michael^3, a believer who has experienced great suffering may have a response to the problem, but there is no guarantee that it will be a reasonable one. Besides, in an organized religion of such age and history, it seems odd that in all that time, no suitable examples -- or arguments -- have been provided.

Emil wrote:I think theidiot is talking about the understanding arrived at in the councils of the first few centuries, and expressed in, for instance, the Nicene Creed.

I am aware of that. But things like the trinitarian versus arian debate (a big topic in Nicaea, the conclusion being nicely summarised in the creed) demonstrate the human input into the evolution of religion - competing ideas (maybe both claimed to be based on divine revelations) where the one that is most capable of reproducing itself and adapting itself survives, and where the other one is usually suppressed to ensure that the meme-pool stays pure. So the non-negotiable centrepieces of Christianity could so easily have been totally different if different people had met and had said different things back in 325 C.E., or if different people had won key battles at other key times. It's a fascinating thing to think about.

But at the end of the day, the creed is still nothing more than the best guess that they could make to make sense of the things they had available to them within the constraints of what they wanted to create. It does no harm to admit that.

Andy

Andy, obviously the creeds were written by human beings and reflect the particular people and circumstances of the time. But you wrote

If the trinitarians are right then it doesn't declare him a god, as he would be one of them already. Therefore, it describes a god who pretended to be a poor man

If the trinitarians are right, then Jesus Christ would indeed be God, but also really and fully human, not a pretend human. That is what trinitarian theology says.

For me it would be the same as many have said.

You say that Jesus brought the light, but what you took was the cross. Why is that?

Emil wrote:If the trinitarians are right, then Jesus Christ would indeed be God, but also really and fully human, not a pretend human.

OK, maybe the word "pretend" isn't quite the one I want. I know what I want to get across, but I can't work out how to say it. 5 to 1 is not the best time for this!

I'll go and pray and see if that helps

Andy

tytalus wrote:

theidiot wrote:

tytalus wrote:
Your argument seems to indicate that xianity offers no response to the problem of evil which is not absurd. Is this an accurate reading? If so, then your argument would seem to debunk itself.

I asked a question, sir, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no'. Yet in all this rhetorical roughage I am not sure it was answered at all, but instead appears more as a sermon. It appears you would rather belittle the premise of even getting a reasonable answer to the problem. I understand the platitudes, I once was a xian. 'God is love' and all that rot. But what I am looking for is a response on the problem of evil. What you seem to be saying is that xianity has no answer, but instead offers love.

So again, is there a xian answer to the problem of evil that is not absurd? Is there a response that makes sense to the skeptic, or can only the believer make 'sense' of it (using the term loosely, as it may apply to an absurdity)?

Actually you're right, for some reason I read your questions as merely: "your argument seems to indicate that xianity offers no response to the problem of evil". I read it in haste, and I didn't notice the "which is not absurd" part.

And my answer is 'yes', because Christianity is a religion of a radical paradox, it's glorifications are inversions, where a suffering God, is a source of empowerment, where the weak shame the strong, "where the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, reduce to nothing those who are something." It's the absurdity of Isaiah's suffering servant.

If you're looking for something neat to coddle our privileged humanist you're not going to find it in christianity, the truth of it can only really be questioned by those who have no choice but to struggle with the question. An impersonal reflection on it, will always remain for our dewy-eyed atheist as a stumbling block.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Are you under the impression that there were not atheists or arguments against theism before The God Delusion was published?

No, but many of our atheist like to parrot catchy sayings, without ever questioning if these catchy sayings posses any real meaning or not.

Theidiot wrote:
All believers, true or false come to believe on the basis of 'evidence', but our naive atheist believes that 'evidence' has a mouth that whispers beautiful things into a persons ear. I can't compensate for your lack of comprehension.

Word salad alert I’ll get the irrational Ranch dressing and conspicuously incoherent croutons if some one else will fetch the sacramental wine.

Oh gosh, when you figure out why both the prosecution and defense have 'evidence' for both guilt and innocence of the man on trial, you let me know. Your 'word salad' allegation, reveals more about your lack of critical thinking than anything else.

Well you don’t really seem to have much of an understanding of everything that was attributed to Christ in the Gospels. And you seem to have a common modern idealized image of Christianity. I’d call that delusional.

Please, I don't hold any modern idealized image of Christianity, you do. If anyone is plagued with vulgar anachronistic thinking it's definitely not me. But I would love to hear you educate me on what the non-modern understanding of Christianity is, and I'll wager you're going end up sounding like Ken Hovind trying to teach Richard Dawkins about science.

I suggest when you don't have a clue as to the topics you're so quick to mouth your opinion on, you don't embarrass yourself by trying to compensate with falsely built confidence. If I was deluded with modernistic thought, I'd probably be playing lip service to the enlightenment and humanistic thinking, all of which I find vulgar, so i don't know what sort of modern strain you're trying to attach me to.

tytalus wrote:michael^3, a believer who has experienced great suffering may have a response to the problem, but there is no guarantee that it will be a reasonable one. Besides, in an organized religion of such age and history, it seems odd that in all that time, no suitable examples -- or arguments -- have been provided.

Let's inform you about something when dealing with the problem of evil. Terms like 'benevolence', and 'evil' are aesthetic terms. Saying someone is benevolent is not like saying someone is 5'4. In order for a persons attribution of benevolence to someone to be unreasonable, you'd have point out that he applies the term inconsistently, such as I find all fish to be tasty, but I don't find that fish to be tasty. He's not unreasonable for finding a particular fish tasty, that you don't find tasty.

theidiot wrote:

tytalus wrote:michael^3, a believer who has experienced great suffering may have a response to the problem, but there is no guarantee that it will be a reasonable one. Besides, in an organized religion of such age and history, it seems odd that in all that time, no suitable examples -- or arguments -- have been provided.

Let's inform you about something when dealing with the problem of evil. Terms like 'benevolence', and 'evil' are aesthetic terms. Saying someone is benevolent is not like saying someone is 5'4. In order for a persons attribution of benevolence to someone to be unreasonable, you'd have point out that he applies the term inconsistently, such as I find all fish to be tasty, but I don't find that fish to be tasty. He's not unreasonable for finding a particular fish tasty, that you don't find tasty.

Oh goody, so as long as god drowns humanity the next time that he feels unsatisfied with his own design, then we can be can sure that he is still benevolent, because he's being consistent...

And yes he is unreasonable. He is being unreasonable by allowing us to have a different concept of good. And he is quite unreasonable in that he finds things that cause us untold suffering to be good.

RealityJunkie wrote:
Oh goody, so as long as god drowns humanity the next time that he feels unsatisfied with his own design, then we can be can sure that he is still benevolent, because he's being consistent...

And yes he is unreasonable. He is being unreasonable by allowing us to have a different concept of good. And he is quite unreasonable in that he finds things that cause us untold suffering to be good.

Uhm, i think you missed something here. I was referring to a person attributing to their God benevolence, and not God's view on his own benevolence or whatever that means. The inconsistency I was referring to is this persons application of the term.

theidiot wrote:

tytalus wrote:

theidiot wrote:

tytalus wrote:
Your argument seems to indicate that xianity offers no response to the problem of evil which is not absurd. Is this an accurate reading? If so, then your argument would seem to debunk itself.

I asked a question, sir, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no'. Yet in all this rhetorical roughage I am not sure it was answered at all, but instead appears more as a sermon. It appears you would rather belittle the premise of even getting a reasonable answer to the problem. I understand the platitudes, I once was a xian. 'God is love' and all that rot. But what I am looking for is a response on the problem of evil. What you seem to be saying is that xianity has no answer, but instead offers love.

So again, is there a xian answer to the problem of evil that is not absurd? Is there a response that makes sense to the skeptic, or can only the believer make 'sense' of it (using the term loosely, as it may apply to an absurdity)?

Actually you're right, for some reason I read your questions as merely: "your argument seems to indicate that xianity offers no response to the problem of evil". I read it in haste, and I didn't notice the "which is not absurd" part.

Right. I think we had agreed on some responses by believers that are absurd (like the book of Job), and so I was looking for a reasonable response. So I see I'm not going to get one, that answers the question. Sorry if I worded it in a confusing way.

And my answer is 'yes', because Christianity is a religion of a radical paradox, it's glorifications are inversions, where a suffering God, is a source of empowerment, where the weak shame the strong, "where the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, reduce to nothing those who are something." It's the absurdity of Isaiah's suffering servant.

I understand this much, and I can see some practical reasons for why such a thing would come to be, although your admiration for it is amusing.

If you're looking for something neat to coddle our privileged humanist you're not going to find it in christianity, the truth of it can only really be questioned by those who have no choice but to struggle with the question. An impersonal reflection on it, will always remain for our dewy-eyed atheist as a stumbling block.

More of the dismissive insults, I see. Well, one puts such a spin on failure as one can, I suppose. You are of course obliged to disagree with the idea that a reasonable explanation is desirable. Sorry, but you have no monopoly on the truth here, or on the ability to question the validity of xianity. I suspect that you would be eager to answer such questions, and demonstrate its validity, if you could. Failing to do so, you must instead challenge reason, logic, and the need for a valid explanation at all. It is enough for me to demonstrate this much, and the rest is mockery.

theidiot wrote:

Prof. Faust wrote:Why do you trust the Bible, and if you do not, why are you Christian?

I don't know what you mean here. The writers of scripture are individuals struggling with certain questions about reality. The questions of fundamental concern for them, are also questions of fundamental concerns to me, though they might not be for you. For the Christian the struggles with the question conclude in the Gospels, exposing the frail reality of the questions, and providing an empowering response to it.

I should be clear that I wasn't addressing anyone in particular with this question. In my real life encounters with Christians few could resolve this question with my subsequent dialog (though I don't claim to have convinced anyone of error).

tytalus wrote: It should be noted that the bible also describes its god-concept as jealous (Exodus 20:5), prone to anger and wrath (Deuteronomy 9:19), and a creator of evil or disaster/calamity (Isaiah 45:7). If both of these sets of citations are true, the god-concept would seem self-contradictory and ought to be dismissed on its own absurdity.

Be careful not confuse the concept of jelousy here. Jelousy is sinful when we are envious or desire that which does not belong to us e.g. someone else's possessions. The verse here indicates that God is jelous because the people were worshipping idols, worship that BELONGED to him. Jelousy is not sinful when we are envious of something that belongs to us e.g. a married man has the right to be jelous if another man is flirting with his wife.

As for anger, no article is more relevant than the one below:

Anger is not always sin. There is a type of anger of which the Bible approves, often called “righteous indignation.” God is angry (Psalm 7:11; Mark 3:5), and believers are commanded to be angry (Ephesians 4:26). Two Greek words are used in the New Testament for our English word “anger.” One means “passion, energy” and the other means “agitated, boiling.” Biblically, anger is God-given energy intended to help us solve problems. Examples of biblical anger include Paul’s confronting Peter because of his wrong example in Galatians 2:11-14, David’s being upset over hearing Nathan the prophet sharing an injustice (2 Samuel 12), and Jesus’ anger over how some of the Jews had defiled worship at God’s temple in Jerusalem (John 2:13-18). Notice that none of these examples of anger involved self-defense, but a defense of others or of a principle.

Anger turns to sin when it is selfishly motivated (James 1:20), when God’s goal is distorted (1 Corinthians 10:31), or when anger is allowed to linger (Ephesians 4:26-27). Instead of using the energy generated by anger to attack the problem at hand, it is the person who is attacked. Ephesians 4:15-19 says we are to speak the truth in love and use our words to build others up, not allow rotten or destructive words to pour from our lips. Unfortunately, this poisonous speech is a common characteristic of fallen man (Romans 3:13-14). Anger becomes sin when it is allowed to boil over without restraint, resulting in a scenario in which hurt is multiplied (Proverbs 29:11), leaving devastation in its wake, often with irreparable consequences. Anger also becomes sin when the angry one refuses to be pacified, holds a grudge, or keeps it all inside (Ephesians 4:26-27). This can cause depression and irritability over little things, often things unrelated to the underlying problem.

We can handle anger biblically by recognizing and admitting our selfish anger and/or our wrong handling of anger as sin (Proverbs 28:13; 1 John 1:9). This confession should be both to God and to those who have been hurt by our anger. We should not minimize the sin by excusing it or blame-shifting.

We can handle anger biblically by seeing God in the trial. This is especially important when people have done something to offend us. James 1:2-4, Romans 8:28-29, and Genesis 50:20 all point to the fact that God is sovereign and in complete control over every circumstance and person that enters our path. Nothing happens to us that He does not cause or allow. And as these verses share, God is a good God (Psalm 145:8, 9, 17) who allows all things in our lives for our good and the good of others. Reflecting on this truth until it moves from our heads to our hearts will alter how we react to those who hurt us.

We can handle anger biblically by making room for God’s wrath. This is especially important in cases of injustice, when “evil” men abuse “innocent” people. Genesis 50:19 and Romans 12:19 both tell us to not play God. God is righteous and just, and we can trust Him who knows all and sees all to act justly (Genesis 18:25).

We can handle anger biblically by not returning evil for good (Genesis 50:21; Romans 12:21). This is key to converting our anger into love. As our actions flow from our hearts, so also our hearts can be altered by our actions (Matthew 5:43-48). That is, we can change our feelings toward another by changing how we choose to act toward that person.

http://www.gotquestions.org/anger.html

tytalus wrote:
What it tells me is that the xian has no answer, as with the other posters trying to offer defenses for the xian god-concept. The xian god is a con-man on a galactic scale. Trust me, believe in me, worship me. It'll all make sense later, I promise. I'm good; the book says I'm good, and I wrote it, so it must be right, because I'm good... Unwarranted assumptions, and rightly dismissed. The xian does not know their god-concept is good and holy and perfect and etc.; they have been told this, and take it on faith (because the evidence suggests otherwise).

The same way that you have been told He is not real; and take faith on it. As for other posters trying to debunk the xian god-concept, you get so invoved in these type of debates because you subconciously want to be convinced. The Bible tells us that men will fall away from faith and place their trust in men. Is that not what is happening today? I myself was once an atheist and if im honest, still very skeptical of certain Biblical scriptures. But to me, there is nothing wrong with evaluating the validity of something before pledging support to it. I can acknowledge that there is a significant lack of physical evidence for the Judeo-Christian God; but on the contrary the sheer mass of documentation (scriptures) would indicate that there must be some form of deity. To deny so would be to deny the instance of every spirtitualistic experience that has ever occurred. Ok, maybe some are ghost stories used to scare children, but all of them? Also, we can see the lenghts people will go for their religion. I mean, would Peter have suffered the pain of being crucified upside down if all he had to do was say that Jesus was in fact not God. It is one thing living a lie, but to die for a lie would be something else.

92majestic wrote:The same way that you have been told He is not real; and take faith on it.

And what of those who lack the belief in god's existence? This lacks the requirements of the leap of faith, effort, etc.

92majestic wrote:As for other posters trying to debunk the xian god-concept, you get so invoved in these type of debates because you subconciously want to be convinced.

I beg to differ to an extent. I discuss them to reveal its unwarranted stance in juxtaposition with reality based views.

92majestic wrote:The Bible tells us that men will fall away from faith and place their trust in men. Is that not what is happening today?

Therefore, uncritically accept the Bible? Humanity is better off socially interacting with real people in their society than reinforcing their uncritical acceptances of unsupported assertions. The same with the abolition of slavery.

92majestic wrote:I myself was once an atheist[/quote and if im honest, still very skeptical of certain Biblical scriptures.

Can you recite any thoughts as an atheist that differs from what you believe now? I'd like to know the transition.

92majestic wrote:But to me, there is nothing wrong with evaluating the validity of something before pledging support to it.

Can you rehash any claims you think is substantiated in the Bible? List them if you can.

92majestic wrote:I can acknowledge that there is a significant lack of physical evidence for the Judeo-Christian God; but on the contrary the sheer mass of documentation (scriptures) would indicate that there must be some form of deity.

There are many incredible reports of alien abductions, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and other mythological creatures, therefore this indicates that there must be some form of kidnapping extraterrestrial and or mythological creature? What is valid about the massiveness of evolutionary biology scientific papers is that you can repeat evolutionary postulates in laboratories for overwhelming reassurance and validity that evolution does occur and is a natural process.

92majestic wrote:To deny so would be to deny the instance of every spirtitualistic experience that has ever occurred.

And what exactly is a spirtitualistic experience?

92majestic wrote:Ok, maybe some are ghost stories used to scare children, but all of them?

And this has something to do with their validity?

92majestic wrote:Also, we can see the lenghts people will go for their religion.

What of religious fervor or zeal? Sure, they have consequences of their own, in which may indicate that it is less timely today than years beforehand where science applications can be misused such as planes.

Viraldi wrote:Therefore, uncritically accept the Bible? Humanity is better off socially interacting with real people in their society than reinforcing their uncritical acceptances of unsupported assertions. The same with the abolition of slavery.

Putting trust in men does not mean socially interacting with them, it means placing trust in men who claim to know the "truth". Christians can accept that they will never know all the scientific answers because they can accept that God's ways are always going to be higher than our comprehension. Atheists will claim this is a cop out, using a mystical fairy tale to fill the gaps in science. I am a very proud supporter of science, but there is no doubt that rightly or wrongly it has caused many people to either abandon or never accept faith in a higher being. Like religious extremism, this is a breeding ground for dangerous behaviour. Again, rightly or wrongly, the majority of people no longer fear God. As science continues to isolate religion, I predict that the stress of various morals will be lost.

Viraldi wrote:Can you recite anything as an atheist that differs from what you believe now? This transition is something I'd like to know.

I used to think that the God of the Bible was a cruel, blood-thirsty tyrant who sent people to hell for eternity. I was introduced to many sites that portrayed this image of God, who I hated and whose existence I eventually rejected. It wasn't till much later when i sat down, read the verses in context and heard various interpretations that my opinion really changed. I discovered the truth about God, unfortunately still a secret to many Christians. I want a revolution, Christians have been branded because of idiotic morons condemning people and threatening them with hellfire. Such is not the way of Jesus, who himself stated that on the day of judgement, many will come to him saying Lord Lord, and he will say unto them flee from my presence you who practice lawlessness. In other words, many so-called Christians will not enter heaven. I think Christians have become so obsessed with keeping irrelevant customs, rules and traditions that they are missing the whole point - a relationship with God. As for my lifestyle, the transition is unmeasurable. My outlook on people is simply love, even to those who do things against me. Even to people who I really disliked, i found myself thinking, wait a minute, they were created in the image of God and God loves them that much that he sent Jesus to die on a cross for them - so how then can I hate someone who Jesus loves, I cant.

Viraldi wrote:
There are many incredible reports of alien abductions, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and other mythological creatures, therefore this indicates that there must be some form of kidnapping extraterrestrial and or mythological creature? What is valid about evolutionary biology scientific papers is that you can repeat evolutionary postulates in laboratories for overwhelming reassurance and validity.

True, but not to the same extent as a higher being. Many argue that the Bible is a tool of control. But remember, was Moses or other early Biblical scholars writing for the purpose of control? Why go to the effort of even writing the Bible? - whats the motivation? Another thing, there have been thousands of religions from the start of human civilisation, why has Christianity sustained it's apparent validity? Why are we not worshiping horus? As for the scientific evidence, I agree 100%. But on the contrary, I have seen no scientific evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that there is no God. I must note here I realise this is not the aim of science, but many do adopt this stance. The evidence that does suggest there is no higher being, I hold as a failure of understanding on our (humans) part. This gets back to my earlier point, placing faith in men, the so called experts. If a scientist was examining Adam and Eve, they would most likely have come to the conclusion that they were around 20 years of age, when in fact they were only a day old. In the same sense, Evolutionary biology does not disprove God. Imagine getting to judgement day and discovering that such processes were in fact God's method for creating us - for such reasons I will always keep God and science seperate.

Viraldi wrote:And what exactly is a spirtitualistic experience?

Anything from exorcisms to stories of hauntings. For the first case, I have myself a huge mass of documents for cases of exorcisms - all from respected religious leaders. Why would such men/women create a book of lies? Some of the cases are that horrifying no sane preacher could create in fiction. After reading many books on the subject, my eyes were truely opened to the evil in our world - the intervention of evil forces. One interesting point a famous exorcist noted was that in all the contries he had worked, the worst cases happened in places like Africa. His conclusion was that evil needs a form to manifest. In our Western society, evil has no limits to forms it can manifest. One classic example, porn. Milliions of men and women in Western societies search for porn related pages every day - evil has taken the pure act of sex between married couples into a lustful visual stimulation. The reason the pastor did not see such magnitudes of cases in our society is because evil possesses people who are in fact unaware of its very existence. It doesn't need to manifest itself in us through fits of rage andon demonic possessi because we are already subject to it's control in some form. He concluded that in our society evil will come at us at 100%, we all need to be 100% pure of heart to resist and that is why we are all losing. Think, if you were to put this context in your life, what evil would be possessing you? I know there is much possessing me.

92majestic wrote:Putting trust in men does not mean socially interacting with them, it means placing trust in men who claim to know the "truth". Christians can accept that they will never know all the scientific answers because they can accept that God's ways are always going to be higher than our comprehension. Atheists will claim this is a cop out, using a mystical fairy tale to fill the gaps in science. I am a very proud supporter of science, but there is no doubt that rightly or wrongly it has caused many people to either abandon or never accept faith in a higher being. Like religious extremism, this is a breeding ground for dangerous behaviour. Again, rightly or wrongly, the majority of people no longer fear God. As science continues to isolate religion, I predict that the stress of various morals will be lost.

Of course it is quite different, if understood as an equivocation with the word trust. However, it is as fathomable as saying putting your trust in God, which I think is a contingency in the belief thereof. In other words, uncritically accepting that God's works are within reason, whether it is observably suffering or not to one or a mass of people in a disastrous situation. Now to deal with your unreferenced meaning, science, as repetitively stated, is the best tool devised to understand how the world works and is placed in the educational curricula. Mind you, scientists who uphold methodological naturalism and study rigorous scientific disciplines are safe to assume to know the truth, reality, and validity, whichever, of claims and hypotheses in the natural world. This denounces the loose term of trust, but rather becomes a critical acceptance. Though, I get a feeling this has to do with an argument of authority. In which case, does not deal, I imagine, within the scientific fields, but in religion seeing as it has a plethora of denominations and preachers of its own since it does in fact evolve on its own.

Yes, it is exactly that, a cop out, an apologetic evasion as well. This should be no surprise as it reflects a blissful ignorance in respect to understanding how the world works. This is possibly the most irksome thing I have heard to date in this generation, that science does not know everything. The fact that science is NOT omniscience should be damn clear. Preferring an authority, say a particular deity with the presupposition that it holds the attribute omniscience, is a regression towards human intellectual effort as such would teaching creationism in science classes. The fact that scientific knowledge can make one tergiversate from religious and mythological beliefs should be telling that it is compelling and more useful in real world efforts of advancement.

What and which morals exactly and why?

92majestic wrote: I used to think that the God of the Bible was a cruel, blood-thirsty tyrant who sent people to hell for eternity. I was introduced to many sites that portrayed this image of God, who I hated and whose existence I eventually rejected. It wasn't till much later when i sat down, read the verses in context and heard various interpretations that my opinion really changed. I discovered the truth about God, unfortunately still a secret to many Christians. I want a revolution, Christians have been branded because of idiotic morons condemning people and threatening them with hellfire. Such is not the way of Jesus, who himself stated that on the day of judgement, many will come to him saying Lord Lord, and he will say unto them flee from my presence you who practice lawlessness. In other words, many so-called Christians will not enter heaven. I think Christians have become so obsessed with keeping irrelevant customs, rules and traditions that they are missing the whole point - a relationship with God. As for my lifestyle, the transition is unmeasurable. My outlook on people is simply love, even to those who do things against me. Even to people who I really disliked, i found myself thinking, wait a minute, they were created in the image of God and God loves them that much that he sent Jesus to die on a cross for them - so how then can I hate someone who Jesus loves, I cant.

That outlook as an atheist would only reflect a perspective in which rejects to follow a malignant deity. If that is your only case or argument of being an atheist, as you say, then you would have a better probability of shifting to different interpretations that attempt to rationalize or make sound pleasant, if not transitioning into an entirely different religion that actually may be preaching and or practising peaceful beliefs.

As mentioned above, I am an atheist, in broader terms one who lacks the belief in gods' existence, whereas I rest my case on the lack of substantive evidential support for any gods' existence. And as you said, there are various interpretations, which condemnation of hellfire does qualify as an interpretation of whatever scripture. Those who uphold that interpretation would likely call you out as an idiotic moron who probably has it all wrong. This is one of my problems with scriptural interpretation and those who personally interpret them themselves, they attempt to justify the interpretation to their points and rather easily. As for an example, your presupposition that God exists appears to exemplify your case to refrain from preventing any crimes against you or any others. Not all will uphold this outlook on people to just simply love, it sounds pleasant, but rather naive, no offense.

92majestic wrote: True, but not to the same extent as a higher being. Many argue that the Bible is a tool of control. But remember, was Moses or other early Biblical scholars writing for the purpose of control? Why go to the effort of even writing the Bible? - whats the motivation? Another thing, there have been thousands of religions from the start of human civilisation, why has Christianity sustained it's apparent validity? Why are we not worshiping horus? As for the scientific evidence, I agree 100%. But on the contrary, I have seen no scientific evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that there is no God. I must note here I realise this is not the aim of science, but many do adopt this stance. The evidence that does suggest there is no higher being, I hold as a failure of understanding on our (humans) part. This gets back to my earlier point, placing faith in men, the so called experts. If a scientist was examining Adam and Eve, they would most likely have come to the conclusion that they were around 20 years of age, when in fact they were only a day old. In the same sense, Evolutionary biology does not disprove God. Imagine getting to judgement day and discovering that such processes were in fact God's method for creating us - for such reasons I will always keep God and science seperate.

Not to the same extent as a higher being? Please enlighten me on how so. I do find it laughable that either creationists or namely anti-evolutionists press down the intellectual footing of scientific theories to their unsubstantiated drivel of creationism or intelligent design or rather rectally assert their so called theory has more evidential support.

I must make clear of my title that I am no biblical scholar. This is something I would leave to TimONeil. Also, what exactly is the apparent validity of Christianity? Its continuance in history is beyond me, I'm left with conjectural guesses as I used to be a member of a prevalent organization called Youth for Christ and that is the enforcement of religious value. I was forced against my wishes to attend this religious organization and I attended two simultaneous conferences in praise of Jesus Christ and God in regards to your point of being in relationship with both the former and latter. What can I say other than brainwashing and proselytism? Presentations were comprised of common experiences of their melancholic situations, cop out responses and excuses like the aforementioned that were related to everyone. The promotion was rather cheesy as well, being in a relationship with Jesus Christ and the spread of love in Jesus' name. Everything was influenced by his name, in which I would call out as extraneous whereas it can be expressed within reason; that it would benefit society and ourselves.

Whether Zeus, Horus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is lacking any true adherents is not of my concern. If the belief lack thereof is due to lack of substantive evidence, it could be tantamount to the rest of religious views claiming or believing thereof. Shifting the burden of proof and evidence for that matter is logically fallacious; the fact that there is an absence of scientific evidence for any deity whatsoever just shows said existence to be improbable, implausible, etc. unlikely.

If scientists discovered Adam and Eve, how the hell do they come to such conclusions that a newborn aged to puberty in a day, not to fucking mention 365 days? This doesn't serve as a point of any kind that I'm aware of. Evolutionary biology, the scientific discipline of the observed biodiversity in the biosphere has fuck-all to do with deities. This natural process has as much relation to deities as it would with the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis. If you so desire to look at it in that perspective, it just states that this natural process does not require supernatural interventions from supernatural entities such as deities. If this God of yours did intervene, then I expect an explanation for vestigial organs, infant diseases, parasitic creatures, etc. anything from this omniscient bugger.

92majestic wrote: Anything from exorcisms to stories of hauntings. For the first case, I have myself a huge mass of documents for cases of exorcisms - all from respected religious leaders. Why would such men/women create a book of lies? Some of the cases are that horrifying no sane preacher could create in fiction. After reading many books on the subject, my eyes were truely opened to the evil in our world - the intervention of evil forces. One interesting point a famous exorcist noted was that in all the contries he had worked, the worst cases happened in places like Africa. His conclusion was that evil needs a form to manifest. In our Western society, evil has no limits to forms it can manifest. One classic example, porn. Milliions of men and women in Western societies search for porn related pages every day - evil has taken the pure act of sex between married couples into a lustful visual stimulation. The reason the pastor did not see such magnitudes of cases in our society is because evil possesses people who are in fact unaware of its very existence. It doesn't need to manifest itself in us through fits of rage andon demonic possessi because we are already subject to it's control in some form. He concluded that in our society evil will come at us at 100%, we all need to be 100% pure of heart to resist and that is why we are all losing. Think, if you were to put this context in your life, what evil would be possessing you? I know there is much possessing me.

HA HA HA! Why would someone lie on such lengthiness? Well, why would Calilasseia expend much time and effort on asinine canards spewed by creationists? Call out creationist propagandists and you just might have an answer. This is synonymous with psychics, I should say, pressing guilt on innocent persons having sinful nature and therefore must pay in cash for removal of these alleged existence of evil spirits. Anyway, sure, please cite those said documents.

Emil wrote:Andy, obviously the creeds were written by human beings and reflect the particular people and circumstances of the time.

Of course, because creeds don't define gods, they define churches (and for many people, the manifest existence of the church is taken as evidence of the truth of the creed).

But the nature of the development of creeds, and the development of churches, is enlightening. When you look at it, it is far more like the "artificial selection" of dog breeders than the "natural selection" of nature. Undesired sideshoots are ruthlessly removed, rather than being allowed to run their course (potentially adding something in a 'scaffolding' style). So (to push the analogy) the bishops in Nicaea can be viewed as having written a set of Kennel Club breed standards. And some aspects of Christian dogma look analagous to the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel - achieving and perfecting the standard involves practices that eventually require a choice between conformance and health, and the people who make the choice about conformance are often not those whose health is involved.

But it is just an analogy.

Emil wrote:If the trinitarians are right, then Jesus Christ would indeed be God, but also really and fully human, not a pretend human. That is what trinitarian theology says.

Ah yes, my use of the word "pretend". Maybe not the best word to get across what I was thinking.

What did I mean? Well it all started with another analogy. The vicar in my local church was doing a sermon where he was talking about some soldiers. A grenade was thrown into where they were. One of them had smothered the grenade, taking all the force and getting blown to bits and letting his colleagues live. "That's what Jesus did for us" said the vicar. "It's such a selfless act of love".

"But" I thought "if the soldier had known he was immortal, would doing it still have been an act of love? Or would not doing it have instead been an act of immense negligence and inhumanity?"

So it comes down to the nature of Jesus within the trinity. Fully human, fully god - these are our starting points, but they are easier to say than to define. Fully human should include physiologically human, demonstrating humanity and human characteristics. To be consistent, it should also include having free will and being a sinner (being a "perfect human" is not getting the full experience, but I guess it may have to do).

Fully god - well apart from the fact of "being god", what does this mean? Nicaea had to address the question of whether the son was created by the father, or was part of the father. And if the son was part of the father, to what extent did the son know the father. NIcene trinitarianism's view that the son was "begotten before all worlds", "begotten, not made", "being of one substance with the father" comes down on the view that the son was the father and fully knows the father. These conclusions would not have been arrived at lightly, and Arius's contrary views would have held a lot weight. And because this thread is about "difficult questions", a lot of Arius's points do challenge people to justify their dogma.

So, if Jesus was enacting god's plan for the salvation of the small part of humanity he was visiting then Jesus knew the plan, and so he knew he would be crucified, and would rise again. "How hard must it have been for Jesus to face that final journey to the cross" says my vicar. "Probably not hard, if he knew he was going to rise again and go back to heaven and that doing so would make all of his creation right again" is surely one reply that is entirely consistent with trinitarian dogma.

So "fully human" implies free will, "fully god" implies being leader of the plan. Is Luke 22:42 a bit of acting, or was his fully-god-side really wavering over the plan? Does Matthew 27:46 imply the fully-god-side didn't know what was going on? These bits look inconsistent with trinitarianism (which, after all, is only inferred from words in the bible rather than being mentioned directly, and words can be read in so many ways). Or maybe Jesus had to live(and especially die) with his fully-human-side emphasised in order for the plan to work (and this is what I mean by "pretend"). Or maybe, just maybe, he lived with his fully-human-side emphasised because he was just a human.

Of course, I am well aware that preachers have answers to all these questions - how the incomprehensible and often divisive concept of the trinity can be reconciled with words that appear to say the reverse. And I am aware my treatment is extremely unsophisticated. But the thread is about difficult questions and there are clearly a lot of difficult questions here where the official answers look suspiciously like sophism.

Andy

Hi Andy,
yes, I agree with all that. It seems to me that being human is incompatible with knowing you'll survive the cross. Being human must include being limited in knowledge. And as you say, all the talk of a divine plan is after-the-event storytelling.

As I understand it, the traditional formula was that Jesus Christ had two natures that were separate, a divine nature and a human nature, but one person. All the attempts to explain what this really means or how it might work were condemned as heresies.

The theologians back then must, though, have been working with a pretty radical understanding of God if they thought it could be applied unconditionally to a fully human person.

tytalus wrote:is there a xian answer to the problem of evil that is not absurd? Is there a response that makes sense to the skeptic, or can only the believer make 'sense' of it (using the term loosely, as it may apply to an absurdity)?

Is that problem still around?

There are two parts: the logical problem of evil, and the evidential (or empirical) problem of evil.

The logical problem of evil deals with whether an omnibenevolent God is compatible with a universe containing evil. It is generally considered to have been solved by Alvin Plantinga. Not everyone agrees, but as far as I know it seems to be the case: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evil-log.htm

The evidential problem of evil deals with the actual evil we see in this universe. It seems to be unsolvable, since if God does have a purpose or a reason for this evil, He isn't saying. And unless you are omniscient yourself, I'm not sure how you can show that any piece of evil is unnecessary. For liberal Christians like me, it comes down to having faith that God does in fact have a good reason. If He does, then all is good. If He doesn't, then He isn't God. QED, AFAICS.

There is also the argument about materiality. A material universe must contain suffering and evil, since matter decays, so we all die, and we are all selfish.

So, if God creates a material universe, that must involve suffering and evil.

The question then becomes, why would God create a material universe? Anything else would be a magical and non-material universe, where for example, a falling rock would be diverted away from my head.

But a magical and non-material universe would merely be an extension of God's own Mind.

Obviously, he wanted something different, and something Other. Why? Not sure. Maybe like Picasso, he just has to create.