So much for separation of church and state

[StSanta]

The hypotethical monkey situation creates an interesting situation; if given the same ability to choose, are monkeys to be judged by the same standards? You say no, and I believe you.

Of course, I'm also a neo-Darwinist who consider Genesis to be a metaphorical work; how can plants grow before there is sunlight, and how can there be light with no sun? Just examples. As such, God would have o have put the soul into modern man in a relatively late stage of earths development. It creates additional problems and questions that are hard to answer, unless you interpret Genesis literally.

Thanks for answering my question about us being judged before having done anything wrong. It answers something where I've gotten conflicting answers - namely the question of destiny. Interestingly enough, we almost share a position here - with me holding the opinion that causality is sort of important, I cannot see (other than on a chaotic quantum level which we know very little about) how we really can set ourselves outside of it. We might experience a sense of choice; it is virtual but might not be more. I don't know.

But still, if he knows the answers beforehand, why does he let us go through some pretty horrible things? He has the result of the test already?

Is God fearful of other achieving his level of wisdom, and if so, why? Why is he so insistant on being the one with the über-ride? He seems to go to great extremes to keep an edge on his creations; much like earthly rulers do. God knew the outcome, yet blamed man for doing what he was designed to do. Isn't it akin to building a plane without wings, and then blaming it for not being able to fly properly?

If I was a deity like Jesus, I don't think I'd have much problems going through what he did  . Especially if I knew I was guaranteed a place up with my father.

The trinity also has me confused. God sent Jesus, which basically is part of the divine, down to die on earth, which at any rate is just a temporary testing ground for humans, then took back his Son to him, and we're supposed to be grateful? He died, from a secular point of view, because he was a revolutionary; someone who threatened the stability of the system. And it seems the system was right that he was a threat, as merely 300 years after his death, the old gods were a thing of the past.

For a man lacking faith, it's hard to see how he did anything for me  .

Kieren, I must admit that you seem to have a good grasp of the bible; that's why I am asking you these questions. Normally, I somehow manage to offend the Christians I discuss the bible with and I end up either being yelled at or ignored  . I realize that to believers, my position must seem like a blasphemous one.

So if I turn into blasphemous mode, just lemme know  

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

[Kieren]

Santa-

I think you have a fair understanding of the Bible, believe it or not. The trouble is I think, as you have alluded, much of the Bible has multiple interpretations. You have picked as consistant a side as have I, except I disagree with your analysis.  

I don't know that I would agree that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. He is love, vengeance, law, justice, anger, in fact many things, therefore couldn't be called really all anything. He can be loving, or angry, or vengeful, but not on a human level. If God is vengeful it within the context of His Word. If He is love, it is within the context of His Word, and so on.

This is the difficulty faced by the Bible; how do you describe to man concepts that are not of man? How do you communicate the message of God to the people? You do so by using the language of man, and analogies that relate to the everyday life of the audience. There is a reason that God is referred to as a father; man understood that relationship very well. These were harsh times as well (the time of the writing of Scriptures) and children could indeed be cast out of their families. It was an accepted part of life. Jesus was referred to as a shephard, not surprising as there were many shephards and they understood the analogy well. Further, he referred to separating the believers from the rest of the world as "separating the wheat from the chaff" which the farmers understood. He took that analogy further by saying "the chaff is thrown into the fire".

So, how do you know which parts are to be taken literally and what parts to take figuratively? I think you have to look at the totality of the Bible, not selective parts. As it was written by several people for several audiences it is possible to take parts out and divine a meaning inconsistant with the whole. The New Testament alone is proof of this. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John basically told the same story, but you notice they emphasized different aspects. They also were writing for different audiences, therefore structured their books in ways their audiences could best understand Christ and His mission. Taken together they give a complete picture of Jesus and His life. Taken apart it looks like five guys that couldn't get their stories straight.

Hell- concept or reality? The Bible says there is a hell, and describes it as a lake of fire. Is this to be taken literally, or is this the nearest human approximation to an eternity without God? Remember, when Jesus was on the cross God momentarily turned away, because Jesus had taken on the sin of the entire world. That was a taste of hell. I don't know if there is literally a lake of fire; I do know there is the possibility of eternal separation from God, and that I know is just as scary. But how about the bulk of humanity? Do you say "You choose to be with God, or not, but if you aren't with Him it will be really, really bad!"? It doesn't carry much weight, does it? The pain of fire is very easy to understand, and the thought of being immersed in it for all eternity is a picture I think we can easily form and be revulsed by.

When God punishes, it is for ultimate good. Sodom and Gomorrah and all their inhabitants were destroyed because they had so sunken into sin and debauchery there was no longer any hope of redemption. Their very existance represented a threat to the well-being of God's people. God did wipe them out in one fell swoop. To call them innocent is not accurate.

When the Israelis entered the promised land they were to completely destroy the inhabitants that were in residence. Why? Because God knew that the inhabitants would lead the Israelis into idol worship and paegan religions. This would destroy the nation. This could not be allowed to happen.

The Trinity? One of the great mysteries of the Bible. I won't even pretend to understand it. God in three forms- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As I have said before, I have felt the Holy Spirit personally. I see evidence of God in my life every day, and I try to express the love of Jesus in all that I do. I accept this concept as something I may not be able to grasp (like higher mathematics!), but I am sure it exists.

S!

[StSanta]

Hey Kieren, sorry for the late reply, sort of missed the thread.

You have picked as consistant a side as have I, except I disagree with your analysis.

Gotta hand it to ya; you've handled this admirably. never thought I could have a civil discussion with a Christian regarding the bible. That has earned you another coolness point   . Keep saving and you might join me in Fighter Pilots Heaven  .

I am glad we agree that god is not omnibenevolent - the question then, at least for me, is to decide just what kind of a fellow he is. A little nasty at times but overall good, or a very bad deity indeed.
We're humans, so we're limited to what our biology and environment allows us to do. i think personally that it is wrong to take such an important aspect of life and declare it as out of reach for our understanding. You will probably disagree, and I respect that.

With all the difficulties in interpreting the bible and indeed the multitude of different interpretations, wouldn't you agree that it is rather hard to be absolute on many points? In some areas, you're effectively left with the same moral relativm (to some degree) that those who disbelieve in absolutes have.

The bible is full of truism; i've read passages and come to that conclusion. it's also full of stories from contemporary life of that day and the views held represents those views. In some areas, such as with women, it is outdated; the writers could not predict the development we've seen in the last few hundred years. Unfortunately this does not sound good to believers; the word of god cannot be flawed. I feel this is an area where many differences of opinion can arise.

With Mathew and the other chaps; if held under close scrutiny, I am sure one could find places where they contradict each other. Rationalisation could do an attempt to explain it, but not fully. Being who I am, I've seen websites with such contradictions listed.

I'm separated from god by definition, since I lack a belief in all deities. It's not so much a choice as it is a result of my skeptical nature. Most of us apply really a healthy dose of skepticism and rational thought in our every day life - will the bridge sustain my weight, is this dangerous and so forth. Somehow, some of us, due to the spiritual nature of their being, either transcends it or simply halt the process (depending on which side yer on   ). For me, it's the latter; it seems we abandon the very rational thoughts that keep us alive when it comes to spirituality.

95% of the human population are theists, so I'm a minority. But to claim validation because of large numbers is a logical fallacy.

I also question whether god's punishments are for ultimate good. I'm skeptical of authorities in general, and especially so of absolute authorities (if you allow me to use that expression). Some of his calls are dubious to me; why won't he allow others to gain reach his level of wisdom? What does he fear?

The slaughter at the promised land is a good example - here, god for SOME reason intervenes with the Free Will - he does NOT allow his creations to choose whether to follow him or not. Instead, he quite brutally help them remove an obstacle. I might be missing something here though, but that's my immediate impression.

The trinity; seems we share a position here; un-understandable   .

Thanks again for this discussion, it's given me both food for thoughts and a better understanding.

Wish you all the best.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
 
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Kieren]

This seems to be winding down, and I am not sure if the last few questions were rhetorical, but I will attempt to answer them in the event they were not.

I sometimes wonder if the Bible is intentionally capable of being interpreted differently. If it was spelled directly out there is no guaranteeing the people would believe or follow anyway. As an example, people would always ask Jesus to show some proof of what He said. Jesus replied "If the people saw all the wonders God performed for them when they left Egypt and still couldn't believe, nothing I do now could convince you" (paraphrased). This is an instance where faith has to guide you. The way it is now you have to work to fully understand the Word, and you need to continue to study it throughout your life because no matter how many times you read the Bible you will find new lessons.

Jesus told parables that people at the time simply could not understand. Yet, when He explained them, they became so simple and clear. This is what it is like to reread the Bible, you suddenly reread something and have an epiphany, seeing things you never realized were there before.

Being absolute about it on the whole? I know absolutely it is the truth, and it is the best vehicle on earth for understanding the nature of God. It is work to read and understand, that is also absolutely true. There are many parts that I agree are open to debate of whether they are meant to be literal or figurative, but the overall message is absolute.

The Bible's relevance today is a good debate as well. You say that the Bible no longer is appropriate in today's world, that it is out-of-date. A believer would say the world is more corrupt and out-of-tune with God, as is clearly illustrated by the teachings in the Bible. This is where believers are taught to remain apart from the world, to hold fast to the faith. We have to live in the world, but we don't have to become part of the corruption of the world. We are to interact with people who do not share the faith, in fact we are required to do so. We are not to judge people. We are not to consider ourselves above anyone. We are charged with spreading the Word and leading exemplary lives.

God does punish those that reject Him, eventually. In the case of whole civilizations that were destroyed, this usually happened when the existance of that evil was a direct threat to the existance of His people. Remember, God knows all, and knows these civilizations would not repent. God promises to punish the wicked, and He will keep His promise to do so, albeit in His own time. Sometimes rebellious civilizations are used to serve God's purpose- look what Egypt did for the nation of Israel. This can be confusing, especially during the time that things happen. Still we can later look back and view the whole event and see the purpose that we were too close to see at the time.

Cheers!

P.S. I haven't found you to be insulting or denegrating me in any way, so I hope you don't feel like you have. It has been a pleasant discussion for me!