Christianity debate, anyone? (well, god in general too)

jtr7 on 4/12/2007 at 00:51

Quote:

I really don't understand fundamentalist American Christians.

Truthfully, billions of people don't.:erg:

I'm waiting for 37637598 to come back and ask his last question, or two.

Spaztick on 4/12/2007 at 01:18

Quote Posted by d0om

I really don't understand fundamentalist American Christians. Lets say the universe is billions of years old and happened exactly as current science understands it. Now lets say that God gives you a vision of how the universe was created and the Earth and life appearing on the Earth resulting in humans.

Now tell that to other people for a few hundred years before it gets written down.

Is what is written in the Bible consistent, or inconsistent with this?

Surely the fact that it seems roughly plausible should be used as an argument for God based on science, rather than some bizzare attack at rational thought.

There's actually a book I picked up about this, called The Science of God that addresses a lot of supposed clashes between Science and Religion. It's written by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist that wrote this book to reconcile the distance between Science and Religion. Schroeder addresses issues like the age of the Earth and the probability of chaos to order, Neanderthals and Cro Magnen, and the reality of Free Will. I put each of the subjects in my own terms of course, but these nevertheless are the issues he writes about. He takes work from two major sources: scholarly works published by fellow scientists that are accredited with experimental integrity and honesty (ie peer reviewed studies) and the interpretation of biblical and historical texts according to several historical groups but deriving biblical interpretation from the Kabalah [sic] ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah)).

I read the book about half a year ago and it does answer questions or clarify the muddy waters between Science and Religion. If you'd ask about a subject I can look up what's in here and summarize/quote what Schroeder has written. Naturally there are critics of the book (which I do more than welcome) that point out flaws in his method of presentation, although I do question the objectivity of one review that I read. For your reference:

(http://www.geraldschroeder.com/)
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html)

catbarf on 4/12/2007 at 01:23

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

The 'missing link' a) isn't, b) wouldn't be a flaw, major or otherwise if it was and c) isn't the only major flaw (in the evidence, not the theory that is)

I'm just saying that it's commonly used as a flaw by religious fundamentalists, on the grounds that it shows that man could not have evolved from apes. I personally don't see any holes in the theory.

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

The concept of evolution by natural selection is not about strong and weak. It's about fitness; a concept of suitability, not body building. Humans being rather a good example of being physically weak but, given the right environment, very successful.

You're taking my wording too literally. Of course it's about those best suited- no one is saying that cockroaches are physically strong.

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Of course it's possible to accept both evolution and the bible. Religion is dippy like that; no amount of science is going to stop people from finding gaps for gods to inhabit if that's what they want to do or live quite contentedly with the fact that the bible is sometimes a bit wayward.

You don't see anything wrong with just choosing bits and pieces of a document that promises eternal torment if you don't follow it?

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

While you're on the subject of ignoring bits of the bible, why not ignore the bits with heaven in for good measure?

Of course you could. See above.

I'm not sure, but I think you might be getting the wrong impression from me. I see evolution as quite a sound principle, and I am convinced that it is the cause of the development of all life on Earth. It's just that not everyone sees it that way.

37637598 on 4/12/2007 at 01:39

Another question you say? Ok.

Here's one that I was asked the other day.

Jesus agrees to die for our sin. Ben Stillers great great great great great great great great great grandfather nails him to a wooden contraption. Jesus says "Father, why have you forsaken(eth) me?"

Wait... Didn't he agree to this? That's why we have contracts now...

Another question;
What was the exact wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 ) all say different things.

PS; Who said the spark left, huh?

Aja on 4/12/2007 at 01:58

Quote Posted by Thirith

It seems to me that Christianity vs. Atheism debates tend to bring out first-term philosophers. If the topic is worth taking seriously, it deserves more stringent, more intelligent debate

are you telling me i need to rework my graduate thesis? :(

jtr7 on 4/12/2007 at 02:03

Quote:

What was the exact wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 ) all say different things.

The exact wording isn't the point. The greater message was akin to "Here is your messiah." Jesus, the Christ (Messiah), the King of the Jews. Here's another clue: It ticked off those who wanted him executed for his blasphemy.

Quote:

Jesus agrees to die for our sin. Ben Stillers great great great great great great great great great grandfather nails him to a wooden contraption. Jesus says "Father, why have you forsaken(eth) me?"

For the first time in his life, the Son (who has now taken the sins of the world upon himself--sins God cannot abide) feels the Father turns His back on him. Jesus experiences Hell. You feel God's presence all your life, it's incredible, then it's gone. The void is unbearable. He knows his task is accomplished. "It is finished."

Remember, that Jesus suffered greatly from dread of knowing what was going to happen in the coming hours. His stress in the garden of Gethsemane was threatening to overwhelm him. He asked his disciples for support, but in the end, angels came to comfort him. Afterwards, his jaw is set to face what's coming, and he doesn't falter until the Father's presence leaves him, but it marks the point that his purpose has been fulfilled.

That's the picture that's been painted for me.

fett on 4/12/2007 at 02:49

Quote Posted by 37637598

I think you'll do better with the bible if you're more careful about bringing your assumptions to it. It never claims to report the 'exact wording' - how are 4 different people going to know the exact wording? Wouldn't you find it suspicious if you were on a jury and four different witnesses for the defense gave the exact, word-for-word testimony? Part of the validity argument for the NT gospels is that hardly anything is worded the same, but the stories all correspond excepting small details - just like court testimony. It's part of the beauty of the collection.

As for God forsaking Jesus on the cross, it's pretty clear from the book of Hebrews that God, being holy, pure, etc. etc. had to turn away from Jesus at that moment because he had 'become sin itself' by taking on the penalty for the world's sin. This goes back to the pure nature of God whose holiness will not/can not tolerate the sin in his presence without becoming less than what he is. There are some very interesting things in the book of Hebrews about what is supposedly happening in God's throne room while Jesus is on the cross, and this is one of the issues it deals with.

paloalto90 on 4/12/2007 at 03:01

Quote Posted by Jenesis

The argument against Hell because God is love (1 John 4, both verses 8 and 16) is a well-worn one, but it has a fatal flaw, which is that it doesn't account for so much of God's character. Allow me to illustrate this by looking at things from the other end.

The Bible clearly states that God is a God of justice. There are a loads of references I could give, but let's go for (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2022;&version=31;) Ezekiel 22. So, God judges the wicked. It is also clear that everyone is wicked ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:5;&version=31;) Genesis 6:5, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:5;&version=31;) Romans 3:12). We could argue, then, that if God is just, and all people are wicked, then everyone will be judged and go to Hell.

But obviously this isn't right, it's not what the Bible teaches (thankfully!). The entire New Testament blows that argument right out of the water. Where have we gone wrong? We've forgotten that God is a God of love, and so sent his Son to die in the place of sinners - God took the punishment we deserved upon himself - so that we could be saved from Hell. The Bible teaches that we can't deal with our own sin - we're already guilty, and no number of good deeds will cancel that out, leaving us completely stuck if we consider only God's justice. But because of his love, we have Jesus, and the promise that he'll deal with our sin if we will trust him.

Similarly, to argue solely from the position that God is love is to forget that he is a God of justice, that he will not let evil continue and will deal with it as it deserves.

Although the ideas of God's love and God's justice might seem to conflict, they are not irreconcilable. So often in the Bible we see both of these parts of God's being expressed at the same time, most spectacularly when Jesus, God the Son, died on the cross, God the Father's justice falling on him because of his love for us.

Strange though it may at first seem, then, God's sending people to Hell is a result of love as well as justice. God loves his creations, and he will not let evil afflict us forever. He has created Hell to deal with evil, a place where it can be locked away from his people for all time. Thus, those who persist in evil and will not turn away must also be sent there. Don't think that God gets any joy or even satisfaction out of this - look at (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2033:11;&version=31;) Ezekiel 33:11. Those who choose to die, as that verse puts it, will be separated from God.

Here, then, is also the answer to the question 'Why doesn't a God of love put an end to suffering?' It is because the end to suffering is God's justice - the end of this world, and the punishment of those who persisted in evil and would not turn back to God. In his love, God delays his judgement, to give his creations more time to turn back to him, to trust in Jesus to take the punishment for them, and so to escape God's wrath. It is because God loves us that the suffering in the world, which has its root in us, continues.

Quote:

Indeed the suffering has another purpose - precisely that of bringing us back to God

Which we can't do if we are stuck in hell.
Read (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%202:2-13;&version=31;) Hosea 2:2-13 - because Israel turned from God, he will take away all the blessings he has given her so that she will realise they came from him, and that she needs to turn back to him. And when she does, God's tender love will be seen - (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%202:14-23;&version=31;) Hosea 2:14-23. Hosea 2 is a beautiful chapter, showing God's loving discipline to bring people back to himself, and his incredible blessings upon those who do. But to share in them, we must turn back to him.

There's a sermon that was preached at my church recently on Hosea 2 (http://audio.stag.org/mp3/200710071700.mp3) here if you want to hear something rather more substantial on it, and the question of why God doesn't just fix the world. 3.8MB, just over half an hour long including a lengthy reading at the beginning (Hosea 2:2-3:5).

Justice itself would be based on Love.There is no seperation.

Shakey-Lo on 4/12/2007 at 03:08

Quote Posted by paloalto90

The logic of the argument has to do with the nature of God,not a man/society,versus God made situation.Capital punishment and incarceration for a lifetime is not for the benefit of the criminal but to benefit society.

...yes, which was my point about hell :tsktsk:

Thirith on 4/12/2007 at 08:00

Catbarf: it's not so much about ignoring bits of the bible just because you feel like it - it's about making judgment calls on what is metaphor, allegory, what is non-literal language and what isn't. Ironically, this is something that the most vocal atheists and the loudest fundamentalists tend to suck equally at, so they go for the most uninformed, facile and sometimes plain stupid reading.