tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3043719406128585963..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why Didn't God Create Us in Heaven in the First Place?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79313512130706269192007-08-23T17:31:00.000-04:002007-08-23T17:31:00.000-04:00I just don't know if there even will be free will ...I just don't know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won't want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness.<BR/><BR/>The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, and how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.<BR/><BR/>Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that's it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.<BR/><BR/>God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7<BR/><BR/>We wouldn't know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it if it hadn't had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn't know he's loving as he is if it hadn't been for sin, we wouldn't know he's holy if it weren't for judgment.<BR/><BR/>How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is.<BR/><BR/>*paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John MacarthurD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6647988259959949682007-08-03T12:51:00.000-04:002007-08-03T12:51:00.000-04:00Annnnnd, re: exapologistIt sounds an awful lot lik...Annnnnd, re: exapologist<BR/><BR/>It sounds an awful lot like that's not free will at all. In fact, I propose to go one further: it sounds like that isn't still *you* in heaven. From what I understand about compatibilist free will - which ain't much, so correct me if I'm wrong - it has to do with a person's nature. So, in heaven (so the objection goes) you can only do good, ergo your nature must be all-good. But on earth you do good and evil, which almost certainly makes you at least partially evil. So that makes me think that, not only is the "predetermined free will" not really free (which, c'mon, should be obvious), but that by the time you get to heaven (or hell, I guess, for that matter), your actions have been determined by an essentially different person.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78906292016222660192007-08-02T19:01:00.000-04:002007-08-02T19:01:00.000-04:00(Er, this is maybe a double post? If so, sorry?)I ...(Er, this is maybe a double post? If so, sorry?)<BR/><BR/>I guess, since the author isn't terribly interested in playing with you, bnonn, I'll do it. I assume - perhaps incorrectly - that the Calvinist God is a 3-Os God and will base my arguments on that assumption.<BR/><BR/>"I would like you to please prove your assertion that Calvinistic theology must justify why our particular world brings God more glory than another (of any nature). While it may bug you, a consistent theology does not need to explain every possible question our curiosity may devise."<BR/><BR/>Ah, but here's the thing: we're questioning whether or not it's consistent. You can't just up and say that it is because that's the exact question we're offering evidence about.<BR/><BR/>"Firstly, has God indeed revealed that this world brings him more glory than any other? It may seem a reasonable assumption, and I do agree that he has created the world which most perfectly glorifies him, but is this scriptural or merely conjectural?"<BR/><BR/>You can probably get there from the fact that God is defined to be perfect. Furthermore, since you agree to it, you don't have a valid complaint.<BR/><BR/>"Secondly, assuming that this world glorifies God superlatively, is it necessary to understand the precise mechanism by which this is so in order for it to be true? Is it a requirement of a consistent theology that it has this level of explanatory power? I think you will have great difficulty justifying an affirmative answer to this. An inability of a theology to provide this understanding does not imply that it is false."<BR/><BR/>Fine, but you haven't addressed the problem at all. You seem to be attempting, through an appeal to ignorance, to dismiss the problem. That's not legit, please try again.<BR/><BR/>"Thirdly, what do you understand God's glorification as entailing? In others of your posts, you have implied that you think it brings God glory when people praise him. But while praising God certainly brings him glory, it is not as if praise is equivalent with glorification. It is merely one means of it. Glorification might be loosely defined as the exercising of God's attributes. Therefore, it is perfectly cogent to consider that the exercising of God's wrath and justice against sinners glorifies him greatly, while even more superlatively glorifying his righteousness, and particularly his mercy and love to those whom he has saved."<BR/><BR/>Yeah yeah, fine - what about God's attribute of omnibenevolence? Why isn't that (according to the evidence) "superlatively glorified"? Once again, this doesn't address the heart of the problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"As I have briefly shown, there can indeed be rational justification. You are blatantly abusing the term "rational", as most atheists do—using it as if whatever you personally opine is the standard against which to judge any other idea for rationality. Since the justification for suffering in the world is God's own glory, you will have to show me that this is a genuinely irrational justification (ie, self-refuting or internally inconsistent in some way). This you have not done."<BR/><BR/>I mean, besides the fact that you didn't show it, we again run up against the omnibenevolent-vs.-evil problem. You still haven't addressed the problem of evil at all. And, you seem to have added to it: omnibenevolence is now also contrasted with what you called "righteousness," which seems to entail a significant amount of wholly gratuitous suffering.<BR/><BR/>"Your question is incomplete, and so it can't be answered. In which context is it couched? In the primary sense (that is, from God's own point of view), no we could not have desired to do differently except in a theoretical and counterfactual manner. That is, God could have chosen to have us to desire differently if it had suited his purposes; but in such an event we could not have desired as we now do. In a secondary sense (that is, from our point of view), it is possible that we could have desired differently. But more information is again required, since desire is a tricky thing, an highly dependent on circumstance. However, in either case, you have not explained why this removes choice. It certainly removes free choice, but clearly a choice was still made, regardless of its ultimate cause."<BR/><BR/>Buh, what? Define "choice" for me. I don't think you can. Or, maybe more to the point, what is a non-free choice? And fiddling with perspectives doesn't solve the problem, it just masks it: just because everyone *thinks* they have a free choice doesn't mean they do, so your discussion is entirely useless.<BR/><BR/>"What is patently obvious, actually John, is that the notion of God being responsible for something in an ethical sense is incoherent and absurd. Responsibility entails accountability to a higher authority"<BR/><BR/>Er, no. That's wrong. For one thing, I suspect you're misinterpreting his use of the word "responsible." As in, if I eat a sandwich, I am responsible for that sandwich not being available for other people to eat. Furthermore, ethical evaluations take place strictly speaking with respect to ethical rules, no matter who (if anyone) is in charge of enforcingg them. This argument is plainly wrong-headed.<BR/><BR/>The only hope I can see for you is to say that you don't actually believe in a 3-Os God, because that'd undo some of my arguments above - but that means you *agree* with the problem of evil, so I'm not really sure what you can gain here.<BR/><BR/>(shameless plug: for more level-headed philosophy and commentary, visit http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com)Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9268274678494593462007-08-02T12:34:00.000-04:002007-08-02T12:34:00.000-04:00Well, I was one for awhile before I decided God di...Well, I was one for awhile before I decided God didn't exist. For a few years I thought that Calvinism seemed to be a logical conclusion if one took the Bible literally. It seemed monstrous of God to behave in such a way, and I could not love a God that was like that. And since I had decided that God was a monster, I believed that I was probably going to hell because God would not let someone who thought he was a monster into heaven. I was in seminary at the time and I told my mother that my reason for leaving the seminary was that I didn't know for certain what I believed about God, but that it seemed like he was terrible and so it did not seem very sensible for me to become a missionary and tell others about this terrible God. I still did go to church hoping that I could become a more liberal Christian, but though liberal Christianity sounded appealing, I didn't really believe in it. I continued to believe in the Calvinist God and that I was going to hell for hating him. Eventually I quit going to church, but was still afraid of the Calvinist God. I didn't completely believe anymore since I had read things that were convincing me otherwise. I was afraid that God existed, but hoping that he didn't. Then I read more and more in books and on this website and on other websites, and became more convinced. I suppose it would be hard for someone to keep living and rejecting such a God as the Calvinist God. If the world is run by a psycho and there is no hope unless one somehow forces oneself to believe that this psycho is good, why not just die now?aslancathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122108446227996524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91084290268957061532007-08-01T12:01:00.000-04:002007-08-01T12:01:00.000-04:00Remember that God's might makes right.And this is ...<I>Remember that God's might makes right.</I><BR/><BR/>And this is the crux of Calvinistic theology--the worship of raw power. Unfortunately, the worship of raw power exercised at whim is abhorrent to most people, so Calvinists (and others) redifine words such as "glorify" and "goodness" to mean "whatever God does". By bastardizing language in this manner, they can keep their admittedly relatively tight theology without completely yielding the emotional appeal of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>"God is good," they tell us, "so you should want to worship him." However, they neglect to advetise that when they say "God is good," they really <B>mean</B> "God is God." While this is facially true, it is wholly uninformative regarding their theology. Even a brief investigation of Calvinism leads to the conclusion that, based on the most commonly held values of "good", their god compares unfavorably to psychotics who capture and torture children to assauge their own insecurities and need to feel powerful.<BR/><BR/>Calvinists are not worshippers so much as toadies. <B>If</B> the Calvinists are right, and God acts in the manner that they say he does (damning people to eternal torment with no freedom to choose otherwise), then only the evil and the fearful would worship him, as he exemplarizes the actions of the evil.<BR/><BR/>One interesting observation is that I have never met a Calvinist who has intentionally rejected God; that is, someone who believes God truly exists and is truly how the Calvinists say He is, but chooses to defy Him anyway based on the person's morality. I have met plenty of former Calvinists who have rejected *Calvinism* due to their inability to accept such an evil God, but never someone who has said "You know, the Calvinist theology has it right, but I can't in good conscience worship such an evil being." Do such people exist?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41211849739704885042007-07-30T12:17:00.000-04:002007-07-30T12:17:00.000-04:00What better way? I can think of plenty of better w...<B><BR/>What better way? I can think of plenty of better ways. <BR/><BR/>So you think it's a mark of glory to inflict pain on others to demonstrate superiority? Then the schoolyard bully must have a glory all his own.</B><BR/>There are otherr ways for God to demonstrate Hios glory; God <I> chooses </I> to demonstrate His glory in the manner described in Revelations. <BR/><BR/>Remember that God's might makes right.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-582073720212355862007-07-30T10:51:00.000-04:002007-07-30T10:51:00.000-04:00bnonn said...John: comparing Calvinists to the men...bnonn said...<I>John: comparing Calvinists to the mentally ill is another case of you engaging in ad hominem, but again fails to offer any kind of refutation to the points I made.</I><BR/><BR/>Bnonn, I did not try to "refute" you. You missed my point. My point was not about you being mentally ill at all. Sometimes rational people get so caught up with "seeing" things differently they cannot see anything else. And there is no "refuting" anything here anyway. I wrote <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/07/lets-grade-us-okay.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> with you in mind. You have given me plenty of clues to think you lack understanding. You'll disagree, no doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41557481626964589982007-07-30T04:13:00.000-04:002007-07-30T04:13:00.000-04:00Bnonn:If I have 'misunderstood' you it is because ...Bnonn:<BR/>If I have 'misunderstood' you it is because of your own misuse of language. To 'glorify' does not mean 'to exercise one's attributes' but 'to make manifest the glory of [something].' And -- Freshman English -- it requires an 'indirect object.' You must manifest something <B><I>to</I></B> someone.<BR/><BR/>So again I ask you, who is God glorifying to?<BR/><BR/>As for 'God's wrath' by your theory, people have no freedom, they are only doing what God created them to do, so how can he, sanely, be 'wrathful'? Or how can that wrath be just?<BR/><BR/>Again I hear the voice of a little girl. "Dollie, you've been bad. You'be disobeyed me. I'm going to send you to hell." The doll didn't disobey her, it did what she made it do. Now this might be therapeutic and fun for an eight-year-old, but for a God?<BR/><BR/>As for this justice, I occasionally hear Christians speak of how an offense against an infinite God is itself infinite and deserving of infinite punishment. But look at it from the point of view of the harm done. A man could no more harm this infinite god of yours than a butterfly could bite through an elephant's leg.<BR/>In fact, if God is infinite, no action of a finite human could have any but an infintely small effect on God. How is it just to punish an infintely small offense with an eternal hell?Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41616406142308789572007-07-29T22:47:00.000-04:002007-07-29T22:47:00.000-04:00Prup, I'm afraid you have misunderstood me; not vi...Prup, I'm afraid you have misunderstood me; not vice versa.<BR/><BR/>1. Human life is a part of creation, so in saying that creation has meaning, I covered human life.<BR/>2. I addressed your key points; I just did it briefly. The point of God glorying himself is not to "show off" but to exercise his attributes. You are trying to make God into some kind of super-man, rather than the transcendent and aseitic deity. How do the various physical features of creation you listed glorify God's justice or wrath?<BR/><BR/>John: comparing Calvinists to the mentally ill is another case of you engaging in ad hominem, but again fails to offer any kind of refutation to the points I made.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90345636789676664082007-07-29T16:26:00.000-04:002007-07-29T16:26:00.000-04:00Thanks for the link, John!Thanks for the link, John!exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55141075206209974832007-07-29T16:02:00.000-04:002007-07-29T16:02:00.000-04:00I've been away from this discussion (at church act...I've been away from this discussion (at church actually--remember, I'm still a Christian struggling with his faith), so I'm getting caught up on a lot of very interesting points. <BR/><BR/>I just had a thought, in response to the conventional free will argument ("God must give us a choice and not interfere with that choice, thus allowing for the possibility of evil"). Ignoring for a moment that this argument cannot be established with Scripture, here's my quandary: What about those who are robbed of their free will choices? <BR/><BR/>I'm sure the Jews would have gladly chosen freedom from concentration camps, but were denied that choice because (we are to believe) God honored Hitler's free will and allowed him commit genocide. Do you see where I'm going with this? <BR/><BR/>It doesn't make sense to me that God should respect the freedom of some to choose, but not others. You would think God would at least intervene when the rules of the game are in jeopardy, to make a level playing field for everyone.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48538466731813845022007-07-29T15:39:00.000-04:002007-07-29T15:39:00.000-04:00To see a critique of Sennett's view see here.To see a critique of Sennett's view see <A HREF="http://www.cappe.edu.au/people/nagayu/10Heaven.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22736314196722324512007-07-29T15:21:00.000-04:002007-07-29T15:21:00.000-04:00What better way to demonstrate His superiority ove...<B>What better way to demonstrate His superiority over others than to cast His enemies into a lake of fire ...</B><BR/><BR/>What better way? I can think of plenty of better ways. <BR/><BR/>So you think it's a mark of glory to inflict pain on others to demonstrate superiority? Then the schoolyard bully must have a glory all his own.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72390012703299288172007-07-29T13:31:00.000-04:002007-07-29T13:31:00.000-04:00Michael, I can't help but wonder if you are simply...Michael, I can't help but wonder if you are simply playing a role as a parody of the power of religion to make normal people embrace the monstrous......and can't help but fear that you are sincere.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5056703505349731492007-07-29T12:36:00.000-04:002007-07-29T12:36:00.000-04:00How does hell and damnation add in the slightest t...<I>How does hell and damnation add in the slightest to God's glory?</I><BR/>What better way to demonstrate His superiority over others than to cast His enemies into a lake of fire, where they will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb of God, the smoke of their torment arises forever and ever, and they shall have no rest day nor night?<BR/><BR/>God is great!Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45630385568708308162007-07-29T11:46:00.000-04:002007-07-29T11:46:00.000-04:00Bnonn, I know. I've had endless discussions with C...Bnonn, I know. I've had endless discussions with Calvinists. I linked to where I answered you, so there was nothing left to do here. Calvinism makes atheists out of people, pure and simple.<BR/><BR/>In her book (seen on the right)Valerie Tarico claims “it doesn’t take very many false assumptions to send us on a long goose chase.” To illustrate this she tells us about the mental world of a paranoid schizophrenic. To such a person the perceived persecution by others sounds real. “You can sit, as a psychiatrist, with a diagnostic manual next to you, and think: as bizarre as it sounds, the CIA really is bugging this guy. The arguments are tight, the logic persuasive, the evidence organized into neat files. All that is needed to build such an impressive house of illusion is a clear, well-organized mind and a few false assumptions. Paranoid individuals can be very credible.” (p. 221-22). This is what Christians do, especially Calvinists, and this is why it’s hard to shake the Christian faith, in her informed opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8853107521394146202007-07-29T11:22:00.000-04:002007-07-29T11:22:00.000-04:00Bnonn:You did not "refute" me. You merely made a ...Bnonn:<BR/>You did <B>not</B> "<I>refute</I>" me. You merely made a series of statements that, in one case, misunderstood what I said -- I did not say that 'creation' was meaningless, but that human life (the lives of one group of creatures one one planet around one of the billion suns in this galaxy) was, if we accept your theology.<BR/><BR/>Much more important, you failed to even address my key points:<BR/><BR/>"Glorification" means to 'show the glory of.' To what is God 'glorifing' himself?<BR/><BR/>There are only three possible answers, all of which are absurd by your own beliefs:<BR/><BR/>A:) He is glorifying himself to himself, which makes him absurdly, neurotically, insecure. How can he not be self-aware of his glory, why does he need to manifest it to himself?<BR/><BR/>B:) To his 'peers' or 'superiors.' Oops, there goes monotheism.<BR/><BR/>C:) To humanity. But given the glory he has demonstrated by creating the Grand Canyon, fjords, the Aurora Borealis, the Rockies and Himalayas, the coast of Mexico, and cats, how can the 'punishment and redemption' of creatures without freedom to determine their fates, who are, if not 'puppets' then certainly helpless before him, add to his glory? (Are you not portraying God like some Great Architect who designs and supervises the creation of a new Empire State or Sears Tower, and who, when he gets the praise he deserves, says "No, the wondrous thing about this creation is that I can stand on the Observation Tower, and with this tiny pebble, kill a helpless passer-by"?<BR/><BR/>How does hell and damnation add in the slightest to God's glory?<BR/><BR/>It is a good thing for you that god and hell are both myths, because if they existed, I can think of no human action more truly 'damnable,' more truly offensive to god than spreading the sort of vicious libel about him that you and your teachers do. Merely denying his existence pales in contrast.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25867268560542950542007-07-29T09:05:00.000-04:002007-07-29T09:05:00.000-04:00Hi Jim Jordan,my bible says in Gen. 2:16"16 The LO...Hi Jim Jordan,<BR/>my bible says in Gen. 2:16<BR/>"16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;<BR/><BR/> 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."<BR/><BR/>1. it is not called the tree of knowledge of evil. What are they to infer about goodness from god if they had nothing to compare it too?<BR/><BR/>2. god said enigmatically that they could eat from any tree but that one, but how were they supposed to know what 'die' meant? To me it means cease to exist. It doesn't mean that the rest of humanity that comes after you is going to be punished which will result in god coming back to horribly tortured and killed on a cross to fix it.<BR/><BR/>3. He must have forgot about the Tree of life because since he knew this would happen, it would have been prudent for him to have prevented them from eating it first and then eating from the Tree o' knowledge. At that point he would have had a bigger problem.<BR/><BR/>But don't get me started on inconsistencies in the bible! Its just a myth anyway as evidenced by the characteristic of the god in human form and Him talking to his fellow gods in his Ugaritic pantheon when he said to himself "Behold, the man has become like one of Us".<BR/><BR/>Thats why saying that mans sinfulness comes from the fall is silly. And thats why the Problem of Evil is such a devastating argument to christianity, because is depends on a story that is obviously a myth and the logic doesn't hold up over time.<BR/><BR/>But wait, paul in Rom. 5:12 compares Jesus to adam, and paul seems to think that adam was real! Holy Smoke! What does that say about the crucifixion and Paul if we don't take the story of Adam literally? Well on <A HREF="http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/080104.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> church web page it says that pauls argument would fall flat! Yikes!<BR/><BR/>Holy Tapestry! If the sinful nature of man makes man unreliable and god foolishly chose man to use to reveal himself in scripture, then the bible is suspect, and if the story of Adam is not true then Pauls argument comparing Jesus to Adam falls flat, and If jesus died for our sins starting at the fall then that can only mean that god committed suicide for nothing and it was a meaningless gesture! But he should have known! Double Yikes!<BR/><BR/>Which makes an alternate hypothesis that jesus was a rabble rouser, crucified like a public enemy and his meaningless death was romanticised in legend the simpler explanation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58488242974266276542007-07-29T08:54:00.000-04:002007-07-29T08:54:00.000-04:00Another question to ask is this: If free will and...Another question to ask is this: If free will and sinlessness are not logically incompatible in heaven, then how can Christians argue that they are incompatible on earth? Often Christians claim that God would have to have made us "robots," void of free will, to ensure that we never sinned. But if we aren't robots in heaven, then why would we have to be robots on earth? There is no logical reason why we couldn't have been created with the same perfect combination of free will and sinlessness on earth that we will presumably end up with in heaven.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02650306712485609006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73268997108735761252007-07-29T05:46:00.000-04:002007-07-29T05:46:00.000-04:00Prup, to briefly refute you:1. God is more than a ...Prup, to briefly refute you:<BR/><BR/>1. God is more than a child.<BR/>2. We are more than toys.<BR/>3. Meaning is defined by God, so creation is not meaningless at all.<BR/>4. Glory entails an exercising of God's attributes, which naturally enough requires a medium through which to do so, in the case of punishment, redemption, and so on.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72661806584325594012007-07-29T04:40:00.000-04:002007-07-29T04:40:00.000-04:00Actually, the story of Adam & Even DOES say that t...<I>Actually, the story of Adam & Even DOES say that the world changed (not just their perception of it). You know: thorns & thistles, pain in childbirth, physical death, etc. Myth or not, it's right there in Genesis 3.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't accept the literal interpretation of Genesis. What I am trying to point out is the kernel of truth in the myth. Namely that the distinction between Good and Evil is the product of man's consciousness. In particular, his consciousness of self.<BR/><BR/>Good and evil have no meaning or existence apart from man. Animals experience all aspects of life, including disease, suffering, pain, starvation, predation and fear of predation -- even from one's own kind -- but only man, by nature, is burdened with the faculty of discerning such things as good or evil and cursed with the need to make sense of a world in which good and evil coexist.<BR/><BR/>One of my favorite books is Walker Percy's "Lost in the Cosmos". In it, he puts forward the notion that each child recapitulates man's fall. At four years of age, says Percy, the child is innocent, bright and eager, as interested in the world around her as Adam or Eve newly minted and in Paradise. At seven or eight, something changes. The child becomes moody and sullen, wilful, recalcitrant, withdrawn. And yet, nothing in nature has changed.Antonio Manettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00487502995709519940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35681235292471532472007-07-29T03:37:00.000-04:002007-07-29T03:37:00.000-04:00Bnonn: Can you please explain how, if we deny huma...Bnonn: Can you please explain how, if we deny human freedom, and accept a God, that God is in any way different from a child playing with dolls or toy soldiers, speaking words through their mouths, and then moving them into the cardboard boxes labeled heaven and hell?<BR/><BR/>Ironically, your position so totally reduces to the converse of the mechanistic view of human nature that athiests are -- usually incorrectly -- accused of holding and condemned for. Several writers in other threads -- including my friend Jennifer -- have suggested that a mechanistic position reduces to a position of pure pessimism "why not end it all now." But surely your position makes human life equally meaningless. <BR/><BR/>You claim that we exist merely to, in some arcane way, 'glorify' God. To who? Again, is he a child, producing a puppet show for himself? Certainly, if God existed, he would know his own glory, he would not need to demonstrate it to himself by torturing his puppets eternally.<BR/><BR/>The only way this 'glorification' could make sense would be if he were to have a need to glorify himself to some audience, if he were one of a host of Gods (I think of the Go'a'uld of STARGATE SG1.) A whole host of Gods, each one running his own planet and showing it off in front of the assembled Congress of Dieties. But that doesn't equate with a belief in monotheism.<BR/><BR/>Jospeh, I think you speak too highly of Calvinism. Beautiful? These ideas are the epitome of ugliness, either an evil collection of Gods who would glorify one who best tortured his puppets, or a single God so insecure and sick that he needs to convince himself of his glory by these warped games with his dolls (or action figures, if you prefer the image.)<BR/><BR/>Does this make sense even in 'its own closed system?'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49356223056477829692007-07-29T03:04:00.000-04:002007-07-29T03:04:00.000-04:00Lee, you're leaving out one important detail; Adam...Lee, you're leaving out one important detail; Adam and Eve had a knowledge of good already (remember, they walked with God). If you do the math, gain the knowledge of good and evil when you already knew what was good means *bingo* you would gain the knowledge of evil. That was the moral of the story. They wanted to know what went on in the strip clubs and crack houses, so to speak.<BR/><BR/>John W began <I>I argue that God could've created us in a perfect existence in the first place...in heaven.</I> <BR/>Very true, and I would have preferred to have my daughter hatched as a fan of analytic philosophy and an evangelical Christian who shuns insincere religiosity and..well, she'd be exactly like me. <BR/><BR/>I would like to recommend another way, that we can become more like our Creator but remain uniquely individual. One thing we can be sure of is that we are free to choose. Freedom is God's design, not man's. But, when all details are known, the choice will be to spend our eternity in His presence.<BR/><BR/>That ultimate choices and freedom converge shouldn't be too much to ask of a deity that claims to be THE ultimate reward.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully yours.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63761082674728218542007-07-29T02:29:00.000-04:002007-07-29T02:29:00.000-04:00Hi Antonio,If I recall Genesis correctly, Adam and...Hi Antonio,<BR/><BR/><B><I>If I recall Genesis correctly, Adam and Eve's transgression was to eat fruit from the tree of knowlege. When they did, the world did not change. Rather, what changed was man's perception of the world.</B></I><BR/>Jospeh is right.<BR/>And because they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they should not have been able to understand what it meant to disobey god. If that is true, not only does punishment with the problem of evil not fit the crime, there was no crime, only two brutes getting set up to get framed.<BR/>Adam and eve, if the story is true, were two ignorants caught in the middle of a squabble between two supernatural beings and one of those supernatural did not exercise due care and diligence in ensuring the safety of its children.<BR/><BR/>But in any case, as I demonstrated in my adam and eve article, the idea that mans nature is sinful weakens the case of an accurate bible since god foolishly only revealed himself through man in scripture and has not done anything to reassert himself since.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20236435984522002652007-07-29T01:55:00.000-04:002007-07-29T01:55:00.000-04:00From what I've read over the past few months in th...From what I've read over the past few months in this forum, it seems to me that Calvinists have the game rigged. You can play, but only on their terms, by accepting their assumptions. Any reasoning outside of their own box is approached with dire caution. When pushed dangerously close to the edges of that box, diversionary tactics of all kinds are employed. Suddenly we are now playing a different game. <BR/><BR/>John, I thought, stated it quite aptly: Calvinism is an intellectual castle in the sky. My own analogy is of a beautiful gleaming building, set on a makeshift foundation bamboo poles. In its own closed system, it certainly makes sense. But when you dare to look outside of that system, you notice it trying to hold up a very lot on very little. <BR/><BR/>I was caught up in the Christian Reconstructionism movement (which I know some Calvinists would consider extreme). I was a young (16), zealous Christian at the time ready to take on anyone in debate. I took pride in winning church members and ministers over to my presuppositions, which never uttering the word "Calvin" (a hated name in my denomination). What impressed me about Calvinism was its attempt to do what I now suspect is impossible: to build an orderly, coherent system of faith by linking together two very different books: the Old and New Testaments.<BR/><BR/>I think what finally did it in for me was when I began to notice that Calvinist dogma just didn't gel with what I observed around me. I noticed non-Christians that were more genuine than many who were masters of the Five Points. Like Steve, I also picked up on a lack of evangelistic love for the contemptuous world. Finally, I just couldn't fathom why I was struggling so badly with sinful tendencies if God was indeed ordering my steps.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.com