It requires no faith, only a modicum of intelligence and education, to reconcile an omniscient god with free will.

I'm an atheist, but I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. What is mutually exclusive is omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence within the scope of human understanding.

That's the critical distinction. If you accept as your base premise that there is a difference between what a human being can possibly understand as benevolence and an absolute Good, then there's no difficulty reconciling everything.

If I withhold food from my dog after she's eaten enough, she might (if she were capable of reason), believe that I was unaware of her hunger, unable to satisfy her hunger, or barring each of those, simply not good enough to address her concerns. However, none of these are correct. I know, biologically speaking, that she is hungry. I am certainly capable of providing more food. What she can't understand is that giving her more food will be worse for her in the long run; the short-term satisfaction is not worth the health problems that will come if she is overweight.

To bring back to God, one reason it is a difficult reconciliation for me is because I know that I can reason. I can accept that there might be a perfectly good reason, universally speaking, for <insert your terrible thing here>, but I can't accept that it's better for me not to understand why. Another reason is that I acknowledge my own lack of power in communication with my dog; God should not have such difficulties with me. But finally, God knows precisely what standard of proof would be sufficient for my belief in Him, and has chosen for whatever mysterious reason not to satisfy that standard.

I should add that I was raised in a family that believes in God, but not one that pushes its beliefs in such a way as to generate a backlash against religion. I didn't grow up saying "I'm going to rebel against this." I think it would actually be pretty nice to know with surety that bad things happen for a reason and that it will all work out in the end.

I generally conclude that God doesn't exist, but I can entertain the possibility that I have been created specifically to serve His purposes as a non-believer for some inexplicable reason. Certainly in my case, I have no free will to believe or not believe in a higher power. I can pretend to believe, or I can be honest in my non-belief.

Part 1 of that statement seems to contradict part 2.

Not really. Part 2 is the Christian hypothesis of what God wants man to do.

i.e.

Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

from the Baltimore Cathechism.

Part 1, the unknowable part, is why God wanted man to do this. God doesn't need man, but he desires our existence, and our love for some reason. That's what we can't know in this lifetime.

This is wrong in terms of the facts and incoherent with respect to reason. To put it simply you have no idea what you are talking about. It requires no faith, only a modicum of intelligence and education, to reconcile an omniscient god with free will.

I've seen the hoops people jump their brains through in order to reconcile the notions I discussed and they've all been nonsensical. As for education I went to a pretty good school and did takes classes on the relevant subject matter. That you suggest it's so easy to explain away makes me suspect you either didn't or went to one with a decidedly religious bent to the education. If you'd like to present your hoops, or the "rock you are pushing up a hill" to paraphrase you then go ahead; if not then you shouldn't comment, much less roundly dismissing what I have to say while questioning my intelligence and/or education.

2) Does the ability to calculate the answer to question #1 mean that the driver is not free to choose the average speed at which s/he will travel?

I don't think you understand what the word omniscient means...

Being omnipotent doesn't mean He has to choose to exercise that power to dictate our every action. Being Omniscient doesn't mean he controls our choices, b/c , again he operates outside of time. I know the outcome of the 1960 World Series; that doesn't mean I had any impact on it.

It doesn't matter what frame of reference God has to time, if God created everything he invented the concept of time itself as well as causality upon which our universe and system of logic operate and is necessarily outside of it. He is omniscient and he created everything. It isn't at all similar to you knowing the result of the 1960 World Series after the fact. The only proper metaphor there would be if you invented the rules of baseball, the people playing the game, the physics by which the game operates, ect, ect with explicit knowledge of what would happen... or for something more feasible if you programmed a baseball simulation with no random outcomes, each event in the game necessarily happening the way you programmed it.

from the Baltimore Cathechism.

Do they even need this now that they fired Rich Garcia?

Part 1, the unknowable part, is why God wanted man to do this. God doesn't need man, but he desires our existence, and our love for some reason. That's what we can't know in this lifetime.

I would argue that if you admit that God's desires and intentions are essentially unknowable, then interpreting his 'commands' is impossible. Because - if we're talking about the God of the Old Testament here - he lies to his creations. More importantly, if you can't understand his motives, I don't see how one is to decide whether his commands are moral. And if you can't, then I don't see how one can be sure that one isn't following the commands of, well, the Devil. Or a god who hates his creations and wants them to suffer, which I suppose is more or less analogous.

Someone references partial-birth abortions earlier, and the existence of the soul. Well, since one can take from the Old Testament that a) the OT god is very content to snuff out life on, well, if not a 'whim', on a regular basis, and b) the OT contains some strangely vague commands, insight into the definition of a god's 'morality' would surely help.

Let's say it is free will whether or not to follow a god's commands. If this is the critical test of a person's worthiness to be 'saved' or 'damned' (curious concepts at best), shouldn't the instructions be written out in full? But with an inscrutable and unknowable deity, it would pretty much be a dart thrown in the dark towards a dartboard of indeterminate size, shape, and distance.

To say nothing of the 'morality' of imposed orders . . .

O'Roarks a Catholic conservative. It's always easier to see the mote in the other guys eye.

Here's his whole take on god and evolution and death and having a cancerous hemorroid.

each event in the game necessarily happening the way you programmed it.

This is where you analogy breaks down. God doesn't program each event. There is randomness and free-will, he just knows the outcome of these events/choices before they happen.

Knowing what someone will do is not the same as forcing them to do it.

O'Roarks a Catholic conservative. It's always easier to see the mote in the other guys eye.

I thought it might be a cynically humorous comment about how liberals and conservatives both elevated their ideologies to the height of deities while denying the others', both of them missing the 'fact' that each ideology is essentially interchangable as an attempt to impose artificial order upon a system made up of reactive, self-serving, self-interested individuals. 'My sky daddy can beat up your sky daddy!' kind of thing.

It's funnier that way, actually. Interesting article, anyway - thanks.

I would argue that if you admit that God's desires and intentions are essentially unknowable, then interpreting his 'commands' is impossible. Because - if we're talking about the God of the Old Testament here - he lies to his creations. More importantly, if you can't understand his motives, I don't see how one is to decide whether his commands are moral. And if you can't, then I don't see how one can be sure that one isn't following the commands of, well, the Devil. Or a god who hates his creations and wants them to suffer, which I suppose is more or less analogous.

We only know what He reveals to us, and what we can discern by logic.

The Old Testament (from a Catholic/Christian) point of view is incomplete. It is the imperfect revelation of God's plan, interpreted by flawed humans. That's why the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches do not espouse a literal interpretation of the Bible).
The Incarnation, and Resurrection are necessary to complete God's plan and the New Testaments revelations are necessary to understand it. Also, a teaching body, the Church, is necessary to interpret those revelations and apply them to everyday life.

Hence the concept that Ccatholicism stands on three pillars: 1) Scripture 2) Tradition 3) the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church).

Scripture alone is insufficient, and the OT, without the NT, even more so. The Bible is inspired and inerrant in terms of faith and morals, but is not impeccable in terms of facts, e.g. historical details. The OT is also written in a prophetic, literary style, not as a history text, so requires interpretation.

More amusing is how you foisted circumcision on us.

That comes under the heading, Don't get mad, get even.

I don't think you understand what the word omniscient means...

I don't think you answered my question.

DB

We only know what He reveals to us, and what we can discern by logic.

See, to me that's a bit like saying, 'I based my philosophy on the works of Emmanual Kant, interpreted via this dream I had when two rhinoceroses with the voice of my grandparents chased me through Ealing town center because I hadn't tidied my room properly.' They seem to be utterly incompatible, and therefore interpreting one via the tools of another baffles me.

I'm happy to accept that logic is logic and personal faith is personal faith; it's when the two attempt to inform each other that I feel like we're trying to combine a garlic press with the emotion 'wistful' and call it an ideology.

ETA: It's kind of the reverse of the comment earlier that 'God exists outside time'. Which doesn't mean anything, really; it's kind of the 'wave hands vaguely and move on' explanation that really means 'there's no words for it'. Well, fine, but then faith has just trampled all over logic and said, 'no matter what, you're not getting a word in edgeways'. When the logic contradicts faith, it gets thrown out, so really, the logic has no point except to lend credibility to the faith.

Knowing what someone will do is not the same as forcing them to do it.

It is if you created the person and everything they will ever interact with. "Forcing" is perhaps the wrong word, it just is. "God" created everything and the outcome was necessarily by design. There is no "randomness" if something can be(and was) foretold from the outset by the person who set up the whole thing. If you flip a coin and know heads or tails before hand there's no randomness involved. With foreknowledge any "randomness" is just an arbitrary exercise.

This is where you analogy breaks down. God doesn't program each event. There is randomness and free-will, he just knows the outcome of these events/choices before they happen.

The only exception to this is "God's Will" which comes up from time to time when someone dies young or hits a homerun.

EDIT - also with praying. My catholic friends and family have been known to pray for a certain event to happen. Clearly some of them believe God has influence on the outcome of events.

It is if you created the person and everything they will ever interact with.

Precisely. If you created the brain with which they operate and every inch of experience that they had which led them to a decision point, AND you already know what they are going to "choose" to do, then the difference between "forcing" them to act, and knowing that their acts are a foregone conclusion, is pretty slim.

So nobody wants to explain why they would woship a god who insists on the blood sacrifice of children? How can that in any way be sqared with the good?

I actually think the bible is worthwhile as a work of fiction, and very much enjoyed Jack Miles' books on the old and new testaments. Religious beliefs always say more about the believers than they can ever say about an invisible god. And for me, placing religious myths within the context of child razing has been the enlightening key to understanding why people would love a god who acts like an insane parent more often than not.

So nobody wants to explain why they would woship a god who insists on the blood sacrifice of children?

Ummm, are you talking about Abraham and Isaac? Because the point of that story is that God wasn't ever actually going to have Abraham sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of trust.

Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

God doesn't need man, but he desires our existence, and our love for some reason.

*How* do you know any of this? Why wouldn't a just and loving god go with "a little peril" rather than full-blown tragedies? Or are earthquakes part of free will?

I don't think you answered my question.

Alright. There's no calculation involved so the first part of your post is irrelevant. God isn't calculating things like a math problem he invented math. Your "choice" of what speed to travel at a particular moment is informed by uncountable factors that took place ahead of time predicated by human physiology, your particular genetics, upbringing, weather, road conditions, car design, history of the industrial revolution, nature of matter, rules of physics, ect. It is the nature of the universe itself and everything in it that led to your "choice" and the entity that set the whole system up KNEW intrinsically before time even existed exactly what speed and in what direction every atom in the universe would be traveling in at every moment in time. That is what omniscience means.

Precisely. If you created the brain with which they operate and every inch of experience that they had which led them to a decision point, AND you already know what they are going to "choose" to do, then the difference between "forcing" them to act, and knowing that their acts are a foregone conclusion, is pretty slim.

So you're saying that there is a difference?

DB

Your "choice" of what speed to travel at a particular moment is informed by uncountable factors that took place ahead of time predicated by human physiology, your particular genetics, upbringing, weather, road conditions, car design, history of the industrial revolution, nature of matter, rules of physics, ect.

So you agree that it is a choice; else how could it be "informed"?

DB

So nobody wants to explain why they would woship a god who insists on the blood sacrifice of children? How can that in any way be sqared with the good?

This doesn't give me much difficulty in my worship of Huitzilopochtli.

*How* do you know any of this? Why wouldn't a just and loving god go with "a little peril" rather than full-blown tragedies? Or are earthquakes part of free will?

Faith and reason combined. I really can't summarize 2000 years of Christian/Catholic Theology/Philosophy in bite size BBTF posts.

The issues of tragedies is really irrelevent if you look at it from a perspective of salvation, heaven and hell. This life is a proving ground and preparation for the next. Everyone suffers, everyone dies. Suffering in this life doesn't really matter; it is our response to it that matters. For example, an earthquake provides people the opportunity to give alms to help the survivors, a good thing. Or, to realize the meaninglessness of material goods, which can be lost in a moment.

Why wouldn't a just and loving god go with "a little peril" rather than full-blown tragedies? Or are earthquakes part of free will?

GALAHAD: Look, I'm a knight, I'm supposed to get as much peril as I can.
LANCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?

So nobody wants to explain why they would woship a god who insists on the blood sacrifice of children? How can that in any way be sqared with the good?

1) OK first - I am loving the new Perros and his posts

2) Way back when I was a child in Catholic school I held a secret from God that if he challenged me like he did Abraham I wouldn't do it.

Adding to 122, the bottom line is question one is irrelevant only if one wishing to deny that the situation you find yourself in the present was influenced by the choices you made in the past. If you're willing to deny that, then, yes, I suppose there is no free will; people find themselves where they are regardless of any actions they ever made on their part. Personally, that's not a belief system that I subscribe to, but if that's what you wish to believe, that is certainly your choice.

DB

Faith and reason combined. I really can't summarize 2000 years of Christian/Catholic Theology/Philosophy in bite size BBTF posts.

Come on! Give it a shot!

The issues of tragedies is really irrelevant if you look at it from a perspective of salvation, heaven and hell. This life is a proving ground and preparation for the next. Everyone suffers, everyone dies. Suffering in this life doesn't really matter; it is our response to it that matters. For example, an earthquake provides people the opportunity to give alms to help the survivors, a good thing. Or, to realize the meaninglessness of material goods, which can be lost in a moment.

This is actually pretty good.

Unfortunately, there's just too much faith in there for me. It blows trying to explain this to a seven year old.

So you agree that it is a choice; else how could it be "informed"?

I agree that it is a "choice." The quotes part is important. All the things that led you to "choose" how hard to press on the accelerator were set up and foretold before the universe existed. The nature of who you are, your thoughts and desires and everything about the environment in which you exist were all designed by God purposely with foreknowledge of all your actions.
My point is that the "choice" is essential meaningless from a perspective that includes a judeo-christian God. This is not something I personally believe, or even something I personally believe matters if true but it necessarily follows if you believe in the existence of an omniscient entity that created everything.

Adding to 122, the bottom line is question one is irrelevant only if one wishing to deny that the situation you find yourself in the present was influenced by the choices you made in the past.

No, that's missing the point. The same of course applies to every choice we've ever made from the moment we are born. Of course the "choice" is highly dependent on other "choices" made before but they were all a result of a universe designed by one entity with explicit foreknowledge of the results.

Alright. There's no calculation involved so the first part of your post is irrelevant. God isn't calculating things like a math problem he invented math. Your "choice" of what speed to travel at a particular moment is informed by uncountable factors that took place ahead of time predicated by human physiology, your particular genetics, upbringing, weather, road conditions, car design, history of the industrial revolution, nature of matter, rules of physics, ect. It is the nature of the universe itself and everything in it that led to your "choice" and the entity that set the whole system up KNEW intrinsically before time even existed exactly what speed and in what direction every atom in the universe would be traveling in at every moment in time. That is what omniscience means.

Got a few extra, unexpected moments, so I can further address this post. Omniscience means having infinite knowledge; not wielding unlimted control. Knowing the road conditions, the car design, the weather, the upbringing, etc., etc., all the way down to where the atoms are is not the same as causing the road conditions, the car design, the weather, the upbringings, etc., etc. All of these factors (including the weather, according to many scientists) are the direct result of human choices; sometimes just a few humans, sometimes many humans, but humans none-the-less. Knowing the end result of these choices is not equivalent to causing the choices, any more than knowing how long it takes a vehicle traveling at X speed to cover Y miles is the same as causing the driver go at a certain speed.

Precisely. If you created the brain with which they operate and every inch of experience that they had which led them to a decision point, AND you already know what they are going to "choose" to do, then the difference between "forcing" them to act, and knowing that their acts are a foregone conclusion, is pretty slim.

I bolded the relevant section because here is where the difference in belief is to be found. Creating "every inch of experience" is not a pre-requisite for omniscience. One can well believe that "every inch of experience" is the result of human choices; many, perhaps most, not made by the individual upon which we are focusing, but human choices none-the-less. An all-knowing being need not create the situation to know what the outcome will be for each of the possible choices that the human may make at that decision point.

The nature of who you are, your thoughts and desires and everything about the environment in which you exist were all designed by God purposely with foreknowledge of all your actions.

And this is where I disagree. In my opinion you are the end result of choices that you have made, and that is a belief that is not inconsistant with the belief in an all-knowing being. To give another example, to know by a player's tells whether he will raise or fold in a poker game is a far different thing from making that player push their chips into the pot or toss in their cards.

DB

Ummm, are you talking about Abraham and Isaac? Because the point of that story is that God wasn't ever actually going to have Abraham sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of trust.

Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

Highway 61 revisited is the most notorious scene in the bible. One of my favorite scenes in The Believer, with Ryan Gosling playing a Jewish skinhead, was the flashback to him in Hebrew school questioning the god who would do this, and how it revealed god as all powerful and human beings as less than nothing..best line was that as a result, Issac was a putz the rest of his life.

But, no, my target was its centrality in Christian belief..i noted that you skipped the crucifixion emphasizing incarnation and ressurection - if you practice Catholicism long enough, do you just kind of get used to all the crucfixes?

But, no, my target was its centrality in Christian belief..i noted that you skipped the crucifixion emphasizing incarnation and ressurection - if you practice Catholicism long enough, do you just kind of get used to all the crucfixes?

How is the crucifixion a "blood sacrifice of children"?

Christ was not a child, and it was not a "blood sacrifice". It was also a freely chosen death to achieve our redemption.

One can well believe that "every inch of experience" is the result of human choices; many, perhaps most, not made by the individual upon which we are focusing, but human choices none-the-less. An all-knowing being need not create the situation to know what the outcome will be for each of the possible choices that the human may make at that decision point.

You've avoided the heart of the problem here. First, how can you possibly believe that there's no world beyond human choice? We are incredibly determined in our very nature. Second, at what point in life do we have a choice that fundamentally alters our fate? Your parents letting you make a trivial choice that they've largely determined themselves doesn't count. By the time you are actually aware you have a choice, those social habits are incredibly engrained. So if a god designed and created life, how did he not know what would happen down to the smallest detail?

About the only religion that makes much sense is Taoism - you discover the flow of natural life and resist it as little as possible. That's actually quite a huge freedom of consciousness if you can see how life is 99.99999 percent determined. The .00001 percent that is consciousness can be all the freedom you need to wake up to reality.


#126 - your handle is ingenious, I can never read what it actually is. Thanks for the appreciation.

In my opinion you are the end result of choices that you have made, and that is a belief that is not inconsistant with the belief in an all-knowing being. To give another example, to know by a player's tells whether he will raise or fold in a poker game is a far different thing from making that player push their chips into the pot or toss in their cards.

I suspect this is essentially going nowhere but you are leaving out the key part; that God created and designed humanity. All your are saying are obvious truths that miss the point entirely. He doesn't just know what you will do he designed you and everything you will ever interact with. He didn't force the poker player to fold, he designed the poker player and the universe in which poker was necessarily going to exist and that specific hand under those exact conditions would occur and knew ahead of time what the result would be as a result of said design.

I suspect this is essentially going nowhere but you are leaving out the key part; that God created and designed humanity. All your are saying are obvious truths that miss the point entirely. He doesn't just know what you will do he designed you and everything you will ever interact with. He didn't force the poker player to fold, he designed the poker player and the universe in which poker was necessarily going to exist and that specific hand under those exact conditions would occur and knew ahead of time what the result would be as a result of said design.

Agree that we are getting nowhere. You began this discussion by stating that omniscience and free-will are incompatable with the almight being described in the Bible. In point of fact, the Bible story gives more than one instance of the almighty being initially proclaiming that he would do one thing, but then doing something else; the change predicated upon actions of one or more humans. Such actions would not be possible if the God of the Bible was as you have described; that is, all-controlling, directing all actions and all choices of all humans. Mind you, you're free to believe what you will; but to state that the God you are describing is the God depicted in the Bible is inaccurate.

DB

Perhaps I'm too influenced by Protestant definitions of atonement, but Saint Thomas, after centuries of debate, still saw the bloody crucifixion as a sacrifice to appease an angry god:

...the passion of Christ is the cause of our reconciliation with God in a two-fold manner: in one way because it takes away sin through which men are made enemies of God...In another way through its being a sacrifice most acceptable unto God, for this is properly the effect of a sacrifice that through it God is appeased, as even man is ready to forgive an injury done unto him by accepting a gift which is offered to him...And so in the same way, what Christ suffered was so great a good that, on account of that good found in human nature, God has been appeased over all the offenses of mankind.

Honestly, Christian theology seems like one massive mindtrap at this point, an attempt to put men and women down on their knees.

Perhaps I'm too influenced by Protestant definitions of atonement, but Saint Thomas, after centuries of debate, still saw the bloody crucifixion as a sacrifice to appease an angry god:

...the passion of Christ is the cause of our reconciliation with God in a two-fold manner: in one way because it takes away sin through which men are made enemies of God...In another way through its being a sacrifice most acceptable unto God, for this is properly the effect of a sacrifice that through it God is appeased, as even man is ready to forgive an injury done unto him by accepting a gift which is offered to him...And so in the same way, what Christ suffered was so great a good that, on account of that good found in human nature, God has been appeased over all the offenses of mankind.

Well, it can't really be a sacrifice to appease God, b/c it is God being sacrificed.

It is more like God giving a gift of Himself to re-open the gates of Heaven for humans, i.e. John 3:16.

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Belief in Jesus, and His death and Resurrection, reopen the path of salvation, closed by the fall.

Well, it can't really be a sacrifice to appease God, b/c it is God being sacrificed.

I thought the really special thing about Christ was that he was not merely God, and not merely man, but both in one form.

It is more like God giving a gift of Himself to re-open the gates of Heaven for humans, i.e. John 3:16.

Belief in Jesus, and His death and Resurrection, reopen the path of salvation, closed by the fall.

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying happened here:

The entire race of man is denied salvation because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Thousands of years later, God sends his son into the world, fully aware that some humans would murder that son in a brutal and painful way, which would cause that son intense suffering. The son would actually have a moment where he unsuccessfully begged his father not to force him to go through with it. As a result, salvation is now available to humanity, but only to those who believe in this now two-thousand year old event.

I don't want to misrepresent the position.

If you apply human logic to the divine, then you're naturally going to find human contradictions.

So if there is Human Logic A, full of contradictions or inconsistencies, is there Divine Logic A' with magic axioms that resolve the contradictions? And A' cannot be expressed in terms of A? Does A' contain its own contradictions, only resolvable in Superdivine Logic A''?

Or did The Divine pick incompleteness over inconsistency?

Godel et al. worked closer to God than any theologian.

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying happened here:

The entire race of man is denied salvation because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Thousands of years later, God sends his son into the world, fully aware that some humans would murder that son in a brutal and painful way, which would cause that son intense suffering. The son would actually have a moment where he unsuccessfully begged his father not to force him to go through with it. As a result, salvation is now available to humanity, but only to those who believe in this now two-thousand year old event.

I don't want to misrepresent the position.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not speaking for snapper; nor for snapper's beliefs; nor, for that matter, am I speaking for anyone else, nor anyone else's beliefs. I am not responding in an effort to tell others what they should believe, or how they should live their lives, or what they should accept as "truth".

What I am doing, primarily, is providing an exercise for myself. When I read the paragraph above, I thought, "If that post was addressed to me, how would I change that paragraph so that it would represent my understanding of what the Bible is saying?" In other words, how would I change the paragraph so that it didn't "misrepresent <strike>the</strike> my position"? So here goes:

The entire race of man is denied salvation because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

The entire race of man is denied salvation because the entire race of man, each human individually, has wanted to overthrow God and take the place of God. Every sin committed by humans, beginning with the first "original" sin, is a manifestation of the humans' desire to be God.

Thousands of years later, God sends his son into the world, fully aware that some humans would murder that son in a brutal and painful way, which would cause that son intense suffering. The son would actually have a moment where he unsuccessfully begged his father not to force him to go through with it.

No changes. Indeed, the Biblical description of the sacrifice is even more horrific than the above description.

As a result, salvation is now available to humanity...

Agree (though I would place an "all" in front of humanity, just for clarity's sake).

...but only to those who believe in this now two-thousand year old event.

Disagree.

Belief in the event does not save. Indeed, according to the Bible, there were those who were at the event (and, thus, not having any need to "believe" in it) who did not attain salvation. Just to underline the point (and take it several steps further) mere "belief" in the Deity of Jesus as the promised Messiah does not give one salvation. As James writes in his letter to the church, demons know that Jesus is the Almighty, but they sure aren't saved.

What the event (and subsequent resurrection) does is make possible the reconciliation between God and humans. It's up to the human (each one, individually) to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to be reconciled to God, and thereby return to the position of being God's servant, as was originally intended. So that last sentence could be rewritten to say:

As a result, salvation is now available to all humanity, so that any who wish to be reconciled to God are free to do so.

Again, my comments above aren't intended to speak for anyone but myself, and to express my own understanding of the story told in the Bible. Hopefully, I've achieved that goal.

DB

Did we figure out what God's favorite album is yet?

Not saying that believing in the now two-thousand year old events is sufficient, but it is necessary, right? My understanding is that it doesn't matter how humble you are or how earnest in your desire to serve God, if you think the Bible's a bunch of fairy-tales you can't be saved.

Did we figure out what God's favorite album is yet?

No, but this may be His Favorite Song. Or at least it should be.

Again, my comments above aren't intended to speak for anyone but myself, and to express my own understanding of the story told in the Bible. Hopefully, I've achieved that goal.

I appreciate your response, DB. It raises a lot of interesting questions for me, which I mean sincerely and ask not to offend, but to understand.

1) How do you conclude that every human that is trying to overthrow and become God? I acknowledge that there are certainly some benefits to being an object of worship, but really, I'm much more interested in simply controlling my own destiny and sharing the experiences of life with equals. I don't really want to be all-powerful; I don't want that level of responsibility. I suppose that I want to know everything that is possible to know, but I don't see why that is a bad thing, especially if I am unwilling to hurt other people in the pursuit of information.

2) As brutal as the crucifixion was, and in light of God's omnipotence, doesn't it seem unnecessary? After all, if God really can do anything, why choose such a gruesome way to get His point across? Why was anything necessary at all? We should expect that if He wished, he could simply grant the power of reconciliation by divine fiat.

3) What do you think of when you say "salvation"? What are people being saved from?

#145 - First, thank you for the kind words. Allow me to again repeat the usual disclaimers (i.e. I'm speaking for only myself, I'm not trying to tell others what they should believe, etc., etc.). With that said:

1) The intended God-to-human relationship described in the Bible, as I understand it, is God as the master (Lord, if you will) with the human as His servant. God gives the orders, the human obeys; as it's presented in the Bible, that's the way the system was meant to operate. When the human disobeys (in matters both big and small) the human has replaced God's instructions and has chosen to act upon her own thoughts/will/desires; that is, the human has inserted themselves into the God position, becoming the one giving the orders for themselves to follow.

Indeed, in the Bible story of the fall, the temptation that finally gets the human to disobey God is the promise that "You will be God [or, in alternate translations, "You will be God like"]. So what we see, in effect, is an act of treason; a coup, in a sense. God is the ruler of the human, but the human has tossed God aside and become his own ruler, his own God. And so it is with all subsequent sins. God has said this; but humans, putting themselves in the place of God, have done that.

Hopefully that clarifies what I mean when I say that humans want to overthrow God and be God. I'm using the terminology here to describe each people's desire to rule their own lives, rather than be ruled by their creator.

2) Could there be choice without consequences? I suppose it's possible; but it seems that having actions without consequences renders the actions pretty meaningless. "Do what I say and you will be rewarded; disobey and...well, you'll still be rewarded" makes any choices irrelevant; doesn't it?

Sill, deciding that there should be punishment for disobedience need not necessarily mean the death penalty. I guess the punishment could have been some sort of (literal or figurative) slap on the wrist; but according to the Bible story the Almighty decided that disobedience was a capital offense, to be dealt with by capital punishment. Now, in fairness to the God of the Bible, He didn't spring that punishment on the human after the fact. According to the account He made it quite clear up front when He gave the original order that disobedience meant death. I would think that for Him to then turn around after the sin was committed and say, "Well, you know what; forget that death stuff; we'll just pretend it never happened" leads us right back to choices without consequences, actions without meaning, etc. Also consider, if you will, if He just brushes aside the human's first disobedience as if it never happened, what does He do the second time? The third time? The five hundredth time?

3) Salvation in the Biblical sense, as I understand it, is to be saved from an existence apart from God; that is, to be rescued, if you will, from an eternity spent in an environment where everyone is their own God, ruled by nothing but their own whims, lusts and desires, oblivious to any harm and destruction caused their such actions, to themselves and others.

Hopefully I've adequately answered your questions. While I could have written much more I've tried to be brief so as not to bore; also, being neither theologian nor professional writer, I'm not so sure that I would have said more had I written more. And, again, please allow me to repeat my disclaimers that I am speaking only for myself and no others, stating nothing more than my own personal beliefs as to what I believe the Bible to be saying.

DB

religious debates confuse me, someone asking "do you believe in god" has always struck me the sameway as someone asking "how heavy does purple smell?".

I express my opinions as forthrightly as I can, and I take strong issue with the Christian worldview. This doesnt mean that I dont have any compassion for believers. It's tough being human, and I respect sincere attempts to share understanding. I have wrestled with the question of religion all my life, with Christianity in a very personal way. I was raised Presbyterian, converted Catholic, and been touched by people ho have had intensely religious experiences. I've had my own religious epiphanies that still resonate with me today. Suffering is universal and nobody can be faulted for trying to come to terms with it through religion.

While I am pretty rational in my atheism - the idea of god seems beside the point to me now - and am hostile to Christian theology that makes God into a patriarchal monster, I do have sympathy for Jesus and his teachings, which are incredibly radical when you dig past traditional religious interpretation..how Jesus undermines the whole sacrificial structure of religious paternalism and institutionalized violence. Jesus is god moving from a dictator lording it over creation to becoming a brother to other brothers and sisters leveling all hierarchy, men over women, fathers and mothers over children, rich over poor.

I object strongly to the vision of god in #146. Who wants to be reconciled to the dictator of the universe, the small child of a violent god whose word is unquestionable law. No faith is better than bad faith.

 
Oh some evil spirit
Oh some evil this way comes
They told me how they fear it
Now they're placing it on their tongues
Oh to see it with my own eyes
No food or water for the better part of ten months
Quietly he sat between the folds of a tree trunk
Oh to see it with my own eyes
All the men of faith and men of science had their questions
Could it ever be on earth as it is in heaven?

"how heavy does purple smell?"

Bittersweet.

Duh. Everybody knows that.

I was raised Presbyterian, converted Catholic, and been touched by people ho have had intensely religious experiences. I've had my own religious epiphanies that still resonate with me today. Suffering is universal and nobody can be faulted for trying to come to terms with it through religion.

If you don't mind me asking, what made you become Catholic? What made you fall away?

What made you fall away?

Interesting choice of words!

Interesting choice of words!

Really? It's a pretty common usage AFAIK. "Leave" doesn't make sense, b/c it's usually not a single moment in time. People tend to become gradually less involved/attached and drift away, so, "falling away" fits, I think.

Really? It's a pretty common usage AFAIK. "Leave" doesn't make sense, b/c it's usually not a single moment in time. People tend to become gradually less involved/attached and drift away, so, "falling away" fits, I think.

I know you didn't mean anything snarky by it because the phrase is very common for Catholics (I am someone who has been referred to as 'fallen away') but the phrase has an implicit connotation (IMHO). It is hardly neutral. Who wants to "fall away"?

Why did I lapse? Lot of factors. The appeal for me was a combination of the aesthetic - the architecture, art, ritual and music, and the still strong Marian element that ecumenism cannot remove. I guess I hoped that would overcome my resistance to authority and doctrine..and it's kinda funny that not once did a priest really challenge me on my beliefs or lack thereof, I actually served as a lector after any belief was gone. Catholicism really does live up to it's name for the most part - all are welcome, and that appealed as well. And while the church's woman problem and its scandals had a negative impact, I think it's just my desire to believe finally just gave out.

Ironically, the foundation of my atheism is an intensely mystical experience that for me made belief beside the point, a confidence that the question of gods existence was irrelevant for me.

I'm a very strange atheist, both materialist and mystic, a believer in science and convinced to the bone of the limits of rationalism, enjoy arcane philosophical texts and French poetry.

I strongly disagree with your pov on most things, snapper, but I respect your respectful tolerance for disagreement. This has been a very enjoyable discussion.

CrosbyBirds #102 pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

Going back a page I did know that "Free Will" is the technical answer to my query, it's just not a satisfying answer. It just makes "this life" (which as Snapper points out is canonically considered to be considered to be the "false" life) into some game of "Guess the Divine Will".

If God wants me to play his game, he knows my mind (better than me, right?) - he can change the rules to make it more palatable. And still leave me with "Free Will" (well sort of - as long as he is not just choosing for me). Since this hasn't happened yet, I can only conclude that it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Similarly - if the above is just a misinterpretation of an entirely non-human way of "thinking" (if that's even the correct word) - as suggested above; then why even bother to try to understand what god wants?

Finally - if a all earthly suffering is irrelevant, then why does god care if I cause others to suffer?

Hopefully I've adequately answered your questions. While I could have written much more I've tried to be brief so as not to bore; also, being neither theologian nor professional writer, I'm not so sure that I would have said more had I written more.

I think you've refined my question for me by describing your beliefs. I understand the "what" of the matter, in terms of disobedience as sin. What I still don't understand is the "why"; what is so terrible about a lack of willingness to serve and the desire from freedom?

Why would God need, or even want servants?

Has anyone here read Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God"? She makes a convincing case that the facile atheist-v.-devout arguments that comprise 90% of all discussions about religion completely miss the point of religious belief. I am still ruminating on the book (it's not dense, but it isn't breezy either) and I would be interested to hear what people on either side of the belief fence think about it.

I have not read the book, but I've read some reviews that say she is less than completely accurate when referencing the historical record of religious practice.

I suspect that the "point" of religious belief is itself a matter of dispute. Is it because it represents some absolute Truth, or because it teaches valuable life lessons, or because it provides a necessary moral framework, or because we are commanded to do so, or because it provides us comfort in a confusing world, or merely for the sake of tradition? Is there even a reason at all?

Has anyone here read Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God"?

Do you mean Lee Stroble or is there another book?

Why would God need, or even want servants?

I have always thought of this differently, I don't take a literal interpretation so I should start there. Man has made the choice to leave his presence and God needs or wants us to come back out of love not some physical need.

f God wants me to play his game, he knows my mind (better than me, right?) - he can change the rules to make it more palatable. And still leave me with "Free Will" (well sort of - as long as he is not just choosing for me). Since this hasn't happened yet, I can only conclude that it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Similarly - if the above is just a misinterpretation of an entirely non-human way of "thinking" (if that's even the correct word) - as suggested above; then why even bother to try to understand what god wants?

Why would he change the game? That makes no sense. To people who believe strongly there are "clues" as to how God wants us to live everywhere, it does not take a long hard thought study to figure it out. It is only when we put our own spin on things that it gets complicated. Which is true without the bible, how to live our life is usually extremely simple to understand, throw greed, laziness, hate, not being able to forgive into any situation it becomes very fuzzy as to what is right or wrong.

I suspect that the "point" of religious belief is itself a matter of dispute. Is it because it represents some absolute Truth, or because it teaches valuable life lessons, or because it provides a necessary moral framework, or because we are commanded to do so, or because it provides us comfort in a confusing world, or merely for the sake of tradition? Is there even a reason at all?

This and other questions you have presented in this thread are great questions. I would answer yes to all of that and more. It is confusing and it can be frustrating if you are trying to find a unifying reason. I have given up trying to find a universal reason as to why. Working with a lot of "broken" people (abused, abandoned, suicidal, addictions) I have wondered why so many of them were attracted to God, is it a need to feel that this is for a reason and what does that say about other believers, do we have this need deep down too? Then when I read Jesus' words that he came here for the broken I realized that he did open the door for them. Not just for them but especially for them. Others ask why he would allow this to happen, I look at it as he came because this happens. Circular? Yes, but it is my belief not a stated fact.

Why did I lapse? Lot of factors. The appeal for me was a combination of the aesthetic - the architecture, art, ritual and music, and the still strong Marian element that ecumenism cannot remove. I guess I hoped that would overcome my resistance to authority and doctrine..and it's kinda funny that not once did a priest really challenge me on my beliefs or lack thereof, I actually served as a lector after any belief was gone. Catholicism really does live up to it's name for the most part - all are welcome, and that appealed as well. And while the church's woman problem and its scandals had a negative impact, I think it's just my desire to believe finally just gave out.

Ironically, the foundation of my atheism is an intensely mystical experience that for me made belief beside the point, a confidence that the question of gods existence was irrelevant for me.

I'm a very strange atheist, both materialist and mystic, a believer in science and convinced to the bone of the limits of rationalism, enjoy arcane philosophical texts and French poetry.

I strongly disagree with your pov on most things, snapper, but I respect your respectful tolerance for disagreement. This has been a very enjoyable discussion.

Thank you for your answer and your kind words. I'm a cradle Catholic, but was a real lousy one from age 15-33, so I'm no one to cast stones.

Semi-random question. Have you ever attended a Traditional Latin Mass (Missal of 1962) or an Eastern/Oreintal Catholic Divine Liturgy? Given your description, I can guess that the Mass of Paul VI would not appeal to you.

Finally - if a all earthly suffering is irrelevant, then why does god care if I cause others to suffer?

Suffering is not irrelevant, it's just a means rather than an end. Our response to it is very important. To willfully cause it is not a good response, and not what God has instructed us to do. Golden rule and all; "love God and love they neighbor".

Why would God need, or even want servants?

He doesn't want servants, He wants love, freely given. If He wanted servants, He wouldn't have given man, or the angels for that matter, free will.

Why He wants our love, that we can't know.

I have always thought of this differently, I don't take a literal interpretation so I should start there. Man has made the choice to leave his presence and God needs or wants us to come back out of love not some physical need.

I think this is one of the biggest problems I have with the idea. It may be the worst offender in religious thought in terms of justifying obscene behavior toward non-believers. They deserve it because they are willful offenders.

I haven't made a choice in belief. I simply cannot believe in what I do not believe in; belief is a state of being, not an active decision. I have only made a choice not to be a hypocrite and pretend I believe when I do not. Similarly, some might say that religion is overwhelmingly a hereditary trait. The majority of believers also didn't make a choice in their belief. They were told as children what was true before they had the capacity to become reasonably self-informed.*

*That isn't to suggest that it means they are ignorant. There are many things I was told as a child, valid things which I believed then and which I continue to believe now.

I think this is one of the biggest problems I have with the idea. It may be the worst offender in religious thought in terms of justifying obscene behavior toward non-believers. They deserve it because they are willful offenders.

When I used the term man I was meaning all man not just the ones who are non-believers, I think God wants us back in whole. I don't think obscene behaviors for people who just think differently should ever happen.

I haven't made a choice in belief. I simply cannot believe in what I do not believe in; belief is a state of being, not an active decision. I have only made a choice not to be a hypocrite and pretend I believe when I do not. Similarly, some might say that religion is overwhelmingly a hereditary trait. The majority of believers also didn't make a choice in their belief. They were told as children what was true before they had the capacity to become reasonably self-informed.*

See it was a choice for me. I struggled and sought answers to all my questions and when those questions were answered I found new questions to struggle with. The choice I made was that it is equally possible that there is a God and that there is no God and no amount of questioning would bring me closer to knowing the truth, so I made a choice. It was not as easy as it sounds of course.

I haven't made a choice in belief. I simply cannot believe in what I do not believe in; belief is a state of being, not an active decision. I have only made a choice not to be a hypocrite and pretend I believe when I do not. Similarly, some might say that religion is overwhelmingly a hereditary trait. The majority of believers also didn't make a choice in their belief. They were told as children what was true before they had the capacity to become reasonably self-informed.*

There's a pretty well known prayer in Christianity: "Lord I believe, help my unbelief".

At the end of the day belief is a choice. An easy one for some, a very hard one for others. There's also the choice to continue studying and learning and praying. But it can't be denied there is a "leap of faith" required to believe. No one, since ~33 AD, gets to see see God and his miracles directly and plainly.

Seen a man standin' over a dead dog lyin' by the highway in a ditch
He's lookin' down kinda puzzled pokin' that dog with a stick
Got his car door flung open he's standin' out on highway 31
Like if he stood there long enough that dog'd get up and run
Struck me kinda funny seem kinda funny sir to me
Still at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe

The choice I made was that it is equally possible that there is a God and that there is no God and no amount of questioning would bring me closer to knowing the truth, so I made a choice.

That seems like an awfully precise calculation. Are you sure it wasn't 50.1% vs. 49.9%? :)

Seriously, why Christianity as opposed to Judaism or Islam? Did you give each of the three equal consideration and decide based on the merits, or were you just exposed to Christianity much more than the other two?

I guess where I'm confused is that it sounds like your belief is that "it is equally possible for God to exist or not exist," and your choice is to act as if He does. I did not think you would characterize your belief in such uncertain terms.

At the end of the day belief is a choice. An easy one for some, a very hard one for others. There's also the choice to continue studying and learning and praying. But it can't be denied there is a "leap of faith" required to believe. No one, since ~33 AD, gets to see see God and his miracles directly and plainly.

I can only speak for myself, but I say it is most certainly not a choice. My belief or non-belief is based on the evidence I've been exposed to, not on any willful decision on my part. I'm all for continual learning and studying, and I've even done a small amount of praying (although it feels incredibly silly, like talking to an imaginary friend might feel to you).

Why aren't you willing to make the same leap of faith required to believe in Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I'd suggest that you and I reject all three for the same reasons. What is different about God? Why is the Bible the correct version of Christ's message as opposed to the Koran?

I recognize that these are questions that have been asked in a sneering, offensive way by atheists. To my shame, I've asked them with that arrogant tone myself, back when I was discovering the Internet a lifetime ago. You'll just have to have faith that I'm not trying to belittle your position; I just don't know a better way to ask for the information that I hope will fill the disconnect in my understanding.

What it all comes down to is what Gaelen succinctly stated in one of these discussions - complete awareness of the world and our human condition is just too much to take sometimes. One reason adults in our culture move away from religion until their 30s is their natural expansive vitality is enough to lift them above their own confusions and any real awareness of their own mortality.

Same with modern civilization - when you live in comfort, you can forget your complete insignificance in a universe too large to imagine. Buddha was content as a young prince until he became aware of human fate to suffer and die. And theres just the brute facts of survival, a 'nightmare bloodsoaked spectacular' of life devouring life to live another day. And the confounding fact that you are alive and aware at all, that you werent at one time and wont be again in the all-too-near future. And no matter how far you puah the boundariea of your awareness, so much is absolutely impossible to know, as simple as whats going on in the hearts and minds of those closest to us. And as i've discovered, a real empathetic awareness and understanding of another can feel like a dagger to the heart.

What is the answer to all that? It's easy to point out the unreality of other people's gods, not so easy to see our own illusions. The only thing that keeps me going is to free my own vitality and live as much as possible in the moment, feel the truth of life and let that energy flow through me and into connection with others. I think thats what religion's always tried to accomplish. Beyond any specific belief its an attempt to avoid despair. Cant blame anyone for hedging bets against their demise.

Golden rule and all; "love God and love they neighbor"

The golden rule, I thought, was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But maybe that's the Unitarian version. I think that this is an important statement of moral thought. But I don't NOT cause suffering in others because God told me it was a good idea.

Typically this is where you (generically) would reply that God is the font of all moral thought, and if you are nice to people you are doing God's will any way. To which I reply, so what? Then what difference does it make if I pay homage or even acknowledge his existence? Do "good" deeds count more if they are done because you respect Gods' laws or because you are in a good mood?

No one, since ~33 AD, gets to see see God and his miracles directly and plainly.

Did anyone have these arguments in 34 AD? 134AD? "Hey, remember when God parted the Red Sea? That was AWESOME".

Oh and I should make a .sig for this thread which says "And what CrosbyBird says"

Oh and I should make a .sig for this thread which says "And what CrosbyBird says"

Posting from inside your skull since 2007.