Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
Bmyers...

This is great: "If he IS bending spoons 'with his mind,' he's doing it the hard way!"

But let me get back to you on the details. For now, must fuel the brain matter with left over Porterhouse, reheated potatoes, soggy asparagus, and refrigerated half-finished Shiraz.

Ya. Ya. but it beats starvation.

Or McDonald's, for that matter...

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
Because there must be a terminus to what is knowable.

Sorry, but - why? (I suppose I should also ask if you're speaking literally - that the number of "facts" which are knowable is very large but finite - or if you just mean that it is not possible for any one person to acquire all possible knowledge. I certainly agree with the latter, but I don't know how one could conclude the former with certainty unless you're going to limit consideration to a finite physical universe.)

That terminus cannot have multiple views or answers else it would not be the terminus. To say that this is not the case would say that God and the concept of Him is not the Ultimate but that something even greater exists beyond Him - a God of Gods.

Or it would say that the knowledge contained by God is infinite; this would seem to be allowed under other concepts relative to God, re "infinite" power, existence, etc.. (In fact, possessing truly infinite power would seem to imply infinite information capacity, at the very least.)

To review: All of the world's religions except one stress "works" as a means of salvation. They mirror nature in that work equals reward. The main idea is that should one's good deeds or intentions outweight their bad deeds or intentions, one will be given a myraid of delightful outcomes in the next life or next existence. This rises no higher than ancient paganism. But it is the common thread of all the world's religions, except one.

I think we should probably limit this to the world's "major" religions, as to try to really say "all" will no doubt include some others that either have a very different "salvation" model or even ignore the whole question altogether. Of the "majors", I can think of the following off the top of my head:

Judaism (at least three major forms)
Christianity (three major branches, with one of those further divided in multiple sects)
Islam (two major branches)

(These make up what we'd normally call the "Western" traditions, and among those I'd say that SOME branches of Christianity stress faith over work; Islam, I believe, is at least mostly the other way around, while Judaism to a great degree actually ignores the question, at least as I understand modern Jewish thinking.)

The "Eastern" group would have to include:

Hinduism
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Buddhism (not truly a religion, but is usually lumped in here)

I think it's probably fitting to classify Hinduism as one in which "salvation" comes through works, as the reincarnation of spirits, the idea of "karma," etc., all have to do with pure thoughts and actions as the key to rebirth in a higher existence. Buddhism doesn't qualify here, as Buddhism itself basically ignores the whole question of a Deity, individual souls, and so forth (although it has generally co-existed, in the minds of its adherents, with other traditions such as Hinduism, Shinto, etc., which do consider these issues. That leaves the Chinese-Japanese, "Far Eastern" group of Shinto, Confucianism, and Taoism among the "big ones," and I'm not sure that these could rightly be called "salvation through works" religions simply because they don't really approach the whole idea of "souls" and "salvation" in anything remotely like the Western traditions do. About the only thing they have in common is the belief in a supernatural deity and SOME form of existence beyond this physical life. They DO stress moral behavior, but then, so do all of these. Even Christianity, although not pointing to moral behavior as THE ticket to salvation, still expects of its followers adherence to a moral code. (Which, truth be told, sort of muddies the waters a bit regarding this claim; Christianity claims a belief in the sacrifice of Christ as the sole means of salvation, but it is also clear that if one does not follow the moral code, one could not truly be said to "believe" in this sacrifice. I am not trying to disagree with your assertion here, but I think you'll agree that this conclusion COULD be drawn by an outside observer trying to compare these religions.)

Whereas, christianity, when actually understood, does not stress works as a means to salvation, but instead stresses faith in another's work (Jesus) as if it stood for your own works. That is a radical departure from paganism. What is more, to completely nullify one's works, it is said that persons who are to have this faith are predestined to do so before creation. Quite radical an idea.

Yes, but the whole "predestination" idea brings in quite a raft of other problems for Christianity to deal with - witness the endless debates on that subject even within the Christian community - so I'm not sure it would be good to open that particular can of worms in such a comparison.

Further, I would have to raise an objection, if I may, to your use of the term "pagan" as an synonym for "non-Christian." "Paganism" generally is used to refer only to a particular set of pantheistic, nature-based religions, and none of the above qualify.

In light of this stark difference that is why I say that either:

1. All the world's pagan religions are true and Christianity is false.
(we have a case of concensus among paganism outweighing the concensus of Christianity. By virtue of concensus, Paganism must be right.)

2. Christianity is true and all of the world's pagan religions are false.

#2 is possible, #1 is not. If Christianity is false, then the most that could be said is that ONE of the alternatives MAY then be true. You can then substitute any of the others for "Christianity" in the above, and they still work.

Or possibly rather than "true" you meant "correct about salvation being by faith, not works" (or vice-versa), but then we get into the problems of the above that really don't have much to do with "salvation" per se, at all.

(By Virtue of the uniqueness of Christianity apart from paganism suggests that it is true.)

Sorry, but not so. Christianity may be unique in the particular aspect mentioned, but each of the others all have their own unique aspects (otherwise, they would not be distinguishable). Given this, you could base a similar argument on any of THOSE aspects, and come to the same conclusion - that the "uniqueness" of that aspect to its "home" relgion somehow suggests that that religion is "true."

(There's some problems in this as well; if, for example, Hinduism is true, meaning that everything that it teaches is true, then other religions could be "true" as well - as Hinduism at least in some forms is extremely tolerant of the idea that it is not SOLELY the true faith. A Hindu saying: "Ekam sataha vipraha bahudha vadanti," or, "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names")

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by bmyers The "Eastern" group would have to include:

Hinduism
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Buddhism (not truly a religion, but is usually lumped in here)

Actually, Taoism is not a religion at all, it's a philosophy that is often confused with an odd collection of superstitions that have been called "taoism" because they use some Taoist imagery and practices but that are not consistant with basic Taoist principals.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by PureX
I don't think the current religion called Christianity has much to do with Jesus anymore, or with the message and lessons Jesus was trying to teach. In fact, I'd say that religious Christianity has become the shallow selfish facade that Judaism was in Jesus' time, and were Jesus alive today, it would be the Christians looking to shut him up.

The whole blood sacrifice to bribe God for God's forgiveness thing is just an irrelevant add-on that helps distract people from the true message - a message that religious Christianity wants stifled just as much as the Jews and Romans both did in Jesus' time. I think Jesus would be truly shocked and offended by the religion that now bears his name, and not least of all for this paganist sacrifice idea.

Pure, I'd also have to agree with pretty much everything you said, at least in general. The whole "sacrifice" thread that runs through Christianity is one of the major problems I have with the religion, at least as far as what it proposes for "salvation." The idea that a sacrifice should be necessary in the first place is one that I find very questionable, along with the rather obvious implication that God intentionally set things up this way. In short, it all appears to me to be a rather arbitrary game, and I have great difficulty with the notion of a God who would work this way. It only gets worse if the notions of "predestination" or "omniscience" are brought into the picture, because then the claim is also being made that God must know in advance which souls will be "saved." But if not all souls are saved, then God is intentionally creating souls to be tormented and ultimately wasted. This again does not paint a picture of God that I can accept.

I agree that the basic message of Christ has been virtually lost over the years, at least as the primary focal point of most examples of the religion that bears his name, and in its place we have a flawed system that was put into place by the church itself, and apparently without too much thought or imagination. I don't intend any disrespect to the Christians here who may be offended by this, but it does honestly reflect my opinions on the subject.

 

[LightSon]

bribery or justice?

bribery or justice?

Originally posted by bmyers
The whole "sacrifice" thread that runs through Christianity is one of the major problems I have with the religion, at least as far as what it proposes for "salvation." The idea that a sacrifice should be necessary in the first place is one that I find very questionable, along with the rather obvious implication that God intentionally set things up this way.

The “sacrifice” of Christ is foundational to my understanding of Christianity. I struggle with how much of this system needs to be “reasonable” in my view.

Is it possible bmyers, that you do not fully understand it? I appreciate that you hedge your assertions, tending to leave a back door should your current understanding be obscured.

I offer my thoughts about Christ’s sacrifice in contrast to what PureX consistently calls “bribery”. I give PureX wide latitude in that he doesn’t have the eyes of faith to see this.

Many have speculated about which components of God’s world are pursuant to His nature and which components are the result of fiat (“God intentionally set things up this way”). At some point, if one gives any credence to the Christian view there is an acceptance which has sway for those things we do not understand.

Does the sacrifice of Christ make “reasonable” sense to me, setting aside the question of whether God was arbitrary in setting it up this way?

Suppose you were an all powerful being who wanted to fellowship with another. What would you do? The problem facing you is that nobody else exists. No problem. Because you are all powerful, you create someone. So far so good. We like to be around people with whom we have something in common. Actions are not amoral. I doubt an avid drinker would enjoy hanging with a teetotaler – and vice versa. Would a righteous God want to create beings that behaved in ways that violated His integrity? Doubtful. So God could have created beings which only behave the way He wants. Of course such people wouldn’t have free will. Would not you prefer to be with people that wanted to be with you? Or would caged “loving” pets suffice?

It makes sense that God would want to create beings with free will. But then suppose they chose to use that free will to violate your principles of “right” behavior?

Here we have a bit of a disconnect with God, in that His standards are higher than ours. My wife doesn’t allow muddy shoes to be worn on her nice white carpet. If you always live in muddy shoes and have never had nice (clean) things in your home, you may not understand this rule. At our house, as long as you wear muddy shoes, you stay outside. Is she being mean? Is she being arbitrary, unfair or unloving?

If a free will person violates God law, that person doesn’t get to come into heaven. Is God mean? Does this sound petty? Just try communicating to my wife that a little mud is okay and see how petty she purports to be. Because we live in the mud of sin, we simply cannot relate to how inexorable God is on his righteous standards. We can only relate as our personal sensibilities are offended.

Please allow me to use a base example which I hope will offend average sensibilities. If somebody raped and eviscerated my spouse, how might I feel? Well I will tell you how I would feel. I would want blood. In fact, if the government doesn’t intervene, I will personally disembowel the offender. I will be angry. I will be wrathful. I will not be appeased with anything but the blood of the perpetrator. PureX calls this concept “bribery”. Sorry, I’m sure you will protest, but that is my perception of your mis-rendering of the sacrifice of Christ.

In the analogy, I am the offender. I have raped and mutilated that which God cherishes and God’s wrath will not be assuaged by anything but blood. God will not be appeased with bribery. God will only be appeased with my death and my blood spilt. That is the nature of divine justice.

Now consider that I am not only the offender, but I am the one God created in the first place with whom God wants to share. What will God do? What would you do? If the one you loved so much committed the atrocity I described above? Here is what God did. He devised a plan whereby His own inexorable sense of justice could be satisfied AND whereby He could allow His love for me to be given expression. God offered Himself. God offered His Son as a substitute. Christ willingly offered Himself to receive God’s wrath for crimes I did. This is the undisputable theme of both Old and New Testaments. It is the solution to loving a free-will creature that has chosen to behave badly.

See the theme in the Old Testament, foretold by the prophet Isaiah 600 years before Christ came.

Isaiah 53: 3-7
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

You may see that this text describes the life of Christ accurately.
God laid on Christ “the iniquity of us all”. God smote Christ. Christ is the lamb of God, offered as a substitute, to receive a just punishment which was otherwise targeted at me.

See the theme alluded to in the New Testament:

1st John 1:7
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

I could have picked passage that more closely paralleled the Isaiah verses. But this verse shows the result of Christ’s sacrifice. Much is made of His blood. What is His blood. Jesus’ blood is the physical evidence that God’s wrath found resolution with respect to all who’s sin was punished in the body of Christ. The healing and cleansing alluded to in Isaiah finds fulfillment in Jesus’s work on the cross. Then and only then can the love of God find its fruition. We then can be seen by God as cleansed. WE can now walk into heaven as it were on God’s white carpet.

My wife would not let you into the house with muddy shoes. Of course, she would also move to help you solve the problem, even if it meant getting down on her hands and knees to clean your shoes on your behalf.

God stoops to lovingly pay the price for our bad behavior. Jesus paid the price with His own life’s blood. For this act of love, we should not question God or otherwise shake our fist at Him. We should respond in heartfelt gratitude. For God’s sacrifice, I give Him my life in return. He may do with me as He chooses.

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Bmyers: To explain further what I mean by saying, "there must be a terminus to what is knowable," what I mean to express is that philosophically, there is an absolute to knowledge. For all things that exist, there is philosophically speaking, a final answer. All knowledge acquired thus far about anything is only relative to this absolute knowledge. Whether we can know this absolute may simply be either a matter of time or revelation, if at all. I don't know.


On the question of the uniqueness of Christianity, it is the only religion on earth that does not stress or embrace the concept that work leads to reward; either in this life or the next. But you are correct, not every religion addresses the concept of an afterlife or subsequent existence.

Though of every single religion and philosophy you listed (throw in Baha'i, new age, Jainism, sikhism), the concept that a procedure, ritual, or process must be performed in order to reach some favorable position or level in this life or some other subsequent existence or state, is what they share in common and is paramount to all. In that, I termed them pagan. But you are right especially in light of the negative connotation that that term carries and not to mention that pagan merely means a religion that does not follow "your" god. By that, we'd all be pagans one to another.

And yes, you are correct, all do uphold some form of morality. There is a general sense of morality that overlaps each. But again, regardless of how Christians seem to stress "works," (paraphrased from what PureX aptly stated), Works has no effect on one's salvation. But good works are not irrelevant to the Christian as they are to be a witness of "new life."

But Titus says it best:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

(You'll pardon that cut and paste please)
I didn't include verse 9 being that I'm ever guilty of parts of it.

Now as to my choices, i.e. #1,#2,#3, of my previous post, omitting Christianity, none of the world's religions are unique enough in the sense of one's participation towards the attainment of that favorable "something" to separate them as far as a choice. In this I assign an ecumenical branding upon them. But of course they each possess a certain uniqueness in their own right, otherwise how would we tell them apart other than their names?

In conclusion, True Christianity, a Christianity unbriddle from the religious and their dogma, is a religion where one has nothing "to do" to attain the ultimate level, value, position, reward, or after-life. According to the texts, one merely, and I mean merely (mustard seed) has to believe that Christ died for their sins. (Of course you have to acknowledge that you are a sinner first. A Big hurdle.) Does that in and of itself make it a true religion? I can't say affirmatively. I can only believe that it does. But what I do know, when breaking every religion and life philosophy down to its essence, that is, one must perform "rituals" to attain, christianity poses the most unique of concepts that it garners a distinct separation from the rest.

In my mind at least. (Though philosophically speaking, it could be said that the act of accepting Christ - having faith and baptism, could be construed as a process, ritual or procedure. I have a defense, I suppose, but this post is long enough.)

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18 On the question of the uniqueness of Christianity, it is the only religion on earth that does not stress or embrace the concept that work leads to reward; either in this life or the next.

Isaiah,
As a former Christian I must disagree with your statement here. You have greatly oversimplified things and ignored (or are unaware of) contrary views. Within many Chrisitan goups, works do indeed lead to reward. Unforetunately, I am in a hotel without my normal reference works, so the following is but a scaled down version of what I would normally be able to write.

I Cor. 3 clearly (at least according to numerous sermons I've heard) teachs about works related rewards: "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." Granted this is not a salvation level reward, but it does contradict your above statement.

There have also been numerous debates about the requirement of works for salvation throughout the history of Christiandom. Martin Luther (I believe) wanted to remove James from the cannon because of it's teachings in chapter 2. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Here are a few other passages I easily found:
[Psalms 62:12] “For thou renderest to every man according to his work.”
[Corinthians 5:10] “We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”
[Romans 2:5-6] “The righteous judgement of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds”
[Revelation 20:12-15] “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened ... and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books, according to their works {notice it does not say “faith”} ... and they were judged every man according to their works...”

I've heard a lot of grammatical gymnastics by pastors trying to twist these verses into saying something different, but they weren't convincing.

Acts 16 says: "Men, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." So simply being a member of the household of a believer saves you?

There are also some sects that teach that baptism is a requirement of salvation (some even insist it be done by one of their ministers to count). Romans talks about people being "justified" who by nature do the right things (though they don't have the law). Many of the calvinist proof texts support the notion that we really have nothing to do with our salvation.

There are more points that could be made, but at a minimal you must admit that things are not quite as cut and dried as your statements indicated. You may ignore these issues by simply defining anyone that teaches different to you as being outside of "true Christianity", but that only defines your problem away, it doesn't really deal with it.

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Ex-Fundy,

I am aware of those verses and many others that could be used in support of your position. But rather than getting into a verse and chapter tet-a-tet with you that can take up countless pages, the simple question becomes, "does works save a man?" Is there one instance in the bible once the plan of salvation is revealed where a person is granted eternal life from works alone?

The logic therefore follows:

1. If one does good works and has faith in Christ's work, one is granted eternal life.

2. If one does not do good works but has faith in Christ's work, one is granted eternal life. (Here is 99.9% of Christians)

3. If one does good works but does not have faith in Christ's work, one is not granted eternal life.

4. If one does neither good works nor has faith in Christ's work, one is not granted eternal life.

The ultimate reward for works is nil. Therefore, True Christianity, or a Christianity which is of the bible, essentially does not uphold a concept of works equals reward.

 

[SOTK]

I said:

Originally posted by SOTK4ever After all, it is the goal of the alcoholic in A.A. to remain sober, help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety, and to become, as much as humanly possible, a selfless human being. In my opinion, the belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to achieve this.

You said:

Originally posted by PureX
Well, as a friend of Bill W.'s myself, I'm a little dissapointed to see you say this. I know many folks in AA who have been relieved of their obsession with aclohol just as you have, who have helped many others to be relieved as well and continue to do so, who have become very loving and giving people (what you call "selfless"), and who are not Christians. Somehow, they have managed to achieve this without a belief in Jesus Christ. In fact, it's because I have seen this happen to so many people that I have come to realize that the names and the religious dogmas people choose for themselves are not what matters at all, but that it's the act of faith in itself that heals us.

Thanks for you words, Purex. It's great to meet a fellow friend of Bill W.'s! I don't think that I have ever met a friend of Bill's before in forums. I certainly wasn't expecting to run into one at Theologyonline. Glad to see it, though!

In reference to what you wrote, I agree when you said, "I know many folks in AA who have been relieved of their obsession with aclohol just as you have, who have helped many others to be relieved as well and continue to do so, who have become very loving and giving people (what you call "selfless"), and who are not Christians." I didn't mean to imply that only Christians can stay sober, help other alcoholics, or become selfless. I too know a lot of alcoholics who aren't Christians that can do these things. One that I know is my sponsor. What I should have stated, thanks for correcting me, is that it has been my experience that belief in Jesus Christ is the best way to stay sober, help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety, and to become as selfless as possible. Also, it is my opinion that having a Higher Power, in my case He is Christ, is just about the only thing that has kept me, and countless other alcoholics that I know, away from the first drink. I have been around A.A. long enough now to have seen two important factors in staying sober, being selfless, and improving yourself by becoming as selfless as possible. The first factor is attending meetings and the second one is having a Higher Power. These are the first two things that I hear the alcoholic say that he stopped doing when he has just made it back in from having relapsed. Also, most of the old-timers that I have met in A.A. have very strong relationships with their Higher Power, and most interesting, most of the old-timer's are Christians.

While I think it is very possible that an alcoholic can stay sober without having a relationship with a Higher Power, I also think that their quality of life will not be as great as the alcoholic who does. I've seen this with far too many alcoholics to dismiss it. For the alcoholic who believes in a Higher Power and who is seeking to find out even more about their Higher Power, it is my opinion that that seeking will put them face to face with Jesus Christ and the quality of their sober life will be tremendously better.

Incidentally, I'm of the mind that the Christian alcoholic needs both their church family and their A.A. family in order to be whole. I've seen many Christian alcoholics who only go to church only, and I think that's a big mistake, but it's only my opinion.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18 But rather than getting into a verse and chapter tet-a-tet with you that can take up countless pages

The reason such discussions take up countless pages is because the bible simply is NOT that clear on such issues. For every proof text you can post, I can likely post one (I think I already posted 5 or 6) that seems to say something contrary to yours. If the bible is not able to communicate such truths more clearly, why should anyone assume it's gods infallible word?

I gave an extremely clear example (I Cor. 3) that shows a cause and effect relationship between works and rewards (I didn't say salvation, "rewards" was a word you used first) in the Bible. Either your previous statement (the one I challenged) was an overstatement (which I believe is the case) and you should admit it, or you should deal convincingly with the Bible verses I posted.

"does works save a man?" Is there one instance in the bible once the plan of salvation is revealed where a person is granted eternal life from works alone?

You have constrained me to less than 1/4th of the Bible ("once the plan of salvation is revealed"). I won't spent time trying to meet this challenge.

There are professing Christians that believe in universalism (i.e. Christ died for all, God wants all to be saved, eventually God will be successful), others believe baptism is required, and others believe as you apparently do (though you still have a slew of verses you have to explain away). Throughout history, various views of soteriology have held prominence. Some have indeed emphasized various forms of works. This has occurred because the Bible is not clear on this issue. While your view may hold the position of prominence in your present realm of christiandom, it isn't an unchallenged pillar of truth that has stood solid for 2000 years. Therefore, trying to use it as a uniqueness that somehow demonstrates truth is not convincing.

I think Bmyers already did an excellent job of pointing out that one can find uniquenesses about any religion, but that doesn't support the truthfulness of those religions.

 

[bmyers]

Re: bribery or justice?

Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by LightSon
The “sacrifice” of Christ is foundational to my understanding of Christianity. I struggle with how much of this system needs to be “reasonable” in my view.

Understood, and as I said, I did not intend disrespect to those who would see this differently than I do. It's just that I DO need things to be "reasonable" in order to accept them. And I find the nature of the "salvation" plan as described by conventional Christian theology to be at odds with what I would expect of a God, so I am forced to question it.

Is it possible bmyers, that you do not fully understand it? I appreciate that you hedge your assertions, tending to leave a back door should your current understanding be obscured.

Obviously it is possible. And yes, I tend to "hedge" (I would prefer "qualify" ) my assertions as I do try to be an "honest researcher" (at least when I'm dealing with those that I also believe are coming to the discussion in the same way). I think that certainty in one's beliefs, at least when such certainty gets in the way of giving contrary propositions a fair hearing, is the death of the search for truth. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't also some things that I won't stop believing without a very, VERY strong argument.

Suppose you were an all powerful being who wanted to fellowship with another. What would you do? The problem facing you is that nobody else exists. No problem. Because you are all powerful, you create someone. So far so good. We like to be around people with whom we have something in common. Actions are not amoral. I doubt an avid drinker would enjoy hanging with a teetotaler – and vice versa. Would a righteous God want to create beings that behaved in ways that violated His integrity? Doubtful.

This is where the first question pops into my head - what does "righteous" mean in this context? What is "righteous" - what is "good" or "bad" - if we are talking about a being that, at the point we're concerned with here, is completely isolated and is in fact the totality of his universe? The second problem with this is a temporal one; the above scenario implies that God himself had no beginning, and yet there was a definite point in the past at which this act of creation of a companion entity/group/species/universe took place. This means that while God exists literally for an infinite time into the past, the universe and mankind does not. But if this is true, then God got along for literally an infinite period of time without anyone else. Why would the supposed need for "fellowship" then come up? Something is wrong with this scenario, obviously. It may be that the God we're trying to describe is not infinitely old - but then, this has some pretty serious implications of its own. But let's continue:

So God could have created beings which only behave the way He wants. Of course such people wouldn’t have free will. Would not you prefer to be with people that wanted to be with you? Or would caged “loving” pets suffice?

It makes sense that God would want to create beings with free will. But then suppose they chose to use that free will to violate your principles of “right” behavior?

Again, two problems with the above. First, we are again talking about a being who is presumed to be the creator of the entire universe; his power, knowledge, etc., must therefore be at a far, far higher level than our own, if not truly infinite. If this is the case, then we are in fact the equivalent of "pets", at least in terms of our ability to relate to and to truly "fellowship" with this higher entity in a manner that would be significant from his perspective. The main difference I see here is that the gap between such a being and mankind is far, far greater than that between, say, people and their dogs. And even with that latter relationship - no matter how much the dogs get out of it (and they no doubt see us as something like "gods" from their limited perspective), a dog really isn't someone that a human will find very satisfying in terms of "fellowship." So if the reason for our existence is simply to provide God with company, you'd think he would have made something a bit closer to himself in nature.

The second problem is again this one of "free will." If we assume that God has free will, then there is at least one example of a being with free will and yet does not violate God's principles of "right" behavior - God himself. So it should be possible for God to create a lesser being (for fellowship, since we're still under that assumption) which has free will and yet will not violate these same principles. If God creates a being with free will which can and does violate these principles, and God is knowledgeable enough to know that this is a possibility, then God himself is ultimately responsible for these principles being violated. So again, something is wrong with this line of thought. It may be that God is not sufficiently knowledgeable to know what would happen if he created a race with "free will". It may also be that God himself does not have free will, and so the above argument does not hold. Again, though, either of these have rather profound implications vs. the traditional model of God.

If a free will person violates God law, that person doesn’t get to come into heaven. Is God mean? Does this sound petty? Just try communicating to my wife that a little mud is okay and see how petty she purports to be. Because we live in the mud of sin, we simply cannot relate to how inexorable God is on his righteous standards. We can only relate as our personal sensibilities are offended.

One problem here is that the analogy is strained too far. Your wife does not permit muddy shoes in the house because it's a significant problem for her if the carpet is dirtied. But your wife isn't God; again, if God is all-powerful, then all tasks require the same amount of effort - none! God won't object to "muddy shoes on the carpet," simply because He can always arrange it so that the mud in effect never hits the carpet in the first place!

But more serious is this notion of "violating God's law". This gets us back to the very basic question of the origin of "good" and "bad", and whether God decides what is "good" and "bad" or whether God is constrained to be "always good." If the former, then God's law IS arbitrary; it depends solely on the whim of God, and what is good could just as easily be bad and vice-versa (also, see the above re the problem of just what "good" means from God's perspective. If, on the other hand, God is constrained to be "good," then there must be a standard of "good" and "bad" which exists separate from God. If this is true, though, we're faced with new problems - what IS this standard, and where did IT come from?

It is possible, though, that what we mean by "God's law" are simply a set of rules that God set down for human beings to follow, but they don't really apply to him (i.e., God's own code is beyond/"above" us, and what we've been given as a moral code is for our own use only.) This moral code might exist for at least two reasons - the principles it provides are the optimum way for human beings to live together on Earth, or they are more arbitrary than that. If the former, though, then we should ask what the point of this would be, again from God's perspective. A human's existence on earth is, on the time scale of God, less than an instant, which is then followed (we are told) by either an eternity in the presence of God (i.e., existing "in the same place" as he does), or at least a very long time of suffering. That instant, then, would be the deciding factor in determining how a given "soul" spends this much, much longer period. So what is its point? Is it merely a test? And if so, then ultimately it IS arbitrary.

By the way, this raises yet another point. We again assume that God exists "for eternity." God existed for an infinite period of time prior to the creation of the universe, and will exist - presumably along with the "saved" - for an infinite time after its end. If this is true, then the time that God spends with the "saved" souls is again infinitely longer than the entire physical existence of the universe. If this is true, then do those souls, after their "salvation," continue to exhibit "free will"? If so, then the time spent in the whole existence of the physical universe is meaningless - God is still faced with the problem of having "companion" beings who could violate his principles, or else he has created beings now that have free will and yet will not violate his principles. If the latter, then why not simply do this in the first place? To go through the process we've described just to wind up with a set of acceptable fellows achieved nothing else that could not have been done directly, except to create a very large number of OTHER souls and then condemn them to suffering. This again does not seem to be in line with what we are assuming about the nature of God.

Please allow me to use a base example which I hope will offend average sensibilities. If somebody raped and eviscerated my spouse, how might I feel? Well I will tell you how I would feel. I would want blood. In fact, if the government doesn’t intervene, I will personally disembowel the offender. I will be angry. I will be wrathful. I will not be appeased with anything but the blood of the perpetrator. PureX calls this concept “bribery”. Sorry, I’m sure you will protest, but that is my perception of your mis-rendering of the sacrifice of Christ.

In the analogy, I am the offender. I have raped and mutilated that which God cherishes and God’s wrath will not be assuaged by anything but blood. God will not be appeased with bribery. God will only be appeased with my death and my blood spilt. That is the nature of divine justice.

No, I don't protest your feelings as described in this hypothetical - but what I think you miss here is that you're describing the feelings and motivations of a normal human, and, I believe, comparing God to this. This, to me, makes the error commonly made in many religions: God is drawn as effectively nothing more than a very human ruler, writ large. A very powerful, very wise king, but also very human, and behaving just as we would expect a human to behave. I think that such a model completely ignores the implications of an entity who is truly "Godlike" in scope and power. After all, what is "death and blood spilt" to God? Humans crave such for revenge, primarily because we know what they would mean were they inflicted on us. If God inflicts such things, it cannot be for his own "appeasement," but perhaps rather (just to give one possible alternative) as a learning experience for the lesser entity involved.

Now consider that I am not only the offender, but I am the one God created in the first place with whom God wants to share. What will God do? What would you do? If the one you loved so much committed the atrocity I described above? Here is what God did. He devised a plan whereby His own inexorable sense of justice could be satisfied AND whereby He could allow His love for me to be given expression. God offered Himself. God offered His Son as a substitute. Christ willingly offered Himself to receive God’s wrath for crimes I did. This is the undisputable theme of both Old and New Testaments. It is the solution to loving a free-will creature that has chosen to behave badly.

And now we come to the crux of the problems I have, no pun intended. While the sacrifice of Jesus appears to be significant from a human perspective, what really is it to God? If Jesus is literally God (or at the least a being equivalent to God in nature), then Jesus existed both from an infinite time prior to his physical death, and will exist for an infinite time afterwards - and further, even in human form (since he would have to maintain perfect faith in God even in that form), knew that this would be so. So what, exactly, is the significance to God of this punishment? Were I to be flippant about this, I might describe one possible reason for it as "putting on a good show for the crowd" - i.e., it is not truly significant to God, but rather was primarily meant to impress humans. But if this is the case, it again seems to be a very elaborate and arbitrary show, put on for no particularly good reason. From the perspective of God, nothing really changes. From the perspective of humanity, we get what is in effect good drama, apparently intended to encourage proper behavior. It simply doesn't seem to hold together as a Godlike act, no matter how you look at it.

I am therefore again left with PureX's conclusion - that the Christian salvation plan is actually something added to the teachings of Jesus after the fact, by very human leaders of the church, and unfortunately it has obscured Jesus' true message - which was not "believe in me" but rather "love one another and live in peace."

I understand that you will disagree with this conclusion, and again it is not my intention to either convince you of its correctness or to disrespect your (or others) beliefs. But hopefully now I have made my perspective on this a bit clearer. Perhaps not; I'm writing this very late (insomnia tonight! ), and I am afraid that this might not be as clear as I had hoped. But it's a start...

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
The reason such discussions take up countless pages is because the bible simply is NOT that clear on such issues. For every proof text you can post, I can likely post one (I think I already posted 5 or 6) that seems to say something contrary to yours. If the bible is not able to communicate such truths more clearly, why should anyone assume it's gods infallible word?

Here is what I ask; that you, if at all interested, re-read each of my posts on this issue clearly. You will not find that I make a claim towards the bible being God's infallible word. But what you should be able to draw out is that I was making a comparision between work and ultimate reward. I think that you may be reading too much into what I post while parsing it through a personal bias that you have against Christians (perhaps because you onced dabbled there) and may be assuming things that are not stated.

I gave an extremely clear example (I Cor. 3) that shows a cause and effect relationship between works and rewards (I didn't say salvation, "rewards" was a word you used first) in the Bible. Either your previous statement (the one I challenged) was an overstatement (which I believe is the case) and you should admit it, or you should deal convincingly with the Bible verses I posted.

A. The example in Corinthians is not "extremely clear." You pulled it out in isolation leaving only a premise. Let's examine it in its context to reveal the extent of its logic:

1 corth 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Now, if the one who "builds" does so in vain as it is all burned off and it is said that he suffers loss, howbeit that he still is saved as the one who built rightly? Simple. Because, ultimately, works count for nothing.

B. Overstatement? Or perhaps I wasn't concise in meaning enough for some. As you notice, from further questioning and examination, I added to clarify or omitted to refine. In this case, I can neither move to the left or to the right because I clarified that works does not lead to reward in the ultimate sense. And even without clarification, it should have been self-evident that I am reasoning towards the ultimate sense in that religions and life-philosophies deal ultimately with the ultimate. (possible exception would be Taoism, but when you think about it, not really.) In Christianity, the ultimate reward/level to be had would be salvation. But, it itself cannot be attained or reached by a series of actions to be judged of the adherrent by the ultimate icon of that religion.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Neither, is there a degree to reward. Nor is it stated what type of reward one is to receive in verses that state that a reward is to be met out. So how does a Christian work towards a reward? What is greater than salvation in relation to damnation or by itself?

In other religions, we understand how one works towards a reward/level. They are clear on such matters in so much as it can be clear.

You have constrained me to less than 1/4th of the Bible ("once the plan of salvation is revealed"). I won't spent time trying to meet this challenge.

No, not at all. I have constrained you to the entire bible seeing that salvation and its plan is pre-eminent in every book.

There are professing Christians that believe in universalism (i.e. Christ died for all, God wants all to be saved, eventually God will be successful), others believe baptism is required, and others believe as you apparently do (though you still have a slew of verses you have to explain away). Throughout history, various views of soteriology have held prominence. Some have indeed emphasized various forms of works. This has occurred because the Bible is not clear on this issue. While your view may hold the position of prominence in your present realm of christiandom, it isn't an unchallenged pillar of truth that has stood solid for 2000 years. Therefore, trying to use it as a uniqueness that somehow demonstrates truth is not convincing.

A.It is to demonstrate uniqueness, and then by concensus and virtue of uniqueness, possible truth. You will not find me waving a flag for Christianity as if you notice again, I gave other possible outcomes.

B. Illustrating the various "side schools" of Christianity, many of which have only had small followings is a valid case in its own right, but not strong enough to claim that Christianity deals with works as primary.

C. To convince you of the uniqueness does not mean that I am trying to convince you of the truth of Christianity, as again, re-read my outcomes. They also allow you to be convinced of two other choices. You posed three additional choices based on your own view. I took exception to only one and explained why, but even allowed for its possibility.

I think Bmyers already did an excellent job of pointing out that one can find uniquenesses about any religion, but that doesn't support the truthfulness of those religions.

Yes you can find uniqueness about any religion. But all but one have a common, primary and pre-eminent theme of works towards acheivement towards something ultimate. And that is the uniqueness that is most stark. (though you will beg to differ and that's fine also) But remove that aspect from the discussion and you will find them to be all the same in that they all deal with the unseen and ultimate.

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by bmyers

I am therefore again left with PureX's conclusion - that the Christian salvation plan is actually something added to the teachings of Jesus after the fact, by very human leaders of the church, and unfortunately it has obscured Jesus' true message - which was not "believe in me" but rather "love one another and live in peace."

First, it was a good and well thought out post. Insomina seems to have no effect on you.

I only highlighted the above because I'm not certain that that would be PureX's conclusion. Perhaps it is or maybe its is PureX's intended meaning.

But the plan of salvation as far as "believe in me" is attributed to Jesus Himself as direct quotes. If you are introducing the idea that a bit of tampering is at work and these words were added and posed as if Jesus said them, well then, that's another matter. Is it possible? Don't know. I don't believe so. But I wasn't there myself to tell you otherwise.

 

[Jason Thomas]

Post Created in an Atheist Forum

Post Created in an Atheist Forum

Let's see what you atheists here can do with this:

"One has to make a distinction between 'sense-experience' and our ability to evaluate sense experience and reason over it as human beings - this is what our brain does (sometimes)."

First of all, thank you for your intelligent reply. I will strive to offer you a response worthy of your intellect:

As far as I can see “one” does not have to make any such distinction. There is not a single one of the five human senses responsible for understanding concepts such as logic and reason. Therefore there are either other senses not officially recognized or the understating of logic and reason cannot possibly exist.

What we perceive is largely determined by our particularly influenced reasoning. What one person may describe as small another may describe as large while both being correct, from their respective points of view. Your sense of sight is responsible for your seeing what is written on this computer screen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding what you are reading. The sense of understating is obviously more pronounced in some than in others. The sense of understanding concepts is a true sense in itself. I feel any intelligent person should be able to agree with this. The sense of understanding concepts is not usually as developed in people who are mentally retarded. So there is more than enough evidence that the sense of understanding concepts is indeed a sense unto itself.

You write that I am mistaken so please do share with us things atheists believe can be perceived as “real” without using our five-senses.


BTW: You may call me a theist, but that is your opinion. I would consider myself always ready revamp my current views. I have never encountered any label that would sufficiently describe my fluid point of view. So just because you may attempt to label me does not mean that I accept your appellation. I do not necessarily believe there is a God. I expect that at any moment a new truth will change my current point of view.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever ....and most interesting, most of the old-timer's are Christians.

I think this may depend on where you live. If you live in the south, for example, where most people in general are "Christians" and to not be a Christian there will get you ostricized socially, an active alcoholic won't care, but an AA "old-timer" will have sobered up and rejoined his community and therefor will likely be a Christian, too.

Here in Chicago, there are all sorts of people of all kinds of religious faiths and so even the AA old-timers represent no particular religious ideology. We even have "quad A" meetings here (Atheists and Agnostics Alcoholics Anonymous).

Originally posted by SOTK4ever While I think it is very possible that an alcoholic can stay sober without having a relationship with a Higher Power, I also think that their quality of life will not be as great as the alcoholic who does. I've seen this with far too many alcoholics to dismiss it. For the alcoholic who believes in a Higher Power and who is seeking to find out even more about their Higher Power, it is my opinion that that seeking will put them face to face with Jesus Christ and the quality of their sober life will be tremendously better.

The twelve steps are an exercize in faith. It's difficult to exercize faith without some concept of a "higher power", but I know a lot of folks who have very different concepts of this higher power. Some have a very traditional religious view, such as yourself, and some have very "new age" views, I know some who even have a sort of "scientific" concept of this higher power and of course the true atheist will view a group of sober alcoholics as a "power greater than themselves" for the purposes of the steps.

To me, whatever works, works. What matters isn't the name of their God, but that they can stay sober, first. Then, as they work through the steps, if they do it honestly and in earnest, they will eventually become grateful and even HAPPY to be sober. And then they will have something of great value to offer to others.

I agree with you about using any and all help that's available to us in recovery. Only about 2 out of every 32 alcoholics ever even seek help, and only about 50% of those who do will manage to stay sober past the first year (the numbers for drug addiction are even more dismal). So the odds are way against addiction recovery, and any help we can find should be utilized, I think. I personally used AA, a church group and a professional psychologist regularly for the first couple years sober, and still they were the worst two years of my life. But thanks to all these recovery paths, I did finally work through and dispell many of the negative and inaccurate beliefs that my personality and illness had generated to make me miserable.

Originally posted by SOTK4ever Incidentally, I'm of the mind that the Christian alcoholic needs both their church family and their A.A. family in order to be whole. I've seen many Christian alcoholics who only go to church only, and I think that's a big mistake, but it's only my opinion.

I agree with you that if an alcoholic considers himself a Christian, or was raised with Christianity, he/she ought to also seek the help of their Church as well as AA. But it's important to remember that only AA has the remission of alcoholism as their one and only agenda. Churches have other agendas besides this, and sadly there are some churches that would toss a drunk out the door simply because he won't accept their dogma. (There are more of these than you might think.) I suspect that in a way a professional phychologist can be of more help, if he/she is trained in addiction recovery, because they aren't pushing any agenda at all except for their patient's health and well being. (Though there are lousy psychologists out there, too.) I had a great church group, however, and was able to discuss many questions and problems I had with religion with them, and to find a lot of kindness and wisdom there, too.

In the end, AA still has the best recovery rate of any of the current methods, and it's free to boot! What's not to love about that? *smile*

 

[PureX]

Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
First, it was a good and well thought out post. Insomina seems to have no effect on you.

I only highlighted the above because I'm not certain that that would be PureX's conclusion. Perhaps it is or maybe its is PureX's intended meaning.

But the plan of salvation as far as "believe in me" is attributed to Jesus Himself as direct quotes. If you are introducing the idea that a bit of tampering is at work and these words were added and posed as if Jesus said them, well then, that's another matter. Is it possible? Don't know. I don't believe so. But I wasn't there myself to tell you otherwise.

When (and if) Jesus said the only way to "the Father" is through him, I don't believe he meant "you must be a Christian and worship me as a god or God in heaven will reject you". In fact, I think Jesus would have been appalled by this interpretation, especially the idea that he is himseld God.

What I believe Jesus would have meant by this is that if we would follow his path, his example, and learn to view the world and others as he does, we will find God within us, and will find ourselves living in a "kingdom of God" rather than the states of men. My contention is that the message of Jesus was not about religion at all, and Jesus could have been of any religion or no religion, and it wouldn't have mattered. His message wasn't about religion, but about the spirit that inspires good religion, and good law, and good actions, and forgiveness and kindness and joy toward other people. Jesus was about a spirit that exists within us, and that can be recognized and developed for the good or ourselves and of everyone we come in contact with. I think this spirit is basically love. I think Jesus was trying to teach us that our ability to love is how we reflect the nature of our creator, and that if we would develop this reflection within ourselves, toward others, the benevolent effect would change the world (not to mention that it would heal us individually, too). And frankly, who can argue with that?

The problem is that we very often don't WANT to reflect this "divine love" through our nature and into the world. We get frightened and selfish and confused, instead, and then want to use power and force and control and manipulation to make the world around us correspond to what we think it ought to be, so we can then feel "safe". But the more force we apply, the more screwed up things get, and the more frightened we become ... wanting more force still .... it's a spiral into destruction and death.

This is mankind's perpetual battle. And this is our choice as individuals, too: fear and the endless pursuit of force, or faith in love in spite of the fact that others will choose against this. Jesus chose love and those who chose force killed him. But they coudn't kill the value and truth of what he taught. The battle still goes on today. The difference now is that it's the power-mongers that are very often the ones calling themselves "Christians".

 

[isaiah 1:18]

EX-Fundy, et al. My oberservation holds that True Christianity is unique to all other religions of the world by virtue of the concept that one reaches the ultimate level of attainment by doing no more than believing. But rather than take my word for it, here is what should be done to settle this matter:

I ask that for the sake of comparison, that each of the following tenets and concepts be found if at all in any of the world's religions. Especially the essence and concept spelled out in Ephesians 2. This way, we can all start on the same page and take it from there debating from known premises. And our peer review will be more orderly.

Though I've studied some of the other world religions and life philosophies and not all, it may turn out that there indeed exists texts in their respective religions that do mirror the concepts presented below. You know I'm mostly a flexible fellow. If it turns out that these are found, then I will be happy to retract my observation/theory. After all, all life is a learning process.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30
I and my Father are one.

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his 1only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Wadsworth]

Re: Post Created in an Atheist Forum

Re: Post Created in an Atheist Forum

Originally posted by Jason Thomas
Let's see what you atheists here can do with this:

"One has to make a distinction between 'sense-experience' and our ability to evaluate sense experience and reason over it as human beings - this is what our brain does (sometimes)."

First of all, thank you for your intelligent reply. I will strive to offer you a response worthy of your intellect:

As far as I can see “one” does not have to make any such distinction. There is not a single one of the five human senses responsible for understanding concepts such as logic and reason. Therefore there are either other senses not officially recognized or the understating of logic and reason cannot possibly exist.

What we perceive is largely determined by our particularly influenced reasoning. What one person may describe as small another may describe as large while both being correct, from their respective points of view. Your sense of sight is responsible for your seeing what is written on this computer screen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding what you are reading. The sense of understating is obviously more pronounced in some than in others. The sense of understanding concepts is a true sense in itself. I feel any intelligent person should be able to agree with this. The sense of understanding concepts is not usually as developed in people who are mentally retarded. So there is more than enough evidence that the sense of understanding concepts is indeed a sense unto itself.

You write that I am mistaken so please do share with us things atheists believe can be perceived as “real” without using our five-senses.


BTW: You may call me a theist, but that is your opinion. I would consider myself always ready revamp my current views. I have never encountered any label that would sufficiently describe my fluid point of view. So just because you may attempt to label me does not mean that I accept your appellation. I do not necessarily believe there is a God. I expect that at any moment a new truth will change my current point of view.

I am an atheist; since you have asked for one to respond. However , the religious/atheistic divide is irrelevent to a discussion of your quotation. You appear to be arguing about what constitutes the meaning of the word "sense".
As a scientist (whether atheist or not) would understand it, ( I am trained in Medicine), senses, as captured by sense-organs, eyes, ears etc, are extensions of our physical brains, which interact with the outside world. They are gatherers of information. The information thus acquired is transmitted in coded form, to the brain proper, where it is processed to the point where it produces a subjective feeling of "meaning" and "understanding", especially when it is compared and contrasted with previously stored information in the form of hard-wired memories. When you consider that individual neurons in the brain have been found to act like micro-computers, and function as logic gates, it is not surprising that humans are capable of reasoned, logical behaviour. Obviously, the study of neurophysiology, and of conciousness, is an on-going scientific endeavour, in which great strides are continually being made. you won't find much of use on the subject in the Bible; you will have to read up on neuroanatomy and physiology in order to gain more understanding. Scientific knowledge is contributed to by atheists and believers alike, but Science does not categorise people like that . It is just "scientists" who do "Science", not atheists or Christians as such. I recommended that you de-emphasise on this pseudo-distinction.
from: Wadsworth

 

[isaiah 1:18]

BTW, Purex, thanks for the clarification. That was quite thorough, enlightening, and in some respects agreeable.

 

[bmyers]

Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
First, it was a good and well thought out post. Insomina seems to have no effect on you.

It certainly is this morning, but that's another thing entirely...

I only highlighted the above because I'm not certain that that would be PureX's conclusion. Perhaps it is or maybe its is PureX's intended meaning.

I'll check the earlier posts, but that's what I thought was said (as well as who said it). If I've made a misattribution in my sleep-deprived state, my apologies to all.

But the plan of salvation as far as "believe in me" is attributed to Jesus Himself as direct quotes. If you are introducing the idea that a bit of tampering is at work and these words were added and posed as if Jesus said them, well then, that's another matter. Is it possible? Don't know. I don't believe so. But I wasn't there myself to tell you otherwise.

It is at least possible. One of the other things I've always found a bit odd about the Christian faith in particular is that there are no direct writings at all from the person who supposedly is the originator of the faith, nor from any of his contemporaries (the Gospel of Matthew is traditionally attributed to the disciple of that name, but does not explicitly make this claim and appears now to have been derived in large part from Mark, despite earlier traditions which reverse this ordering). The Gospels are at least very arguably records of oral traditions (the Gospel of Luke explicitly states that it is such), dating to not much earlier than about 30-40 years after the death of Jesus, if that. The letters of Paul date to somewhat earlier, but clearly (by Paul's own statements) we know that everything written by Paul comes after Jesus' death, and that Paul is also not a direct witness to the events of Jesus' life. (It has been noted by several that in Paul's writings, there is no indication that he was aware of the books we call the Gospels in anything remotely like the form in which we have them.) I think it is also arguable that the religion we know as Christianity today was shaped at least as much by Paul as it was by Jesus, and possibly much more so. There is also the somewhat troubling fact that the synoptic Gospels differ in numerous details - expected if they are simply after-the-fact records of an oral tradition which has become somewhat corrupted in the intervening years, but difficult to reconcile with the notion that they are completely inerrant and divinely inspired.

(More on this may be found at http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html)

So in short - yes, I think it is entirely possible that we do not have a completely accurate record of what Jesus said during the period of his actual ministry. The record is at the very least extremely incomplete, as there simply is not a sufficient amount of information in the gospels to cover everything said during a 2-3 year period of what we would have to assume is nearly continuous teaching.