational basis.

True objectivity would consist of questioning the very premise of his existence, and right now, I sincerely doubt your ability, or willingness, to do so.

Hey, another personal attack. Again, as I've said, I question it on a regular basis. I find the arguments in favor of His existence absolutely compelling.

That's not an attack, it's an observation.  If you think it is a personal attack, by all means notify the staff, and I will accept their decision.  The gyrations you're performing in this defense of yours reveal much, and I am entitled to speak about what they reveal.

Tell your wife she is a <insert insult> and follow it up with, "Oh, that's just an observation," and see how far it gets you. You are getting extremely combative, Thump. If you aren't capable of having a rational conversation, we don't have to continue this. As it stands, the increasingly aggressive tone, whether intentional or not, signifies a personal animosity more than any rational concepts.

You would deny that social programming happens?

No.

But what you do isn't programming, is it now?

No more than what anyone else does. Everyone has a worldview, Thump. Even you.

The Bible doesn't say "Pi is three." You are factually mistaken. It says a round object was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference, which is perfectly acceptable.

Acceptable?  To whom?  A "perfect" god?  Or a Bronze-Age crowd?

Also, 30/10=3.  Pi = 3.14159 ... You might find this acceptable, and I'd be surprised if you didn't.  Because your god is perfect.

How precise would you like for Him to have been? If 3 wasn't precise enough, what about 3.14? No? What about 3.1415? 3.141592? It is impossible to give a precise measurement of pi. You are just as wrong when you say pi is 3.14 as when I say pi is 3.14159265.

You're the one claiming your god to be perfect, not me.  I'll let you define perfection, and we'll see how that flies.

Which I have answered ad nauseum. You refuse to deal with the basic issues, and that's fine, because all of this "discussion" has been you complaining about something, me explaining it, and you refusing without argument and returning to your complaint.

Also, I really am going to insist that you stop with the personal insults. Our conversation isn't helped in the least by them.

Again, if you feel insulted, report me.  I'll take what staff metes out.  You're insulting my intelligence when you pretend to not understand that 30/10 doesn't equal pi.  If you're going to play dumb, you'll be treated that way.  Quit whining.

Is that the way you handle conflict? Do you run off and tattle tale? I'm more than interesting in having a rational discussion with you about these things. If you aren't willing to engage in that, there's nothing to be gained by running off to the mods. If I'm here for discussion, and you aren't interesting in discussion, then it's just as easy to talk to those individuals who are interested in it.

You have no rational basis on which to consider them in moral error, as I have demonstrated, and from a historical perspective, if you say you don't care what they believe, you aren't capable of doing history, as I've demonstrated. You can make bare assertions all you like, but shy of demonstration, they carry no weight and they matter about as much as my opinion on ice cream.

Nonsense.  You assert that they are morally correct, yet you cannot demonstrate it, unless you wish to defend stoning adulterers to death.  I'd be interested in reading that post.

Wrong. I've not said they are morally correct. I've said I withhold judgment due to a lack of evidence. You are the one so interested in making the judgment call here. So fine. If God was morally wrong, then prove it. Account for all logical possibilities of any and every kind, and I'll concede.

And I've demonstrated that God wasn't making an imperfect calculation. A cubit isn't a set measurement. It is only an approximate. You keep talking about evidence this, evidence that. Fine, let's do a little Hebrew if you want evidence. If you want to render "cubit" into appropriate modern fixed distances, we must render the verse as follows:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea,

about 200 inches from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of about 600 inches did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick..." (1 Ki 7:23, 26).[/list]

Now, if you insist on being so technical, you should be able to se how this is no contradiction.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say a goddamned thing about cubits.  Why are you trying to pull a shell-game on me?  That's the sure mark of a failed argument.  I mentioned pi, bats, and whales.  Also, 600/200 still doesn't equal pi.  It equals three.

Also,

Seriously though, it is my place to tell you what you logical rights you do and don't have, just as it is your place to tell me mine. I don't have the right to assert that I know God exists because the Bible says so. I can say it all I want. I have the legal right, but I don't have the logical right. To go on and say it makes me irrational. You have the legal right to demand whatever you want of God, but you don't have the logical right. To go on and do so just makes you irrational, unless, of course, it is you, and not God, who is sovereign after all.

So we see now that not only have you assumed omniscience in your argument against God, but now you have assumed sovereignty.

Sophistry.  But I'm glad I've offended you that much.

Projection. I'm not offended in the least, although I think your combative tone is counter productive. Here, then, is yet another example of your bare assertions. I'm beginning to pick up a trend here. You've done this multiple times. Do you have any actual reason for believing what you do, or is everything a simple matter of assertion with you? Granted, if you were sovereign, assertion would be sufficient, but I have my serious doubt as to whether or not you really are the sovereign one here.

Now, omniscience and sovereignty are only attributes of God. You are, in effect, making yourself out to be God Himself.

Sophistry, and bullshit, to boot.  I have a hard-enough time with my 12 year old boy; a universe is a little out of my league.  I'm modest enough to know my limits.

Then why do you assert that God has to answer to you and that you are in possession of enough facts to warrant judging God's actions as immoral? You are either claiming to be God or simply being irrational here. I don't see a middle ground.

In other words, you reject the claim that God exists because you, exercising your rights as God, have found tried Him and found Him to not fulfill His obligation to you. It looks very much like you have committed your own "might makes right" argument.

No.  I find your definition of god contradictory and, even worse, shallow.  If there is a god at all, which I highly doubt, I think he's much more subtle than the cardboard cutout figure you've presented here.  My biggest question, really, is "What is there worth worshipping by your definition?"  You maintain worship for a spiteful, petty, jealous god, who can create a Universe but forget about words he had with Moses, who is perfectly merciful but makes an eternal Hell, who is perfectly just but metes the death penalty to all humans for the sin of two.

In short, the god you worship is a caricature of a worldly king, placed in the heavens so as to be out of reach of politics while still exerting control.

You'll see that, one day.

Interesting. You make here another moral claim on God and maintain your basic misunderstanding of progressive revelation (that God revealed Himself to men in history), linguistics (the way in which language works--i.e., how tsippowr ought to be translated), and hermeneutics (the science of interpretation; i.e., in what sense we should understand what is communicated, including historical, philosophical, cultural, and linguistics considerations, etc.). Your claim to knowledge is rather extensive, Thump. I sincerely wish you would back up your arguments with evidence rather than these countless assertions. Your claims require a knowledge of possible worlds and unstated motives (with reference to moral actions) and to the various disciplines surrounding ancient historical exegesis. Unfortunately, you've offered evidence that you possess such knowledge in either of these areas. I'm always open to hearing it, though.

It is only PW if it is intended as a motivation to belief. I'm not arguing "better safe than sorry." I am answering your question as to why God doesn't play by your rules. The reason is simply that He makes the rules, not you. You can play by your own rules, but eventually, the day will come when you will run into His. Someone's rules will override the other's. It's hardly prudent or rational of you to think they will be yours.

I followed his rules.  He didn't show up. That leads me to believe that he doesn't exist.  If he does, he'll get an earful, and I'll march off to hell to burn for eternity, because he loves me.

And someone will pay dearly for giving you the impression that this is what God is after. On the contrary:
"However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5)
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort [works]?" (Gal. 3:3)
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (Gal 3:10)

I could go on and on and on. I'm terribly sorry that someone told you that God expects us to follow a big rulebook. It's a terrible shame, and people will pay very dearly for that. You, however, are more than capable of finding out what God actually does expect. It's written down in black and white (and sometimes, red and white).

Perhaps, with my emphasizing your line, you'll see my point.  Also, how are writen expectations not a "rulebook"?  Does this mean I can ignore the Bible and still ascend?

Yes, do look at the point you emphasized in my words. I argued that God doesn't play by your rules. The "rules" He set are found in reality itself, including basic morality. You don't have an option not to play by His "rules" in that regard, because to do so when be to go outside of reality. What in the world makes you think that by living in the world, God is somehow obligated to treat you differently than everyone else?

As far as your question goes, the expectations in the Bible point to natural consequences, not rules. I'm sure you have rules for your son. You probably had more when he was younger than you do now, and as he gets older, there will be still less and less. One of the many rules for my daughter is not to play with the remote control as I don't want her opening it up and swallowing a battery and end up in the hospital as happened to the son of a very good friend of mine. The day will come, however, when there will cease to be rules. Instead, there will be only relationship. When my daughter is an adult, she will be able to do what she wants (including eating batteries, I suppose). She will know, however, just like I do with my parents, that if she does certain things it will harm the relationship and/or yield certain undesirable consequences.

The Bible is much the same. There were rules for Israel. The Christian has no such rules. We have an explanation of how reality works. Just like if you run a redlight, you are likely to get hit by oncoming traffic, so if you sin, you are likely to get hurt in myriads of ways. People who think you have to keep a bunch of rules and not sin have completely missed the point of the NT. We are not saved by keeping any rules. We are saved by our relationship with God through Christ, which is rooted in and founded upon simple trust. If you trust in God through Christ, you will be saved. If not, it doesn't matter how good you are or how many rules you keep, they will only be your own rules, and you'll be lost forever because of it.

But you are demanding his submission. You have given Him the conditions by which you will believe. If He chooses to condescend to you, you will believe. If not, you won't. That's demanding He play by your rules.

Yes.  If he loves me, he will make such love as he has apparent.  If he doesn't do so, I have no reason to believe your words, or the Bible's, or the Quran's, or the Rig-Veda's, or the .....

Every teenage girl has heard that line. "If you really loved me . . ."

I'd just encourage you to reconsider. God does love you. Unconditionally. Nothing you can ever do will ever change that in the least, anymore than anything my wife could do would ever stop me from loving her. He isn't going to force Himself on you, though. Divine rape is just as evil as human rape.

Suuuuuure.  He'll still toast me for all time in Hell because I didn't kiss his Holy ass; how's that for unconditional!

Again, we'll talk about Hell in its own thread this week.

[PoopShoot]

Then what exactly is forgiveness?

Broadly, it is to pardon someone for something they have done. That is, to not hold something against them. More technically, it is to separate the offense from the person who committed it so that it can no longer be held against them.

And form of action does it take?

[Jac3510]

And form of action does it take?

As with any ethical question, that will vary from situation to situation (see my response to HS on love and ethics). Where possible, forgiveness entails seeking to reestablish a positive relationship. Very often, if not usually, that is possible, but in some circumstances, it may not be.

I really am rather surprised at the negative reaction to the concept of unconditional love. I expected this to be sort of like moral arguments -- yes, we can agree that we ought to do this and not that, but we just disagree on the reason for such statements. This has been informative if nothing else.

[PoopShoot]

I don't have a problem with unconditional love.  In fact, I disagree that it exists, but also agree that hate is stupid.  If a person deserves my hate, they're not worth the emotional investment.  I've personally been trying to understand your views on actions associated with it.  IMO, love is just a feeling, it's the actions attached that make an opinion about it something I would agree or disagree.  As for your view of forgiveness, I would disagree both with how you define it and the action it produces.  Forgetting a person's wrongdoings and then seeking a new relationship with them is just asking to have it done again.  I had a friend who stole my bank card.  I forgave him and didn't hold it against him, but I didn't forget and I didn't have a relationship with him until he verbalized a desire to BE forgiven.  I had already forgiven him, but I still had to protect me and my family from future shenanigans.  The running example ITT has been the cheating wife.  If my wife cheated on me, I would still love her and I would forgive her, but I would still divorce her.  Staying with her is permission to do it again by virtue of my actions.  I can completely agree with the emotional aspect of valuing people for who they are, forgiving people and not wasting an emotional investment of negativity, but I can't agree with the actions you promote.  While the actions you promote will be received well and reciprocated by honorable people, dishonorable people will walk all over you.  That said, honorable people generally don't need to be forgiven in the first place.