WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Essentially though, for God to be 'perfect', for God to be all knowing, omnipresident, or omnipotent, it takes the same requirements of the universe - ie. he is the full set of all factors. To be perfect in everything you do means there is absolutely no room for things - internal or external to you - to fall outside of your intent. Then again, when you take that awareness and hold it up against most of the bible's fundamental axioms the effect is a bit like taking a leaf blower to a card castle. The only other possibility (that I can think of) for God getting beguiled by his own creations or even think of waging a salvation/perdition battle with eternal consequences for those who live in a fully deterministic universe is what Jung suggested, that his omniscience is cut off from him by having the same level of introspect as the average frat boy - which is a possibility that frankly gives me chills (not at all in a good way).

You made me think, therefore I hate you......... lol j/k I need to walk away for a bit... I'm irritated and I think I need a nap.

But you made me smile!

I think you mean Mr. Wizard...I used to wake up at like 5 am to watch him and old-school Spider Man cartoons. Then on Sundays I watched Captain Noah and have him draw those ridiculously cool pictures.

Just a brief interjection ...

Not me.


No. "Accepted the consequence" only means he did not switch everything to puppetry in order to force his own ultimate desire upon all.


I am not exactly sure who is/was saying what there, but I say absolutely nothing is "God's 'fault'". Either he is sovereign, righteous and omnipotent, or else he is not.

Not if one's "intent" includes a design wherein free will can exist in complete harmony (even if it ultimately disagrees) alongside one's own ultimate desire.


I did not know Jung had said that, but I do sometimes wonder if/when man/men might stopping foolishly thinking God might even be fully comprehensible within the confines of our perfectly-created finite minds ...

"Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not Elohim made foolish the [alleged] wisdom of this world?
"For since, in the wisdom of Elohim, the world through [its own] wisdom did not know Elohim ..."
(1Corinthians 1:20-21)

"For the foolishness of Elohim is (still) wiser than [even the greatest wisdom of] men ..."
(1Corinthians 1:25)

"But the natural man does not receive the matters of the Spirit of Elohim, for [those matters] are [as] foolishness to him,
"and he is unable to know them, because they are [only] spiritually discerned."
(1Corinthians 2:14)

"... the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim ... 'He catches the [seemingly-] wise in their craftiness' ...”
(1Corinthians 3:19)

Where is the mechanism for free will though? I literally don't see any possibility - whatsoever. No means internal to us, no delivery system for two or more possible outcomes in any given event. The closest thing is a misunderstanding that people may have of what probabilities mean (ie. either it will or won't rain next Tuesday - we say 70% because... well... we still suck at gathering that kind of data) or they mistake the mechanism of thought - thought being something that is a combination of neurons and genetics (which you're given) along side life experience (which you're given). When the apparatus that you would call 'you' is something that you cannot own and you do not literally own anything about your past, you have no ownership of your output or actions either.

That's not to be mistaken for saying that you don't have responsibility of consequence - if you're texting on the phone and commit a vehicular manslaughter you should be in jail, whether you could have made any other choice or not, just like society - to function - has no choice but to penalize you. There is a big difference between paying consequence for actions taken and metaphorically 'owning' it as your fault vs. literally having the free will not to. In the texting instance, for example, you might say that you had free will to not do it right? The question is - is that something that would happen to you? No? Then defer it to someone who would. You'd have to consider their genetics, their motivational core, how they piece the world together, their strengths, their faultlines, and where they give in and do certain things that they know are wrong simply because they've had a compulsion for a long time with no consequence or.... someone texted them once, they didn't want to but did with no consequence, and thus they fell into the habit (note: you probably have your own vices and 'give' points as well, we all do, however quite likely you pick yours more wisely than this person would - call it better mental acuity or conventional wisdom). People generally do something like that until something concretely scares them. If their lucky they almost hit a raccoon or tap a bumper, have something jump in their chest, and that adrenaline jolt gets them. Other people may not have that quick of remorse to their surroundings based on quite possibly very different values or - they my *really* lack common sense, something else that is usually structural, ie. even if you're great looking, popular, and handed things way too much it still has to reflect against a neurological substructure and genetic core that's prewired for certain needs, if you don't have the need for meaning you could very well be rather stunted or stupid from that, but not always - some people, even against all odds (star jock family, great looking, people bend over backwards just because their them) don't necessarily spend their lives as grown children either.

Now, God would know - he can't not know what he created - that we have a system where we have to take the 'lickings' for what we do wrong but, admittedly, have no free will to be anything but what we are at a given moment. Our internal compass guides us to what it tells us is the best outcome. The difference in compasses though - one person's got a really high end military issue compass with bells and whistles, another person has a happy meal toy; who will inherently make better decisions? Technically there's nothing to do in life *but* follow your internal compass.




Its always been man who said that he's incomprehensible (yes - bringing divinity of the bible up for debate), that sounds like a great way to just stop all questions and say "You have no idea what's going on, you can't - let me think for you".

As for God to be infinite in that way and say... build a religious system, that he's deathly serious about - ie. you either go to heaven or hell based on faith... he gave an awful lot of people needs to understand what they're doing and why, people who can't gain any satisfaction or comfort simply from "Because I say so". For me, I can't find 'real' anchor points to questions like 'What should I be doing?' 'What is 2011 in the scheme of all of this?' 'How am I supposed to receive and process concepts or occurrences X, Y, and Z if I were to be the most accurate believer I can be?'. What's Christian behavior, what isn't, what is real in terms of following a good path vs. what's just the trappings, where the slippery slope starts and ends, what actually matters at the core of it, what do people do if they are given needs that aren't perhaps sinful but are talent-fulfillment in areas that are areligious? If the dominant struggles in their life lie not in a religious part of life but in arousing the animalistic side of people in the wrong ways by mechanisms that have absolutely nothing to do with moral character? That and, if poeple suffer for the sake of gained strength and epiphany why not stop there rather than drill right through the epiphany, keep hitting the person with it, grinding them into the ground, even bury them, or take former believers and turn them into the types of people who'd want to hunt you down and punch you in the face if they found you (true atrocity survivors come to mind)? I can't imagine such a God who would create us to have finite minds but be infinite himself being of the sort who would penalize anyone, and if they answers they received could not satisfy their need for structure and they drifted away from faith - if their needs, their compass, what they were made of from birth, what makes them 'tick' moved them away based on how he wanted to spin the information game or cap/limit us - nothing there adds up. I say that as someone who would rather believe that goodness itself has a divine rallying point but, if I can't find truth or reality in that, I can't accept it.



If we're in such a deadly game where everything out there behind the scenes is infinitely wiser and more cunning than we are - the heaven/hell wager is completely unethical. For a God with any practical sense of empathy I'd take it a step further - impossible.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 27 Apr 2011, 10:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

@techstepgenr8tion: Great post ... and I definitely look forward to getting back here in the morning when I am again fresh!

One of the issues that critics frequently bring up about the Bible are apparent contradictions and so forth that really aren't contradictions. There are any number of reasons why they appear so. One reason is postmodern deconstruction, which I don't really give much merit. If we're talking art/music/contemporary literature, sure. But the Bible is not a postmodern document. If words have no authority, then no document, not even our legal code, makes any sense or has any force. And even postmoderns complain when their novels are "misinterpreted."

So no, I don't give them any credence towards scriptural interpretation. A balance between literal interpretation and interpretation based on the actual meaning is to be preferred.

So taken in a strictly literal sense, some passages appear to clash like the ones you pointed out. But looking at one passage and then looking at another fails to take the document as a whole, failing to take in the full meaning of what is written. Let's look at legal statutes in the OT. You mentioned you saw passages, pulling from Exodus, that demanded immediate action. However, if you read all 5 books of Moses, you'll find where "due process" is established. 2 witnesses must be present to establish guilt. From time to time people in here have accused me of applying a present-day perspective to ancient times. However, such ideas of justice and due process are hardly new ideas, and I think we fail to give the ancients enough credit. Moses appointed priests and judges to each tribe in order to interpret law and administer justice. They even had an appeals system in which cases that proved too difficult for lower judges could advance to higher courts, all the way up to the high priest himself. And EVEN WHEN the case proved too difficult for even the high priest, there was a procedure in place by which a decision could be reached. The idea was to rely on God to render justice properly and fairly.

By ONLY looking at two verses, you don't really get a sense of how they ran things. If someone is found guilty of a crime requiring their own life in exchange for their blood-guilt, they do have to be put to death immediately. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean apply vigilante justice. Torah is very careful to prevent vigilantism and total anarchy. The oral tradition is also absent from the Bible. I'm only guessing here, but the oral tradition PROBABLY originates from extensions of Torah interpretation and application, but it grew into a set of workarounds/loopholes taught to the people in order to prevent them from committing sins against "what is written." Over time, these "laws of men" became accepted as equal to the Law itself, or rituals and customs in their own right. Today it is preserved in the Talmud. I've often toyed with the idea of studying that, too, but I also wonder if the Talmud is even appropriate for Christians as culturally and theologically it is only relevant to Jews. But the main point is together all of these written and oral laws established an entire way of life. Without taking them as a whole and studying them in context, they don't make much sense. If you dig down into how they were applied and what they meant, you find they complement each other rather than contradict each other. The New Testament isn't really any different either; it's just not as old!


This is a misconception. "Allowing for" and "condoning" are not the same thing. Freedom is the ideal. Slavery is a corruption of what God originally intended.

There are a lot of different ways of looking at slavery.
1. In some cases, a strong master is more capable of caring for servants than a servant is capable of caring for himself. Ancient times were more perilous for those on their own than it was for people who ganged up together. By swearing allegiance to a master, you came under his protection.

2. Slavery is a preferable discipline to incarceration. The slave can remain a productive agent in society while working off a debt incurred in the commission of a crime. Lex talionis prescribes measure-for-measure discipline but does NOT say that a price cannot be attached to a wrong. A slave can work off his debt to society (or his accuser, as it were) after which he must be set free. There are also time restrictions on when someone may enter servitude and how long they may serve in that condition.

3. The Bible makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary servitude. Many servants/slaves are professional servants and earn their livelihood as such. Surely you wouldn't condemn someone for being good at what he does, would you?

4. The Bible NEVER establishes nor condones slavery in the involuntary sense short of repayment of a debt, whether the debt was incurred willingly or through the administration of justice. It's no different today--western justice does allow petty criminals to take part in "community service" as punishment. I think you'll agree giving certain types of criminals some measure of freedom is much more humane than incarceration alone. Because of human nature, slavery results from the wickedness of mankind being all too willing to take other human beings as property. Laws governing slavery exist in order to take an inhumane institution and allow its victims some respect and dignity. You'll note in societies that have long been influenced by Christianity that involuntary servitude as an accepted official institution has largely been wiped out and driven underground. Yes, it still happens, but not in a manner that is legally recognized or sanctioned. This same principle also applies to the status of women.


Bias against the Bible, perhaps?


Unnecessary.


Ok, no problem here.


Why? OK, if we agree that God is good/perfect/etc., it stands to reason that He wouldn't set them up to fail. We already agree on this. So why suddenly do we read into the story itself that Adam and Eve were set up to fail? Your conclusion doesn't follow.


It DOES make sense, though. If God is good/perfect/etc., and if God doesn't set anyone up to fail, then it stands to reason that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil couldn't have been a setup. Adam and Eve were not victims of anything but their own poor choices.


Which would follow if your reasoning is flawed. What you're saying is basically this:

1. God is just.
2. God placed Adam and Eve in Eden.
3. God placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good/Evil in Eden.
4. Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the forbidden tree.
5. It is God's fault for placing the Tree in the garden.
6. God is not just.

The assumption is that God is at fault because He is omniscient and that by placing the Tree in the garden He KNEW that Adam and Eve would screw up. This completely ignores the fact that God gave them the ability to choose good over evil. Being ABLE to do something is no guarantee of that result, however, and for God to create a creature that willingly chooses Him above all else, it has to be assumed that the creation might NOT choose God.

If you go by the account of the fall of man itself, you get this:

1. God is just.
2. God placed Adam and Eve in Eden.
3. God placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good/Evil in Eden.
4. Adam and Eve were given the choice of obeying God or rebelling against God.
5. Adam and Eve chose rebellion.
6. God did not FORCE them to choose evil over good.
7. Therefore, God is not at fault.

So although God, because of His attributes of justice, will not remove the consequences of sin, His mercy allows Him to offer forgiveness and mercy. Your conclusion only follows by ignoring certain "apparent facts" and making false assumptions--or anti-Biblical bias. I fail to see how "apparent facts" prove the Bible false.


My kids will not eat rat poison. They do not know firsthand its effects. They've never experienced bleeding from the inside out while their blood seeps out through their veins and their internal organs shut down. They know nothing other than whatever mysterious effects the poison may have, they prefer to have no part in it. There is nothing I can do to demonstrate to them what would happen, unless I kill myself by eating the poison and let them watch me bleed to death from the inside. And then what have I accomplished?

So why assume Adam and Eve had to experience sin in some way in order to know what it was? God said, "Don't do it." Isn't that enough?

The world was sunshine, etc., before the snake showed up? Who says that? Sure, man and woman had all they'd ever need. Yes, they enjoyed the benefits that paradise offered. But they weren't created without purpose. How about Genesis 1:26-28? "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth...' God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth.'" So God didn't just make man--He gave man a job to do.

Wait a minute... I almost missed that--"They will rule...the creatures that crawl on the earth..." "Rule...every creature that crawls on the earth."

Now THAT is deep, don't you think? So it was Adam and Eve's JOB to be in charge of "every creature that crawls on the earth"? That means that Adam and Eve PERSONALLY had a position of direct authority over the serpent, since the serpent is a "creature that crawls on the earth." They had the power to bring the serpent under their subjugation.

By eating the forbidden fruit, they allowed that which they had authority over to have authority over them rather than submitting solely to God's authority as per His will.

So... By having the POWER and AUTHORITY over the serpent, Adam and Eve show themselves perfectly capable of resisting temptation. There is no reason to assume naïvety. They weren't content with the authority they had over all the earth. They desired God's authority. What they actually ended up doing was handing over their authority over all the earth to Satan.

Hmmm... Why did I never pick up on that before?


In other words, that sin is God's fault.

I'm not trying to be unduly contentious. I don't think of it as a "theory," but whatever it is, "God's fault" is not the "natural procession." You're saying that it is, assuming the God of the Bible and that the Biblical story is true. The next logical conclusion HAS to be that if God is good, etc., then He cannot be the God of the Bible. What I'm trying to say is that you conclusion does not logically follow from your apparent premises.


Yes, I understand that.


Bias from the outset. And no, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Assuming God of the Bible, that is what you're saying:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God HAD to have known the choice Adam and Eve would make.
3. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.
4. God is at fault, OR
5. God is not omniscient.

What I'M saying is this:
1. God is omniscient. AGREE
2. God HAD to have known the choice Adam and Eve would make.
Ok, but HERE God's omniscience suggest God knows all possibilities and every possible direction those possibilities can lead. So, yes, God knows, and yes, God is present no matter what choice has been made.
3. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.
Yes, but God didn't FORCE them to make the wrong choice. They could just as easily have made the RIGHT choice. Genesis 1 provides evidence that man had power and authority over ALL the earth and ALL creatures in it, including the serpent. Listening to a subordinate creature of God represents a COLOSSAL failure once sin has resulted.
4. God is NOT at fault--taking back the choice God gave them also represents a failure on God's part, which contradicts God's nature, i.e. God would not be God. This would also violate the law of non-contradiction.

THEREFORE...

5. Adam and Eve are to blame for bringing sin into the world.


I perfectly understand that.

But a belief in a supreme being just by itself doesn't make much sense, either. If NOT the God of the Bible, what explanation do you have for the problem of evil? That God exists and will take all the "good people" home but otherwise just doesn't care? Can you see the logical problems with that? It makes more sense to believe in a God who is active in His creation, who sympathizes with those who are suffering, who is compassionate, who provides a way for imperfect human being to become justified.


If you say so, but I think I do understand what you're saying.


If a person is created in the image of God, if he is in possession of some spirit-form, if he possesses a creative capacity--i.e. to mold and shape his world as he wishes--then, yes, that person IS "like God." We all possess those attributes. That doesn't MAKE us God. It's like taking two distinctly different objects that are the same color and saying one is "like" the other because it has the same color. There's nothing wrong in saying God and humans share certain attributes.

I have to ask - what the hell does anything that's happened on the last several pages have to do with the OP???

People have tangent conversations. Get over it.

That's a nice answer.

What are PM's for?

Quite honestly Mox, not a damned thing.

Sorry about that.

And certain people won't have conversations like this in PM... but insist on doing it in thread.

You are correct there, and I thank you for that recollection refreshment!

Another two of my favorites had first been "Romper Room" and then, of course, good 'ol "Captain Kangaroo"!

As to cartoons, those were "Deputy Dawg", "Foghorm Leghorn" and "Beanie and Cecil" ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOxNtOMTpSo[/youtube]

Quite a bit, but not in the kind of way you or anyone else might reasonably expect. In times past, at least some religious folks here have felt like they never really got much of any opportunity to have these kinds of discussions at all ...

... and that is the kind of thing behind what the OP had first asked about. In other words:

These last several pages now appear here as "evidence" of WrongPlanet.net actually not being an antiChristian site!

@techstepgenr8tion: My "wiggly-squiggly" blurred and distorted vision (epiretinal membranes in both eyes) and the way my mind works make it necessary for me to break large bodies of text and/or intertwined thoughts down a bit, so I hope you will not suspect me of any "cherry-picking" here ...

I am not sure what you mean by "mechanism" there -- the "how" of this is not a matter in my mind at the moment -- yet maybe some of this will still address some of that in your own mind while I say this:

Two or more possible outcomes are always possible just like when adding colorants to a can of paint. Where one specific (or specified) combination will consistently produce one color, a different combination will ultimately produce a different color. When a paint manufacturer engineers and produces its varieties of products, components (base colors and colorants), additives and whatever else, it does so for an out-going purpose of only one kind: So the end user might ultimately be able to have exactly what s/he wants ... and nothing either any more (as if imposed) or any less (as if cheated).

Note: Husbands picking colors must have notes from their wives!

Statement: God at least wants each and every human being to have exactly what he or she ultimately wants -- no one-ended sticks, please -- and he makes available absolutely everything ever necessary/required in order for that to be possible and to happen. Specifically:

1) If I want to live a life committed to doing as He would have me do, He provides what I need and He makes that possible;
2) If I want to live a life committed to doing as *I* would have me do, He provides what I need and He makes that possible.

Note: Living a life committed to doing as *I* would have me do and then receiving true satisfaction in the end is no longer available (if even it ever was).
Nevertheless, merely expecting "true satisfaction in the end" while "living life my own damned way, thank you" is certainly still (as likely always was) allowed.


Who owns what does not in any way effect whatever kind of "lease" or "loan" or "free use of myself" I still have to do exactly as I please.


Ah! Now I understand your mention of "mechanism"!

Respectfully offered simply as a way to address that underlying matter (as I happen to see things, and without any "creator" or "manufacturer" being implicit here):

Speculating about how a given color of paint actually "came to be", so to speak, is something we can certainly do, if we wish, and nothing ever says we cannot eventually figure that out completely and accurately. But if we presently already have a can of paint we might like to be (or might wish it had first been) a different color, we will not be able to accomplish that change until well after we actually have figured all things out ...

... and in the meantime, our speculation will not be of any real use to us other than possibly for purposes of coming up with various types of tests or experiments related to that discovery.


Yes, and here is how I have been saying that for many years now:

"The person I am (or whatever I am) at any given moment is the kind of person I am (or whatever I am) at that given moment and could therefore only possibly think/say/do whatever that kind of person (or whatever) I am at that particular moment even ever could ever do in any given moment such as that one."


As I see things, you here have just there added yet another element into this mix ... and now let me see how I might be able to here show my own thought there ...

"The essence of the person I actually am (or whatever I am) at any given moment will/shall:
1) determine how I perceive any given need to navigate something or anything;
2) show evidence of the seeming "quality" or "value" of my own particular "guidance system".


I do not believe that is even possible ...



I do not believe He is doing so. Many years ago, I occasionally let my youngest brother know he could "take a swing at me" anytime he wished, and that really made his eyes light up ... but then he quickly discovered he had not even the slightest chance of ever touching me because I already had my hand on his forehead to hold him away just far enough to be sure neither of us ever got hurt. So, while he thought some kind of battle was going on, and while anyone else nearby might have thought we were fighting, I always had complete control while doing whatever I was doing and for whatever reason I might have been doing it.

Point: I allways had complete control of his thoughts and actions without ever compromising his free will or disallowing either of two ultimate choices:
1) frustration, exhaustion and complete failure;
2) "giving up" and either walking away for a bit and coming back later or just "giving me a hug" and "enjoying our brotherhood".

Note: I stopped doing that with him after his arms grew to be longer than mine!


Sure, some people do that, and I do think some people do that far too often and/or far too much when far better answers actually are available.


Some people might "wager" to see whether they can "win" in whatever way they think they might or wish they could, yet the fact remains that we have all heard this (in one form or another):

"Let us hear the conclusion of the entire matter:
"Fear Elohim and guard His commands, for this applies to (or 'is the purpose of') all mankind!
"[So fear Elohim and guard His commands,]
"For Elohim shall bring every work into right-ruling, including all that is hidden, whether good or whether evil."
(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14)

Note: The thought of that makes some people angry, of course, but anyone interested can get his or her "happy meal toy" exchanged for "a really high end military issue compass with bells and whistles" at any time of his or her own choosing!

Lol, its ok... you could have waited if your that tired.


Two things on this:
1) Saying multiple colors of paint = multiple variable? That still lends nothing toward free will.
2) We can have exactly what we want? That swings really wide of my own experience, I can't even come close even if I'm beating myself into adrenal failure and more than willing to go oldschool barbaric macho on myself or give myself honor-suicide recommendations all day. I might have what other people might think is a fair or reasonable amount of success, realistically I feel like everything is being forcefully taken from me and that there's absolutely nothing I can do. Most people in general, as well, only go so far and have their lives or their health unraveling at one end or another. It doesn't seem like there are any truly 'happy' people, if we're all built to self-optimize its being bluntly stopped for most if not nearly all of us.



He has not given me the ability to choose him according to the current ways that he makes himself known to the world (ie. none of the organized religions work for me). Generalized spirituality - its ok except that I see eugenics and animal instinct everywhere I turn. Even that people mostly monitor body language, presence, appearance, and are barely listening to a word you say goes to show that what you look like, what your genes are, and what ever pigeonhole society wants to give you trumps everything. It also shows that people aren't making free will choices, their genes are generally thinking for them.


That's just saying the same as I've already said - life is Clockwork Orange theater. You can't so much as bend over and scratch your ass in a way that's out of sync with what has been predetermined since the beginning of time. How would one even find even the twitch of muscle to fight against God and fail? Its not there.



If God were real I wouldn't care about his origins so much as the mechanics of his intent, what he really wants, who he wants me to be, and whether he's created me in such a way that I even have the ability to agree with him or desire what he wants. As we've talked about internal compass - he can't throw a bunch of arbitrary things at me that should work for someone else, which he knows won't work for me, and condemn me for being given the wrong medicine.


All of which is given to us, none of it chosen.


Which is why I believe a salvation/perdition conflict is impossible. Yet the bible presents that as its essence of purpose.


In other words your stance is non-biblical. I'm not saying its problematic or wrong, I just need to note that for understanding the conversation better.


I don't understand that, its people following their given internal compass. If you don't wish to create people to do things that you don't want them to do in a fully deterministic universe - don't create them to do those things.