Haiti was "cursed' after "pact with devil" says TV evangelist
TV evangelist Pat Robertson, host of The 700 Show, has offered a theological explanation for the Haitian earthquake which is estimated to have taken more than 100,000 lives so far.
He announced today on television:
'They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.'
Pat Robertson is no stranger to controversy. He was widely criticized for claiming that Hurricane Katrina was the result of God's wrath, and for calling for the assassination of President Hugo Chavez.
Meanwhile, actual reports from Haiti describe the devastation in the most heart-wrenching terms. According to The Times, 'Joseph Delva, a reporter in the affluent suburb of Petionville, described the scene as one of total chaos, and said he had seen dozens of casualties. "I saw people under the rubble, and people killed. People were screaming 'Jesus, Jesus' and running in all directions.'
Tonight, the Disasters Emergency Committee announced that its special appeal for Haiti is now live.
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is 2010... the world knows about plate tectonics! How on Earth is this bigot permitted to show his ignorance and delusions on the air? Why does he still get any air time? Why do I have to write about this? He should be ashamed, ask for forgiveness, and pray really hard so his “devil” does not come after him for his hurtful and idiotic comments. It is a humiliation, embarrassment, degradation and disgrace that the media allows his face on t.v. Please gag him!
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure what purpose is served in giving further publicity to these sort of comments. Robertson is a diminished figure in the US and as far as I'm aware has absolutely no sympathetic constituency in the UK.
I don't think this post is helpful. With thousands of people dead sensitivity should be the order of the day. I'm not against highlighting and exposing the false teachings of Pat Robertson but not at a time when a country is grieving.
Complain about this comment
The comments about hurricane Katrina or assassinating Chavez weren't his only outrageous statements. Here is some more from the good christian leader:
http://unfairlybalanced.com/archive/slides/Pat%20Robertson%20prophet.htm
It makes you wonder doesn't it, when someone says something like
"The feminist agenda encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
The rest of his quotes on there aren't much better. Perhaps one of our regular staunch christian posters would now like to repeat the tired old canard about god (the christian one of course, how could you think that another would do?!) providing the basis of morality?
Complain about this comment
What would one give to hear him as a guest presenter on Sunday Sequence commenting on Kirkgate!
Complain about this comment
Mr. Crawley:
Not surprised with the troubling and non-sensetical remarks of Pat Robertson...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Ian, I take your point entirely about the issue of sensitivity here. Pat Robertson's comments have now been broadcast around the world and are the subject of significant debate on religion news sites. In reflecting that live debate here, I completely agree with you that the focus of our attention should be on the victims of this disaster and the aid efforts to come to rescue those now fighting for their lives.
Complain about this comment
#3 - PK -
"Perhaps one of our regular staunch christian posters would now like to repeat the tired old canard about god (the christian one of course, how could you think that another would do?!) providing the basis of morality?"
OK, I've risen to the bait.
So, in your thinking anyone who claims to be a Christian should be regarded as a legitimate representative of the Christian faith? Does that work for other worldviews as well? Perhaps I'll go around claiming to be an atheist and start making all sorts of nonsense comments, and then other people are required to believe that this legitimately represents atheism.
I know it's getting late in the day, but I think your logic is better than this.
Complain about this comment
It seems rather curious that God would deliver the Israelites from bondage in Egypt but only the devil would deliver the Hatians from bondage under the cruel French Imperial empire. What do you say to that Pastorphilip? Should the Hatians have waited for God to deliver them instead? Did the Israelites turn down a deal with the devil before God made his offer? Is the difference because the Israelites were god's chosen people and the Hatians weren't? What does bible prophesy have to say about all of this? Is this the beginning of the tribulation? Show us the light Pastorphillip, show us the light.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Pat Robertson is crazy...I am from Louisiana in the United States Gulf South. After Hurricane Katrina he and some other evangelical ministers said that the storm was our fault, and we were being punished because of some Americans' views on homosexuality and because of the behavior of people along the Gulf Coast (ie. our region is known for drinking,partying, and gambling in our many casinos along the Coast). After his past comments I am not at all surprised about his statement concerning the earthquake in Haiti; however, I am surprised that this man is not embarrassed to make such foolish statements in public.
Luz: The reason that he can say these things is because we have freedom of speech in the US. As for his message being covered by the news media, he owns his own television channel so he has a venue where he can state his opinions to the public. In fact I believe that his comments were on his own channel and/or television show.
Complain about this comment
Pat Robertson is a zit on the face of Christianity. Part of it, sure, but not one of the more attractive bits. He needs to learn the value of silence and the virtue of scandalous love.
Complain about this comment
I was really upset when I learned about what Pat Robertson said. The only peace I get from his remark is that he will have to stand before God and be judged. Since he has such a big following of what he calls christians,being a man of God, he should encourage donations to help. I am sure his building fund could wait for a little while.
Complain about this comment
Helo LSV,
"So, in your thinking anyone who claims to be a Christian should be regarded as a legitimate representative of the Christian faith? Does that work for other worldviews as well? Perhaps I'll go around claiming to be an atheist and start making all sorts of nonsense comments, and then other people are required to believe that this legitimately represents atheism."
While you portray the scenario of making up a fake atheist ID to make rubbish claims (to discredit atheists) as a 'How outrageous would that be', that is exactly what one of your fellow christians has stooped to.
A pastor was caught posting as an atheist, spewing the same ridiculous straw men (yes, that term applies to you in spades, despite your protests on the other thread) nonsense you do about a naturalistic world view not leaving any room for morality etc. That is of course the same pretty lame misrepresentation of the position most atheists hold that you prefer to take (oh the irony, some christians on this bog here sometimes criticize atheists for dismissing what they they don't understand). Yup, straw man is ever there is one. But the pastor took it rather further than just knocking down a straw man in a blog. He pretended to be an atheist and under his fake ID said
"What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?"
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/
That is such a ridiculous thing, I can't think of many atheists who would sign up to that. So no surprise that the pastor was caught out, it's just too damn ridiculous. But for some christians is the best they can manage. The hypothetical scenario that you hold up to show how ridiculous it would be, is actually 100% true in case of the pastor.
Complain about this comment
PK
I dunno. I mean he's proposed a scientific hypothesis linking gay pride flags and meteors.
You think Templeton would fund a study?
GV
Complain about this comment
There's a difference between arguments that Theism provides the best theoretical explanation for objective morality, and arguments that suggest that Religion is the only/best source of moral motivation.
Large sections of the Psalms, Prophets and Gospels argue that theological orthodoxy is not sufficient for morality. The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Romans 2 argue that theological orthodoxy is not necessary for morality. Jesus and Paul both argued that the moral behaviour of pagans could put orthodox Jews to shame (at a time when there was no clear boundary between Judaism and the Church).
GV
Complain about this comment
As Pat Robertson spouts his ignorant bilge on tv, witness the blank lobotomised gaze of the presenter as she nods and interjects with little noises of evangelical assent. The lovely christian message is reinforced through the closed broadcasting system of this megalomaniac bible basher and out over the bleating sheep who follow him. What a horrible way hate manifests itself here - with a faux world-weary shrug he fashions himself after the very creator that he has invented, looking down on his poor benighted flock who have brought all this down on themselves. Pat Robertson is a barbarian.
Complain about this comment
IF Pat Robertson is a "Christian," I hereby RENOUNCE and DENY my label/ID as a "Christian"! I join with Martin Luther - "Here I stand! I can do no other! God help me!" My "We the People" community blog articulates my disagreement with Pat Robertson - the URL is: http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-people/2010/jan/14/haiti-gods-retribution-no-no-no/. You can register FREE for ID purposes ONLY and COMMENT! DEAR WORLD, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT assume that WE THE PEOPLE - Americans in general - agree with Pat Robertson!!!!! Later... John
Complain about this comment
Robertson’s God is repugnant to those who believe in a Jesus who championed the perspective of the poor and marginalised people of his day, and who reserved his condemnation for the religious leaders who claimed that they knew the mind of God. In the gospels, Jesus never really explains ‘why bad things happen to good people,’ but he is pretty clear that it is not for us to judge that bad things happen because his Father is punishing people for specific and identifiable sins.
I think it's important that when people like Robertson claim to be speaking for Christians, alternative Christian perspectives are offered in the debate. This should also keep with Ian and Will's focus on the victims. I've blogged more about this on www.gladysganiel.com
Complain about this comment
That's an interestin blog, Gladys. Hopefully you can hang around W&T for a while.
GV
Complain about this comment
Gladys,
"In the gospels, Jesus never really explains ‘why bad things happen to good people,’ but he is pretty clear that it is not for us to judge that bad things happen because his Father is punishing people for specific and identifiable sins."
Since the number of people killed may pass 100000, there's bound to have been a few pregnant women among the dead who were about to give birth. Or had just give birth. What sins exactly did a baby who was born only half an hour prior to the quake commit to deserve to die? Is it original sin again? I've never found the idea of people dying (or suffering some other terrible plight) because some people supposedly ate some forbidden fruit along time ago a very good justification. Or if it is not original sin, then perhaps you'd care to elaborate what it is then, that new born babies do to deserve to die.
Complain about this comment
Goodness me! I couldn't help signing in for this one.I am more than appalled . . . but then again this is Pat Robertson we are talking about, right? How can anyone talk like this at such a time? I believe it is very, very possible to be a good person WITHOUT religion. It doesn't take mythical stories to know the good and the bad. This right here is bad. It is bad for 'religious' leaders to get smart-mouthed the moment tragedy strikes—and maybe I am being smart-mouthed to state this but for crying out loud—what is this about a "pact"? I bet it could be followed by "God's works in mysterious ways" and "God is mad with his people" . . .
Can Pat Robertson tell me why innocent children/people are dying in Africa each day? War,election violence,disease,hunger . . . can he tell me why it took having a Prime Minister and a President at the same time to help stop innocent people from dying in my beautiful Kenya? Was God punishing us? Was it a pact with the devil? Or is it plain old corruption? And why did 'September 11' happen again? A pact? We live on planet earth where the bad and the good happens each day. No pacts involved . . . just the world and its contents acting up, or so to speak. By the way, I am VERY Christian (born and bred) and I do not agree with smart-mouth preaching. Is anyone else wondering why 'prophets' emerge only AFTER bad things happen? Someone needs to tell him it is always okay to shut up when there is nothing juicy to paint on TV,or elsewhere for that matter. On that note . . . let me shut up too.
Complain about this comment
#13 - PK -
My answer is simply the question: Do you believe that a person's worldview affects their behaviour? Or do beliefs about the nature of reality not matter at all?
I agree that someone can hold a philosophical belief and not live consistently with its implications. In fact, it is not possible to live consistently with a philosophy which is actually false, and does not provide a proper explanation for human experiences. I do not believe that the concept of natural selection provides a satisfactory explanation for the general concern most people have for moral issues. The only morality I can detect in natural selection is the urge to survive (if one person's fight for survival is to the detriment of someone else's - so what?)
Now, if our underlying beliefs about life have absolutely no relevance at all to how we live, then why are we bothering to even discuss these things? And why do atheists get so hung up about what so-called "religious" people believe? Why bother with the concept of "truth", for goodness sake (one of the concepts that atheists claim to champion above all else)?! Let's just agree that all these views, such as atheism and "religion" are just private hobbies on a par with flower arranging (apologies to flower arrangers), and live and let live.
William, please close down the site - it's clearly no longer needed, as all our views are now known to be completely irrelevant...
Complain about this comment
I support Pat 100%
Complain about this comment
PK
Obviously the babies cannot *do* anything to deserve death. Outside Pat Robertson, I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that they do. Gladys seemed to be referring to the Haitian people in general.
There are Theistic responses to suffering and Christian responses to suffering.
Personally I think that the Cross is the best answer available, but this only gives us reason to trust God. It does not explain *why* he allows 'gratuitous' evils. (Evils that do not seem to bring about any greater good).
Theoretically God is under no obligation to create a world in which horrendous evils cannot occur, as some goods like free-will or redemption etc, may not be possible in worlds that cannot contain horrendous suffering. This means that there may be suffering that does not serve a greater good. Some suffering may be gratuitous.
But people are rarely interested in theoretical defences. Suffering is an emotional and existential problem - not primarily a theoretical probllem. If God suffers with us, and then shows that he can overcome suffering, we can have reason to trust God.
This hardly provides all the answers. But I'm suspicious of any theology or philosophy that can neatly explain absolutely everything about the world.
GV
Complain about this comment
Popping back for one of my fleeting visits...
Re the criticism of Robertson - he is only being honest. After all, his bloodthirsty Sinaitic moon pixie Yahweh has form in this area. Who could forget the righteous justice dispensed on Sodom and Gomorrah, or the entirely justified killing of nearly everybody in the biblical flood? OK, so those are primitive myths, but you're getting my drift.
What about the lovely treatment of the Amalekite children in 1 Samuel 15? Imagine you're an Israelite warrior, and you're faced with a crying three year-old Amalekite girl, weeping over the slaughtered body of her mother - you would be SINNING if you didn't lop her head off there and then!
I was cycling in the "Holy Land" a few weeks back, and some of the kids threw pebbles at us as we cycled through the villages. Did any she-bears come out of the woods and rip them to shreds? Did they heck. Maybe it's because the bears are all gone now.
The problem is not Robertson - he's just a symptom of a deeper intellectual malaise that permeates Judeochristianity - the treatment of primitive myths as if they had any actual basis in fact.
By all means criticise and lambast Robertson, but you'll need to lambast similar insane bloodthirsty slavering demagogues such as the prophets Elijah, Elisha and Samuel.
But in the midst of all this, please please please give money to the DEC appeal: http://www.dec.org.uk/ or the constituent charities (including some Christian ones) in order to get aid to the people in Haiti.
-H
Complain about this comment
That's it H! Plant a couple of nukes and run (-;
Complain about this comment
What do you mean nukes, Graham. All it takes is a couple of pixies!
But he is right about the DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) folks.
Complain about this comment
why is comment 23 1.36 pm not on the web?
Complain about this comment
Gladys, that was a good blog entry, liked it, I'll be back reading there again, thanks.
Complain about this comment
Do you know that there is a University in the US founded/funded by Pat Robertson 'training the future leaders of the world." It is called Regent University and is attended by thousands of students with special emphasis on getting into politics or influential positions careers. Some of these graduates are already involved in the US politics and I believe there is a nice group of the Republican wing who have gotten some of their education from this institution.
Complain about this comment
Yeah sure . . . Pat Robertson forgot to tell us that before the earthquake God made a path through the sea so the *evangelicals could flee to Miami – the land flowing with milk and honey.
_______________________
*According to Wikipedia 10-15% of the Haitian population are evangelicals.
Complain about this comment
Albert Mohler (President Southern Theological Seminary) blogged at http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/14/does-god-hate-haiti/ :
"A faithful Christian cannot accept the claim that God is a bystander in world events. The Bible clearly claims the sovereign rule of God over all his creation, all of the time. We have no right to claim that God was surprised by the earthquake in Haiti, or to allow that God could not have prevented it from happening."
Seemingly in response to Robertson he said:
"Why did no earthquake shake Nazi Germany? Why did no tsunami swallow up the killing fields of Cambodia? Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy far more evangelical churches than casinos? Why do so many murderous dictators live to old age while many missionaries die young?"
Complain about this comment
Theodicy does have one very simple and straightforward solution though.
Complain about this comment
You're right H, it does.
Complain about this comment
"Why do so many murderous missionaries live to old age while many dictators die young?"
Peas porrigde hot, peas porrigde cold, peas porrige in the pot nine days old. In those old movies, I always rooted for the cannibals.
Complain about this comment
@ Dushenko, good on him! In that case, he needs to swim in POLITICS (and say whatever he wants), not religion. He is not speaking for Christians–he is speaking for Pat Robertson. Period. What was once said about opinions being like . . . and everyone has one? Yeah. That one.
Complain about this comment
I was disappointed that Pastorphillip didn't respond to my posting until I realized that at this very minute he just might be ministering to Mrs. Robinson who seems to need divinely inspired counseling so badly. This thought made me happy, Pastorphillip easing the pain and anguish of the suffering even if she is of a different religion. How ecumenical of him.
"And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)"
Too bad they wouldn't allow the link to the original recording, it was the best performance of the song I think.
Complain about this comment
Hello LSV,
"I do not believe that the concept of natural selection provides a satisfactory explanation for the general concern most people have for moral issues. The only morality I can detect in natural selection is the urge to survive (if one person's fight for survival is to the detriment of someone else's - so what?)"
Let me shock you by mostly agreeing with what you said. Other than a few areas like caring for next of kin etc, I don't think natural selection provides answers in many areas as far as morality is concerned. It does indeed not care much about the detriment of others. But then you are looking for the source of morality in the wrong place if you think that non-believers get that (more than a small part of it) from natural selection. Just as natural selection isn't much interested in morality, it wouldn't have much of a problem with someone adopting a morality on other grounds. For instance, Helio mentioned donating to the Haiti quake relief effort. Does selflessly helping out people he doesn't know half a world away influence his decision on whether he want to have more kids or not? Not in the slightest.
So rather than saying 'Haha, natural selection doesn't provide any morality' you should try to understand why that statement, while technically mostly correct, is not very relevant.
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham, post 24,
"Obviously the babies cannot *do* anything to deserve death. Outside Pat Robertson, I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that they do. Gladys seemed to be referring to the Haitian people in general."
But the people caught up in the disaster over there do include new born babies. So to some extent what I asked does apply.
Regarding suffering you said of your own explanation
"This hardly provides all the answers."
Indeed. The suffering by the innocent allowed by a supposedly loving god doesn't add up. Saying 'trust jesus' doesn't answer anything. It sounds to me more like an attempt to make holding a contradictory, flawed position sound more acceptable.
Complain about this comment
Yes, but "trust" Jesus wasn't my argument. It broke the problem of evil into a logical and an existential part. It used the cross to respond to the latter and a logical point to respond to the contradiction (the logical part).
As for the children, I don't hold that all suffering has a punitive purpose, and this does not follow from Theism or Christian Theism. (It does appear in popular sermons, I'll grant you that.
GV
Complain about this comment
PK & LSV
To grossly simplify the matter, I would say that the "concept" of natural selection is no use at all when talking about morality, but that is not to say that is morality cannot be analysed with reference to it.
For instance, LSV's
(if one person's fight for survival is to the detriment of someone else's - so what?)"
ignores that human beings are social animals and that in complex societies such simple zero sum calculations are by no means the only way in which selection occurs. Reciprocal altruism within groups helps everyone.
Other than a few areas like caring for next of kin etc
Again, simplifying greatly, we can look at morality as a progressive extending out into the social group of the principles involved in caring for kin.
Not that it matters at the level in which we actually function, since selection of course occurs at the level of genes, and the complexity involved when our genes actually get expressed into a functioning human fitting into a society of other humans, renders the discussion as it applies to individuals almost as meaningless as pretending it all comes from the magic man.
Complain about this comment
#38 - PeterKlaver -
Thank you for your response.
Let me say that I have no problem understanding why atheists, non-believers, sceptics (whatever word you want to use) have a strong sense of morality. Morality is a part of being human. In fact, I have no qualms about saying that many atheists are probably far more moral in many ways than a great many people who adhere to my own world-view.
My issue is that, so often in the discussions on W&T, we are not talking about whether we should be helping the victims of an earthquake in Haiti (for example), but whether certain explanations of reality are true or false. LucyQ on the "Churches pray and give to DEC..." thread made the statement "there is a scientific rational explanation for everything", by which she (I assume "she"!) means a naturalistic explanation, judging from her other comments. That kind of comment makes very little sense to me from an intellectual point of view.
As a non-believer in naturalism, I have argued that science and naturalistic rationalism does not explain everything in life. I have a lot of time for the honest agnostic, but I can't quite understand those who seem determined to deride others, who are not prepared to reduce everything in life to atoms and molecules.
Complain about this comment
As a non-believer in naturalism, I have argued that science and naturalistic rationalism does not explain everything in life.
Yes you have. Endlessly.
You also have an example(highly simplified, but hey ho this is blog not an academic paper)in #41 of a hypothesis that may explain one of the things you are convinced can't be explained by naturalistic means. Come on mate, what are you waiting for? Rip it to shreds. I'm sure you can.
Complain about this comment
Robertson's done it before of course, to the good citizens of Dover just after the trial:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/12/usa.julianborger2
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city,"
Residents ousted conservative Christian members of the local Dover board who had ordered teachers to tell their classes evolution was a questionable theory
Complain about this comment
Pat is right...but maybe for the wrong reason, We might not like to admit that God is all powerful and controls everything that happens but we cannot say God is the creator of all things and Controls everything and then when something bad happens say....oh that wasnt God that was a natural disaster, Either God is in control or he isn't and i have to say as a Calvinist i believe that God is all powerful and His will is always done...we may not understand it sometimes but it is all for his glory
Complain about this comment
CC, that is certainly logical in a trivial way, but it removes any justification for the fantasy that this god (or whatever you want to call it) is "good" or "moral" or "just" - what you are saying is that it acts on its own whim for its own self-gratification, and that (in its omnipotent amoral omniscient view) this end justifies whatever means it chooses to accomplish that.
But that being the case, it cannot be "wrong" to reject such a spiteful, selfish and conceited space pixie - even if it DID exist in the parameters you describe. The Calvinist delusion would be that this is all part of The Plan, and even such rejection would be to enhance whatever warm fuzzy feeling the pixie retires with when it winds up the universe, and warms its tootsies on the eternal pyre of all those nasty non-Calvinists it created specifically to burn for the purpose.
Calvinism is a pile of cabbage, as LSV will readily attest.
Complain about this comment
LSV says so too???? OMG thanks for letting us know...we'll shut down all the calvinist churches immediately, i mean how silly are we to never have noticed that some would see a contradiction....why oh why didnt we come up with any form of reply!!! well anyways you have just destroyed calvinism....after 400 odd years you successfully destroyed the whole theological system in just one post------- WOW!!!
Complain about this comment
CC
If your comments on the other thread is representative of Calvinism, I'd say Helio is being disrespectful to cabbage.
Complain about this comment
#43 - grokesx -
"You also have an example(highly simplified, but hey ho this is blog not an academic paper)in #41 of a hypothesis that may explain one of the things you are convinced can't be explained by naturalistic means."
From #41 -
"For instance, LSV's
(if one person's fight for survival is to the detriment of someone else's - so what?)"
ignores that human beings are social animals and that in complex societies such simple zero sum calculations are by no means the only way in which selection occurs. Reciprocal altruism within groups helps everyone."
"Again, simplifying greatly, we can look at morality as a progressive extending out into the social group of the principles involved in caring for kin."
You talk about morality as a "progressive", but that is based on an assumption of "progress" which is entirely arbitrary. Who is to say that it is wrong for certain thinkers to appeal to the idea of "social Darwinism" to advocate culling the human population for the sake of the "common good" or experimenting in eugenics? Some people may regard that as just as valid an idea of progress as the teleology you are advocating.
You seem to think that society naturally progresses in the direction of "reciprocal altruism" and that that makes perfect sense within a naturalistic understanding of reality. But the concept of "reciprocal altruism" only has validity within a naturalistic world view on the basis of a pragmatic epistemology - "the truth of a concept is validated by whether it works or not". But what happens in situations where, for some people, such a concept does not seem to work? You may make the subjective decision to judge that those who do not advocate an ethic of "reciprocal altruism" are "wrong", but you cannot do that with reference to your overarching philosophy of life. There is nothing within nature that tells us that we should engage in reciprocal altruism. In fact, the reverse is often the case.
What is the aim of society in adopting the method of "reciprocal altruism"? Who decides that "aim"? What happens to those who disagree with such an aim? What philosophy is appealed to prove that such objectors are wrong? What if some people decided that certain individuals do not deserve to live - for the "good" of society as a whole - what is there in the idea of "natural selection" to decree that such views are wrong?
What we see in nature is competition for scarce resources, and "reciprocal altruism" only works when everyone understands that sacrifices have to be made for the common good and that political or economic power should be used with humility and compassion. This utopian vision does not square with the competitive notion of natural selection. I know you'll disagree with me, but I like to think that I am living in the real world, and not some fantasy world in which we are deluded into thinking people are overflowing with natural "goodness", and that nature itself - left to its own devices - tends towards some kind of world of global compassion.
And finally... a simple matter of logic: just because a naturalist can come up with an "explanation" of some phenomenon (such as morality) does not, of course, prove that that explanation is correct. And, yes, the same is true of a supernaturalist explanation. There seems to be an assumption that "if only we could find some kind of natural explanation for something, then logic dictates that that explanation must be true". This is not a logical argument, but a case of "begging the question" (petitio principii - assuming your conclusion in your premise). It is an assumption based on an uncompromising and dogmatic commitment to the propagation of a particular philosophy. In other words, it's a kind of "religious" proselytising.
Complain about this comment
#47 - ChristianCalvinist -
"LSV says so too???? OMG thanks for letting us know...we'll shut down all the calvinist churches immediately..."
Helio can say what he likes, but I am not aware that I have been advocating that any Calvinist church should be shut down.
All I have done is give my reasons why I don't accept the doctrine of double predestination, which is normally associated with Calvinism. Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your doctrine is condemning you or your churches? There is a clear semantic difference between the ideas of "to criticise" and "to condemn".
It worries me that some people cannot make this distinction, and so when I put forward my honest concerns about a certain interpretation of the Bible, I was described as a "modern day Servetus" - and we know what happened to him! In other words, the implication is: because of my particular interpretation of the biblical text - held honestly, in good faith and (in my mind) for good reasons - I deserve to be burnt at the stake (and on slow burning green wood as well)!
Why can't you accept that different people interpret the Bible in different ways? Why always talk about "condemning" people simply because of differences of viewpoint?
As a matter of fact I do believe in the sovereignty of God. But the difference between us is this: I believe that God, in His sovereignty, has created beings with the capacity to make responsible, free-will decisions. He has not created, or allowed people to become, automatons.
Concerning Calvinists: I actually have friends who are Calvinists, and I even work with some of them in Christian work. I can hardly be called someone who is calling for the closure of Calvinist churches!
Complain about this comment
Being in the Media and being a born again christian i wqork for a Christan radio station in kenya, I felt by the will of God to write this after reading most of the commments and not getting any that even dealt with this man from the Christian perspective ans a born again christian for that matter.The earthquke in Hait is a very sad issue especially to me because i knew about it beforehand. By prophecy that is. To see it happening i cried to the Lord and Said Not again. The God i Serve warns about Judgement and he HATES sin. it is because of people like Pat Robertson that Haiti is suffering so much now. He Knew about the state of the Haiti Spiritually and he had all this years to get on a plane and warn them of the Wrath of God, and ask them to REPENT and turn away from sin but Guess what he doesn't do that either. He had the money the influence and a Machine to do all that but he didn't. Dr Owuor who told me and many others on 18th July 2009 about the prophecy about the earthquake coming to hit the island of hispaniola and he went to warn them. Pat robertson Did not even say how many Pastors and Church leaders he had tried to reach in Haiti before he made that comment. Dr owour made contact with the church in The Island of Hispaniola and even called one radio station and they put him on air to warn the people of hispaniola, emcomprising of the Dominican republic and Haiti. He even went there himself. If Pat robertson did'nt do that then he failed God as a servant. It is the duty of a servant of God to warn people of sin and judgement coming because of sin. if they fail to do that then their blood is in his hands. Then if Pat Robertson failed to do that the the people of Haiti are not to blame. Pat robertson is and he should repent about it.
Complain about this comment
@LSV
Just a quick reply cos I'm a bit strapped for time at present.
Firstly, at least you are sort of engaging with an actual argument, which is all to the good, although you can't help spinning it out in your own inimitable fashion. I did mention that I was simplifying, so I'll address your points in a little more depth later.
As for your little lecture on logic, I don't recall saying that anything is "proved" by the naturalistic explanation. If you were acquainted with even the absolute basics of science, you would know that it is not a concept scientists use. I mentioned in the creationist thread a while back that you don't seem to grasp the idea of methodological naturalism, and there have a been mentions of it on other threads. It's something you need to get to grips with before you cut and paste in your pompous rants about scientific "proselytising".
Also, I do rather like the juxtaposition in this thread of:
but I like to think that I am living in the real world, and not some fantasy world in which we are deluded into thinking people are overflowing with natural "goodness"..."
and
I believe that God, in His sovereignty, has created beings with the capacity to make responsible, free-will decisions. He has not created, or allowed people to become, automatons.
I know it's only because I'm a godless heathen and all that, but that is just too funny.
Complain about this comment
@Eunice are you serious about that prophecy part? Who called a radio station? You know people get tired of these "I knew this-I knew that" stuff AFTER tragedy strikes...I know I do...
Complain about this comment
Hello LSV,
I'm catching up here from a few days back.....
"Let me say that I have no problem understanding why atheists, non-believers, sceptics (whatever word you want to use) have a strong sense of morality. Morality is a part of being human. In fact, I have no qualms about saying that many atheists are probably far more moral in many ways than a great many people who adhere to my own world-view."
Well thanks for that. Although what you say seems to stand somewhat in contrast to what believers here on the bog often state about non-believers. Here is a piece of what you wrote on the '36 arguments for the existence of god' thread, where you write that we can't even tell what is evil or not (my emphasis added in bold):
"I will say it again - for about the third time: if Dawkins is making a moral judgment - which he is doing - then on what basis does he do so? To say that he derives his moral basis from the very book he condemns as immoral is simply absurd. He rejects the God of the OT for being evil, but what is evil? How is it defined? How can he define it according to his naturalistic world-view? I have asked these questions time and time again on this blog, and not once have I received a satisfactory response. And therefore the conclusion I draw from the evidence of this silence is that you and your co-ideologues cannot answer these questions."
As for LucyQ's statement
"there is a scientific rational explanation for everything"
I'll agree that that is too optimistic to state as if it were a hard fact right now. Though there is good hope that we'll learn that to be true in the future.
"As a non-believer in naturalism, I have argued that science and naturalistic rationalism does not explain everything in life."
Not yet, no. But science is learning more and more. And we can expect it to continue to progress for at least a good while. And nothing has been shown sofar that must always remain beyond the grasp of science.
"I have a lot of time for the honest agnostic, but I can't quite understand those who seem determined to deride others, who are not prepared to reduce everything in life to atoms and molecules."
The reason fore derision probably lies not primarily in the unwillingness to reduce things to atoms and molecules, but the alternative explanations that these people adhere to instead, for which still no credible basis has been shown sofar, despite millennia to do so.
Complain about this comment
And to add a little to what grokesx wrote in post 52 in response to the end of post 49, where you wrote
"And finally... a simple matter of logic: just because a naturalist can come up with an "explanation" of some phenomenon (such as morality) does not, of course, prove that that explanation is correct. And, yes, the same is true of a supernaturalist explanation. There seems to be an assumption that "if only we could find some kind of natural explanation for something, then logic dictates that that explanation must be true""
Like grokesx said, science doesn't work by proving things, but by giving explanations that are always tentative. If observations (including those that were made to verify predictions made by a particular theory) closely match the theory, then that adds credibility to the explanation that that theory gives. But it's not proof, new observations might still overturn it.
But despite the careful approach in science, we can explain a lot through it. All backed up by reproducible observation. That certainly puts it far ahead of supernatural explanations, that can only claim after the fact 'Oh yes, this agrees so well with our [insert pet religion] thinking', while not actually explaining anything, let alone ever understand things that are yet to happen. They're just completely useless as far as understanding the world is concerned.
Complain about this comment
Gladys - your comment # 18.
I would like to go further than you do when you advocate offering an alternative view of Christianity to that of Robertson.
I would deny Robertson the name of Christian. I would pronounce anathema on him; I would characterise his ministry as itself Satanic. That is my response.
I do not believe in a creator God nor in a God who is in any sense active in the world. Anyone though who seeks to confront real evil will find it, not in Haiti, but in the financial centres of the great western cities like London and New York.
Complain about this comment
CC, why on earth would I have to close down calvinist churches? Of course calvinism is a load of cabbage (qv), but be honest - how many of the punters who warm the pews of nominally calvinist churches - or even the ministers who waft air out of the pulpits - actually *believe* the doctrines of calvinism? Ask Will - he saw through it pretty clearly, as did I. Indeed, if you go to a nominally calvinist church and privately ask the people what they really believe, I guestimate that you will find in and around 15% of them don't even believe in the gods.
In such a context, why close them down?
The bottom line is that some people are really nasty hypocrites. Robertson is one of them. The fact that he uses the label "Christian" is neither here nor there. Trust me - most Christians have more in common with good atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers than they have with that person. And a good thing too.
-H
Complain about this comment
Your right the influence of the Roman Catholic church had effected the calvinist churchs teaching...they have watered down and compromised and now the churches are getting smaller, Richard Dawkins is one of these men who hides behind his books...let him go into Iran and complain about muslims or go into the ardoyne and complain about Roman Catholics...its all right being an armchair soldier ranting at the typewriter but when you get to be face to face with people its another matter.... if we all have so much in common with atheists then why aren't we all atheist? Look at the blasphemy law blog on here...it hardly got any comments and yet your your trying to tell us that everyone cares about the atheists and we all secretly support them??? lol your having a laugh
Complain about this comment
Can calvinists not spell? Is that something they drum out of them? You're right in that I'm having a laugh, btw. Your quaint little superstitions are fodder for plenty of gags on this blog. Hint - they're not *true*, and that should cause you some concern. This blissful abandon with which some folks let their sacred cows graze on everyone else's lawn is pretty tedious.
Complain about this comment
I have to say I am sceptical about Pat Robertson's assertion that he is speaking the will of God about Haiti.
But I am also concerned that many people are using the situation to promote what could amount to an idolatrous view of God through this type of situation, which means that the actual voice of God in relation to disasters and God’s purpose for mankind could be blanked out for many people.
I dont pretend to like or fully understand what I am about to write, but I feel it has to be said.
Personally I came to faith in Christ through an experience of his love in my life. In John 3 Christ said his mission was not to condemn the world but to save it!
I shrink in admiration for the aid workers of all faiths and none who are helping the people of haiti today.
The bible is most certainly biased strongly towards the poor and oppressed - but it is not a socialist script - it aims at the actual cause of poverty, not just the symptoms, ie the fall of man and our sin.
But there appears to be concerted efforts by the media and others at times like this to put out an emergency blanket message that God never pours out judgement and those that suggest he does are mindless fanatics.
I wish that this were the case. IF someone considers the bible to be the word of God, this does not stand up to scrutiny.
Examples are the great flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgement of God on the Canaanites, his judgements on Israel throughout its history. Christ justly carried out these actions.
Christ actually said that earthquakes would be a sign that his return was near, telling his followers to look up for their redemption.
The gospel as preached throughout the book of Acts repeatedly says that people are required to repent of their sin and believe in Christ's sacrifice ie there is no need for Good News if there is no bad news.
But perhaps most tellingly, a quick skim of the book of revelation makes it very clear that God will pour out many judgements on mankind as time closes to try and cause us to wake from our stupor of sin. He also has pretty stiff messages for the seven churches too at the start of the book!
None of this is new or fanatical.
CS Lewis said that "pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world"
He also said that Aslan (Christ) is a good lion, but not a tame one.
As for Haiti's pact with the devil, I dont have any personal knowledge.
Tony Campolo told William today that it is hard to get to sleep in Haiti because of all the voodoo drums beating at night.
The well respected Operation World, produced by WEC and long endorsed by George Verwer of OM, makes it clear that the leaders of these organisations believe a “Satanic” deal in Haiti is an historical fact and that its curse was real, though now being wound down through Haitian Christians.
Cursory readings suggest it is not just Christians who understand that the revolution of Haiti against the French (however just) centred on voodoo empowerment.
Note, I am NOT implying that God caused the earthquake on Haiti. It is not my place to speak on behalf of Almighty God.
But is God now judging Haiti?
Perhaps Christ's answer would be - never mind about Haiti - I have died to save YOU so please lets get down to business asap;
Luke 13
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them— do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
To me so much of the message we hear in our media tries to blank out this reality – that Christ is always calling us to come back to him in love, mercy, grace, forgiveness and compassion just like in the prodigal son story.
But to suggest that righteous judgement awaits challenges our pride and independence, so this message and those that bring it must be attacked and isolated, it would appear.
Does God pour out judgements on those engaged in worshiping devils?
Rev 9:20
But the people who did not die in these plagues still refused to repent of their evil deeds and turn to God. They continued to worship demons and idols made of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood--idols that can neither see nor hear nor walk!
As CS Lewis said, pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world!
Incidentally, the Red Cross was founded by a Christian man of faith using Christ’s symbol in order to address terrible human suffering; God is not aloof or careless about suffering but suffered the greatest death of any man in order to reconcile us to himself as friends, brothers and sisters.
And as for science, our modern science was inspired by Christian faith during the scientific revolution and is still generously populated by people of faith who commend it is a fine God-given tool but a poor idol.
As Don Francisco sang "Won't you come in from the darkness now before it's time to finally close the door?”
I'm standing listening along with everyone else. God have mercy on me a sinner!
Apologies for my limited skill in communicating such deep matters.
OT
Complain about this comment
@LSV
Going back to this bit first:
I know you'll disagree with me, but I like to think that I am living in the real world, and not some fantasy world in which we are deluded into thinking people are overflowing with natural "goodness", and that nature itself - left to its own devices - tends towards some kind of world of global compassion.
Yes, there are wishy washy tree huggers who think like this and there are people who, like you, think that to discuss these matters means that we are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Interestingly, religious people often readily make this assumption and I can only speculate it is because their own world view makes it difficult not to think in those terms.
You talk about morality as a "progressive", but that is based on an assumption of "progress" which is entirely arbitrary. Who is to say that it is wrong for certain thinkers to appeal to the idea of "social Darwinism" to advocate culling the human population for the sake of the "common good" or experimenting in eugenics? Some people may regard that as just as valid an idea of progress as the teleology you are advocating.
Well, we can ignore most of this because I use the word “progressive” in the sense of proceeding incrementally, widening in scope, rather than as specifically related to progress defined as an improvement.
Anyway, natural selection is amoral. A cursory look at the natural world confirms it. Take the ichneumon wasps, which inject their eggs into prey, leaving their offspring to munch happily through the unfortunate living victim. Anyone who thinks a process that results in the Ichneumonidae works in terms of goodness, right and wrong is barking (and anyone who demands of others to consider it in these terms is equally barking or willfully ignorant). But that is a wholly different thing from saying that natural selection cannot account for moral traits in organisms, such as reciprocal altruism, nor yet that such traits cannot exist side by side in the same species – indeed in the same individuals – with other, often more aggressive traits, especially in a complex social species such as ours.
It helps to remember that natural selection (as understood in the light of current knowledge, evidence etc) works at the level of genes and manifests itself as distributions of traits across populations. So we are essentially looking at averages in populations and probabilities in individuals. Also, behavioural traits, under the aegis of whch our morality and lack of it falls, are affected by our culture, our upbringing (surprisingly little, it turns out, which is bad news for those of us adhere to the Philip Larkin view –“ they eff you up, your mum and dad”) and our unique life experiences. With this heady cocktail of complexity, your attempts at reducing the argument to a “logical contradiction” within natural selection is banal, and is one reason why I recommended you to have a look at the literature, especially ultimate and proximate causes.
To illustrate these, I’ll move away from morality and look at what my family had for dinner last night. Bear with me. We treated ourselves to an Indian takeaway - I had chicken tikka karai, my wife chicken bhuna (actually we shared the two dishes between us) and my daughter paneer balti. Now, looking at the ultimate cause of us having this meal, we could say that as living organisms we require energy to be taken in the form of food and that as a species we have evolved a complex digestive system to take care of this process. We could look at natural selection’s role in this as well as in our sense of taste and we could look at some of the genetic factors that influence our preferences.
The proximate cause of us having this meal, however, was that we were hungry and fancied a curry. The proximate cause of my daughter having paneer balti was that she is vegetarian and her choices are thus limited. The proximate cause of her vegetarianism is her revulsion at the killing and mistreatment of farm animals (there may also be a genetic component, as I was a vegetarian for ten years before the lure of fillet steak got the better of me). The proximate cause of my and my wife’s choices were partly taste and partly because we like to share. The proximate causes of cuisine from a different country being available to us a phone call away involve culture, politics, history, the personal and life choices of the people in the restaurant, science, technology…
And on and on and on. We can see that the proximate causes are related to the ultimate, genetic causes, but in many cases the complexities make the connections difficult to trace and there are trade offs, cost-benefits, cultural and environmental factors etc in the mix.
The ultimate cause of all our experiences of being human, the good, (defined, as it were, by the average proclivities within our culture), the bad, (defined in part as traits and behaviour which the average individual in a given culture would deprecate, even, may be especially, when they are present in that individual – there’s no hatred like self hatred after all) are down to evolution and natural selection, but the proximate causes are where the action really is.
I know you think all this is so much crap - magic man done it is so much more appealing - but I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, except maybe to stop repeating the same ill informed load of old cabbage over and over.
Complain about this comment
sorry heliopolitan i didnt realise this was a spelling competition...but then the pompous know it all arrogance that pervades atheists has to make comments on everyone else's views and religion and now even our writing!
Complain about this comment
but then the pompous know it all arrogance that pervades atheists has to make comments on everyone else's views and religion
People make posts on blogs and other people comment on them. Would you credit it?
Complain about this comment
I just wish atheists would get it into their heads that they are in the minority...and that it is goodwill that allows them to rant and rave at everyone else, we as Christians extend to them a kindness that they rarely extend to us...if they truly want to give digs and be rude about God then that's ok i condemn it but hey i give you your right to freedom of speech...but why don't you go somewhere and say it to people's faces, from what i see the atheists are all armchair bandits sitting behind a computer screen or schoolchildren going through a phase, Dawkins might be a big man when sitting in front of a group of students or a bunch of arminian americans but why doesn't he go to Iran or Dubai in his epic quest to be rude... maybe it's because we as Christians are far too nice to these people who do nothing but insult God and deride our faith.
Complain about this comment
@CC
As an atheist, let me say right now how much I appreciate the fact that Christians refrain from beating the living daylights out of people exercising free speech. It must be a struggle.
Complain about this comment
Christain Calvinist is absolutely right of course. Bring back the Inquisition!! Burn those blasphemous infidels with their horribly insulting remarks about god!
Gee, I wonder if I should make a remark here for the moderator (the only person who is possibly more logically challenged than some of the regular christian posters here) that my post is not a serious call on people to commit deadly violence.
Complain about this comment
No it's not just the insults against God, it's also the sheer arrogance and contempt with which atheists hold everyone else, they then wonder why people make blasphemy laws and the such lol, i didnt say bring back the inquisition...but at least in them days the world didnt have to listen to atheists whinging on and on, In this day and age and with the advances in scientific reearch you would think that atheists would have found out this great fact that has been shown to be truth numerous times down through the ages...namely...that no one actually cares what they (atheists)say.... i mean look at me, if this had of been a Christian saying the things that you guys say i would have gone off on a doctrinal crusade against them and rebuked them and even in one case called one of them a blasphemer but with you atheists....i just simply can't be bothered
Complain about this comment
Grokes
You're very welcome!
(-;
Complain about this comment
"i didnt say bring back the inquisition...but at least in them days the world didnt have to listen to atheists whinging on and on"
Ah, not calling for a return of the inquisition, just reminiscing about how good those days were. Ok, point taken.
"but with you atheists....i just simply can't be bothered"
Thanks for that clarification, I initially got a rather different impression from post 64.
Complain about this comment
@CC
but with you atheists....i just simply can't be bothered
So what's with the Dawkins fantasies in the Ardoyne and Iran, then?
Complain about this comment
"Thanks for that clarification, I initially got a rather different impression from post 64."
You would though wouldn't you...it's that "everyone is against us, we are the oppressed atheists" that annoys everyone else, we are sick of hearing atheists arguing with everyone they come into contact with or insulting everyone in a room with a condescending and egotistical attitude, for example this blog is about whether or not Haiti was cursed after a pact with the devil but yet as ususal the atheists come on and make the whole conversation about them...
Complain about this comment
" So what's with the Dawkins fantasies in the Ardoyne and Iran, then? "
--- i was just pointing out that he is " a mouth ", big man in the USA and UK but why doesn't go to a country where saying something about God might not get you a bestselling book...more likely a public execution...but thats enough about the Ardoyne lol
Complain about this comment
"Child abuse: the story no one wants to think about…" is a thread worth checking out on Slugger O'Toole.
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php
And it's worth asking why the mainstream media isn't asking questions.
GV
Complain about this comment
for example this blog is about whether or not Haiti was cursed after a pact with the devil but yet as ususal the atheists come on and make the whole conversation about them...
Poe
Complain about this comment
@grokex i live in a real, very real world, i hear prophecies and see them on News the next day and on TV and i hear people weep live on radio for hours weeping after seeing news and realizing that another prophecy has been fulfilled and what it means.i bet you have never seen that. @ Sumi-Assumpter Akumu this is as real as it gets, it is as real as your existence. That how real it gets. After reading about the comments on what i posted about the discussion i wanted to give more information about the Prophecy given not only to me but to million others over Jesus Is Lord Radio 105.3 when the Prophet of the Lord, Dr David Owuor made a phonecall , on 18th July 2009 Kenya after for which i have recordings of, and made this specific prophecy.Many people millions to be exact,in Kenya Uganda and Tanzania heard this specific prophecy.When it became fulfilled and pictures of the earthquake were all over the networks, hundreds of people called the radio and wept for hours and still are calling and weeping on air.I even heard there even video recordings of the prophecy posted on youtube, after he visited Parts of Dominican Republic. i started following the prophecies to ascertain if they would be fulfilled and it happened that ALL of them have been fulfilled, since then i began to understand the verse that Bible said in Deuteronomy 18:17 that if a prophet makes a prophecy and IT BECOMES TRUE then he has been sent of God. This is true of Dr Owour. He made this prophecy again on 5th October 2009. He also went to visit the island of Hispaniola on 23rd, 24th, and 25th November 2009, mainly to speak and warn them of this prophecy. I record every word he says so that if it becomes true then i know the meaning of why it has come true. Haiti was very special since he took so much effort to reach out and he was very sad when it came to pass. i would like to tell you that we do not enjoy knowing this, it becomes very saddening when it happens every time.It is important that people like pat Robertson start listening to Dr Owour and begin to evaluate the church of christ and it catastrophic failure to stop sinning. Various blogs have commented about how pastors have lied and how controversy has entered the church.How pastors entered politics and all the horrible, horrible things they have done. I would like to tell you that that is True and THAT IS THE TRUTH. Let me tell you hate me or like me the church could only be going to one place - Hell. Unless we as the church repent.It is important for each of us including Pat Robertson to REPENT AND PREPARE THE WAY FOR THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwmi7Tj2Z0M
Complain about this comment
rationalwiki????? what was normal wikipedia not good enough...?
Complain about this comment
By the way the rationalwiki on calvism is wrong...as too is it's understanding of fundamentalism and it's idea of Northern Ireland is something out of a Sinn Fein book and outdated by a decade or so....
Complain about this comment
I stumbled into a thought late this afternoon: that there is a difference between a debate and an assertion.
But it probably wasn't important. :-)
grokesx
Would that link you gave have anything to do with being po(e)-faced? :-) (I felt an urge to add a colon, a dash and an end bracket!)
Complain about this comment
CC
Strictly speaking, you are not an Atheist but you are very much an unbeliever.
I doubt you believe in Thor, Zeus, the Hindu Deities or a thousand and one other Gods worshipped.
So CC you and the Atheists are very much in agreement and just one more by you and it would be total.
Complain about this comment
@PeterMorrow
;-)
Complain about this comment
#61 - grokesx -
'Oh no, not a nasty response from LSV coming up,' I hear you say...
Don't worry, grokesx, chill.
I actually enjoyed reading your post, and being the fly on the wall observing your family meal. I trust the culinary delights of the sub-Continent was to your liking.
Strange to say, but I didn't really fundamentally disagree with anything you said, since I failed to see how your explanation was evidence for evolution by natural selection (i.e. macro-evolution that goes beyond adaptation within a species - not something I dispute) or that it, in any way, ruled out what you perhaps imagine is my world-view. Nature has its laws - and more specifically, genetics has its laws - but the origin of such is still a matter of debate.
Of course, I didn't particularly find your parting "vegetarian" analysis of my views particularly appetising, but we'll overlook that.
Shall I now leave you to the mercy of Christian Calvinist, I wonder? Perhaps I will - I am sure he will take good care of you!!
I'm off now to another blog to muse about a thread called "empiricism". Ah, the joys of the self-refuting epistemology of empiricism (or should I just watch the recording of the snooker?) Perhaps I'll do both and try to understand what Mr O'Sullivan is actually perceiving when he sees a red ball (how much do we perceive with our eyes, and how much with the innate ideas in our minds? What can we "see" if we have no idea about shape, space, size, colour, motion etc etc. How did these ideas evolve? I'll think I'll have to brush up on my Kant...)
Bye for now...
Complain about this comment
LSV... LSV!... oh no i think he's gone...........
Complain about this comment
...since I failed to see how your explanation was evidence for evolution by natural selection
Not a surprise, since I didn't offer any. That was not the intention, which was to give you the context in which the discussions of natural selection and morality are framed to demonstrate how the "logical contradiction" you are so fond of is neither here nor there. I didn't really expect you to grasp that, to be honest, but hope springs eternal that one day you'll tackle the theory that is actually put forward rather than the parody one you are so keen on addressing.
Perhaps I'll do both and try to understand what Mr O'Sullivan is actually perceiving when he sees a red ball (how much do we perceive with our eyes, and how much with the innate ideas in our minds? What can we "see" if we have no idea about shape, space, size, colour, motion etc etc. How did these ideas evolve? I'll think I'll have to brush up on my Kant...)
Yep, use the insights based on 18th Century knowledge, ignoring stuff we have learned since. That'll do it.
As for CC, I'm not convinced he's for real.
Complain about this comment
As for CC, I'm not convinced he's for real.
But he creeps me out all the same.
Complain about this comment
yea your right grokesx im not real im just a figment of your imagination..... why wouldnt i be real? because your rational website with its lies told you so? Poe's law? how about this bit of rational thought....we live in a Protestant country...the majority of protestants belong to calvinist churches...why are you so surprized then that a real life calvinist is on this blog, im far more amazed that there is an atheist on here than a calvinist
Complain about this comment
grokesx - I rather think CC is for real.
What interests me, if I have understood a couple of his remarks correctly, is that he is somewhere in the 18-20 age bracket and hence undoubtedly one of our younger contributors. I always find the new fresh perspectives of youth bracing and refreshing.
I must say I rather enjoy CC's posts while disagreeing with just about all of their content - those who know me will, of-course, be aware that I do have somewhat eclectic tastes.
Complain about this comment
Yip i'm 19 at the minute,, coming 20 in February...
Complain about this comment
Eunice, take a deep breath, relax. No one hates you or likes you here.It is a blog. Think of all of us as 'computers' :) The only truth I am sure of at this stage is that an earthquake took place in Haiti and that Pat Robertson said the natives were cursed. Anything else...no one really knows.
The pastor you are referring to has a bit happening too so all I can say is that religious leaders have a very high potential of being 'interesting':)...Pat Robertson et al. You would be forgiven to think some of them pull these 'interesting' stunts for publicity.
PS: I'm speaking for Sumi Akumu here, not Christians:) (just thought I'd mention that!)
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter Morrow & Graham Veale -- thanks for your kind comments about my blog.
Will & Testament is a good place to be, especially if there is more debate than assertion happening. :)
Complain about this comment
Just to re-advertise, it is an excellent, interesting blog, and one I hope to get a closer look at in the near future.
Complain about this comment
There will be an earthquake in San Francisco in the future and another large one in Japan...prophecy? or just the fact that they are where two or more tectonic plates meet? If someone was to say..."slemish moutain will become a volcano and lava shall sprew forth over broughshane" or "Armagh will be decimated by a tsunami" and it happened i would believe in your tales of prophecy but to say that someone is a prophet because they predicted an event that was impossible to avoid is a bit silly, so now to prove to you and all the people of Kenya my great prophecy skills i shall list my predictions for the forthcoming year...prepare to be shocked and afraid...
1. It will rain water from the skies over Northern Ireland.
2. Thousands of people will put on strange orange pieces of cloth and walk down the roads of this country around the month of July.
3. There will be no march along the Garvaghy Road.
....I know it's amazing
Complain about this comment
Can i just say i have just read up on Mr. Owour.... his predictions are amazing...almost as good as mine...for rxample:
"there will be a cosmic event in the sky tonight".... there was a lunar eclipse that very evening...wow...i mean if the bbc hadnt told everyone and it hadnt been down in almost all calendars that a lunar eclipse was scheduled to take place that night...it would be astonishing that he knew that.
"There will be an earthquake"....and there was.... i did he know that there was going to be an earthquake sometime in the future in an earthquake zone? I'm amazed
"There will be a hurricane off the east coast of America"....there was... I mean imagine a hurricane on america's eats coast!!!! I'm getting scared by his accuracy now.
There will be floods in India.......what during monsoon season??? He must be a prophet!!
..........and people say calvinists are silly
Complain about this comment
CC, you're getting there. It's slow, but you're making progress :-) A bit of critical thinking is very bracing and quite enlightening, yes?
Complain about this comment
Just because my religion is straight out of the 16 century doesn't me I am lol
Complain about this comment
@CC
im far more amazed that there is an atheist on here than a calvinist...
Well, I’m here because the blog is about the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day which affect us all, godless and godded alike.
Personally - and at the risk of making it all about me as we atheists are apparently prone to do - I’ve managed, despite my godlessness, to get caught up religious violence in India, married a recovering Jehovah’s Witness, had a small taste of that complex mix of religion and politics played out in your part of the world some years ago, in the form of a bomb in my home town, had the misfortune to work with nuns who would rather pray than tend to the dying people in their care ( as well as, to be fair, working with some of the most wonderful people I have ever known who also happened to be nuns). More generally, we are militarily involved in two nations – one as a direct result of murderous religious fanatics flying planes into buildings and the other through hanging on the coat tails of an American president who appeared to believe he had God on his side (not to mention our then PM seeking God’s guidance on the war).
Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Calvinists, every last man jack of us are caught up in other people’s religious fervour, whether we like it or not, so it’s good to talk.
And to echo Helio’s sentiment, you have a keen rational mind and a sense of humour, just another step or two and you could be contributing at Rational Wiki :-)
Complain about this comment
#83 - grokesx -
"That was not the intention, which was to give you the context in which the discussions of natural selection and morality are framed to demonstrate how the "logical contradiction" you are so fond of is neither here nor there."
All you have offered is an explanation not a proof. In fact, you have failed to show how your philosophy can provide any kind of logically justifiable moral framework. Just because some people (who may happen to share your outlook on life) happen to think it is right to be civil to others does not prove that naturalism provides a firm ethical foundation for moral behaviour.
But to echo your erudite little put-down: I don't expect you to grasp something as logically straightforward as moral justification, to be honest. Hope also springs eternal... (rather ironic phrase for you, don't you think?)
"Yep, use the insights based on 18th Century knowledge, ignoring stuff we have learned since. That'll do it."
Oh, I get it! How silly of me! The more "recently" a theory has been formulated the more it must be true!! Dear, dear. How could I fail to be impressed by that deep line of logic!?!
I must get hold of a better dictionary. The definition I have of "recent" doesn't include the idea of "more likely to be true" or "more intellectually credible". Perhaps I'll look up the words "new" and "contemporary"... nope, can't see anything there either about truth claims...
Obviously you are not too conversant with the study of philosophy and the respect that is shown to thinkers down the ages. Perhaps you're one of those "progressive thinkers", who assumes that a more recent theory (especially perhaps "peer reviewed", no less?!) ipso facto trumps any previous competing theory? This is, I suppose, the fashion of contemporary culture in which the phrase "this is after all the 21st century" serves as the ultimate ("put-down") argument to dismiss those supposed "silly primitive superstitions of the past". I suppose such a method of argumentation relieves one of the need for such a burdensome inconvenience as that irritating thing called "logic and evidence".
To use the favourite words of our resident W&T self-appointed censor: such thinking is a "facile caricature" and a "parody" of the notion of truth.
(Now let's see if I can gain another "straw man" medal from Mr Evasion to add to my collection...)
Complain about this comment
grokesx - you say the blog is about the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day but the text actually states that William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day. There seems to be a difference and, I think, it is perhaps an ethically important difference.
Whatever about William, the commentators on the blog are, on occasion, being prevented from being controversial - their comments are moderated simply for saying things that someone in the BBC does not like. Debate is therefore occurring in the context of a possibly partisan censorship..
I have been prepared to tolerate without comment that level of understandable moderation which protects both the blogger and the BBC from being sued for defamation. Posts, however, are being moderated which make points relating to BBC programmes, points which are in the public interest, and where there is no risk of a successful action against the corporation.
The criterion for posts not to offend is a catch-all which ought to be used with extreme even-handedness if it is not to lay the BBC open to the charge that it lacks impartiality and integrity. I do not see that even-handedness.
I think it is entirely fair then to put William on the spot and request an answer to the following questions (for starters):
1. Does he think the BBC moderation policy is equitable?
2. Does he think that policy, whether equitable or not, is applied with scrupulous fairness?
3. Is it even possible to have meaningful debate about controversial issues when mere offence is adequate grounds for censorship?
Maybe we need a thread on censorship and the media...
Complain about this comment
All you have offered is an explanation not a proof.
Result, since that is all I set out to do. I don't know how many times it needs saying, science does not do proof. It does explanation and evidence. The evidence part is endlessly sought, and the explanation part endlessly debated. It's all out there and available these days as never before for those with genuine interest.
In fact, you have failed to show how your philosophy can provide any kind of logically justifiable moral framework.
Well, that's a relief, since I have been trying to show why moral behaviour can be explained without the need for invoking any such formally bestowed framework. If your posts have shown anything, it is that whatever the ultimate cause of our moral impulse, it is up to us as human beings to navigate our way through the maze that it builds for us.
Just because some people (who may happen to share your outlook on life) happen to think it is right to be civil to others does not prove that naturalism provides a firm ethical foundation for moral behaviour.
You're using that p word again.
Obviously you are not too conversant with the study of philosophy and the respect that is shown to thinkers down the ages...
Respect is due to all the great thinkers of the past. But the thing about knowledge is that it is cumulative. Today's thinkers and scientists are not superior to their counterparts of earlier times, they simply have a deeper well of knowledge to draw on. Or to put it another, familiar way, today's scientists are standing on the shoulders of giants. We know so much more now because of those giants and it would besmirch their efforts to be forever looking backwards. The reason we remember them is precisely because they were, in their time, in the vanguard.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and
Hope also springs eternal... (rather ironic phrase for you, don't you think?)
Rather neat, I thought.
Complain about this comment
Hmm, why are two threads (one of the Whitewash threads and one on ris Robinson) now closed for commenting? The one on Iris Robinson isn't all that old or doesn't have too many posts in it. And the posts that are there don't seem like litigation material against the BBC to me?
LSV, I see you're still in a debate with grokesx about the basis for morality. As I stated in post 54, it seems to me some of your statements about ateheists having or not having a sense of morality are hard to reconcile with each other. If you have a moment to explain the apparent contradictions in your posts, then please do. Can we atheists tell what is evil or not? And since you say we can't, how are we then still supposed to possess morality that you do attribute to us?
Complain about this comment
High five to the grokemeister!
As has been pointed out donkeys' ago, LSV has a very odd approach to knowledge, philosophy, science and the whole she-bang. It's as if we have to start at the VERY bottom and work our way up. It's like saying you can't tell what the earth's crust is like without knowing what the core is like.
News for LSV and similar cod-philosophers (armchair types who like to pretend they know stacks when in fact they are masters only in the art of cabbagery) is that we scientists DON'T start at some hypothetical "bottom" - we start where we ARE and work both up and down.
I've expounded this at length before, so it ill-behoves me to re-issue the same precious gemstones of scintillating brilliance, but anyone can do this. The reason science works is that it is accessible. You can understand the motion of planets without knowing what they are made of - that is a layer you burrow down to - not build from the base. You understand bodies by working down the anatomical hierarchy from organs to tissues to cells to organelles to molecules to atoms to quarks - each layer adds its own emergent glory, and that arises from relationships between systems.
Excellent documentary on BBC4 iPlayer at the mo, incidentally - Jim Al-Khalili takes us into the Secret Life of Chaos. Great stuff. It deals a lot with Alan Turing - a superlative genius with a skill for seeing the simple behind the complex. Highly recommended.
Complain about this comment
"...we start where we ARE" etc.
I'm not sure that any of that makes any sense H. It might do, it might not. It's a great speech, but there's no content. I'm able to agree and disagree with all of it.
On the armchair cabbages - I don't know ANY philosopher who advocates philosophy as an alternative to science. It's not *quite* a case of NOMA. The two disciplines cooperate on AI, cognitive science etc. Some philosophers and scientists get into squabbles over the interpretations of experiments and data (free-will and ethics spring to mind). Some philosophers get annoyed when scientists make claims about areas outside their expertise (Dawkins on Philosophy of Religion has been criticised by Atheists and Theists for mucking up Hume. A bit unfairly, I think, as TGD was a popularisation. But academics will be sniffy.)
But by and large there just isn't room for disagreement. The two disciplines have opinions on different topics.
But good call on the Al-Khalili documentary. I'll try to watch that ASAP. AK's a great communicator.
GV
Complain about this comment
@GV
I don't think Helio was talking about proper philosophers, just the types like LSV - of which there are plenty kicking around on the internet.
Regarding Dawkins, the main objection, apart from that of tone, seems to be that his arguments apply to a bygone age of religion. Apparently these days no one believes in the way he thinks they do, and he ignores the sophisitication of today's religion and theology.
I've bookmarked a few pages on this blog for the next time I hear that argument.
@Helio
High five back to you. Must catch the Al-Khalili documentary, too.
Complain about this comment
Graham, yep - what Grokesx said. Real philosophers know their place :-) But I hope you'll agree that I am saying something really profound with my "starting where we ARE" thing. LSV's assumption (erroneous; you wouldn't find a proper philosopher making such a mistake) is that we have to assume naturalism right from the bottom to the top; that there is no room for unknowns. Yet that is cabbage. There are lots of unknowns, but what we can do is restrict where they may apply, AND formulate hypotheses as to the types of solutions that may resolve these unknowns.
So as a scientist and a "naturalist" in both the David Bellamy sense and the LSV sense, I see our role as expanding the acquisitive bubble of our knowledge - it doesn't have to sit "on the bottom". As we build upwards, we find out more. As we dig downwards, we find out more. In the middle, where we ARE, and to the extent of our knowledge, there is no evidence of pixies, and even if we DO find evidence of pixies, we incorporate that within our bubble and proceed. Discovery of a pixie would certainly interest me a great deal, but it does not really affect the stuff we already know (such as evolution of course - LSV's misapprehension of that remains his chief embarrassment. Evolution works just as well whether there are pixies or not).
And as for Dawkins, again I agree with Grokesx - if he really was arguing against a god that no-one believes in, it is interesting that so many people have got their knickers in a twist. Perhaps they really do believe in the sort of god refuted in TGD, but don't want to say so in company that incorporates a few people with IQs greater than 70... :-)
Cheers,
-H
Complain about this comment
"Dawkins, the main objection, apart from that of tone, seems to be that his arguments apply to a bygone age of religion..."
Well, not exactly. He either ignores or caricatures contemprary Analytic Philosophy of Religion - which just clarifies and defends ideas, be it Theistic or Atheistic. Modal logic is a big deal in computer science and AI research. So he just sounds silly when he waffles about the Ontologial Argument. (There are good objections to it, but he doesn't see them).His big argument against Theism is just a rough introduction to an argument by Hume. He doesn't understand Swinburne at all. He's muddled on the nature of Faith. And so forth.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Now Terry Eagleton seems to think that intelligent Christians are all anti-realists. And unfortunately it's Eagleton and co. who get all the press attention in the UK. I can't see any merit in anti-realism. So no, Dawkins doesn't deal with sophisticates that don't really believe in the Truth of their religious claims. But I'm not sure how you *could* argue against that position. It's a matter of taste.
GV
Complain about this comment
H
I think the argument that Naturalism conflicts with presuppositions that you made to reason to that position. (Our faculties are generally relible and such). Not that you presuppose naturalism and then examine the world. Maybe - I haven't followed these exchanges in detail.
GV
Complain about this comment
I was reading the obituary of Dr Beetroot recently (Manto Tshabalala-Msimang). I could take a pop at her but if I based a critique of medical science and doctors in general on her pronouncements I'm not too sure how seriously some of the contributors on the blog would take my arguments.
That said, I have to confess that watching Dawkins make Rowan Williams squirm was my television highlight of 2009.
Complain about this comment
The Devil Sues Pat Robertson for Breach of Contract
EP: Virginia Beach – The devil filed a lawsuit in the Virginia Beach district court on Thursday suing Pat Robertson for breach of contract. “Pat Robertson has broken the terms of our agreement with him” said Arthur B. Ellzebub, an attorney for satan.......
http://wp.me/pIP1s-2v
Complain about this comment
I am disgusted as to how mind blinded this generation is. I am a haitian descent and i love haiti but Pat Robinson is absolutely correct. Those words did not come from him they came from God. It is quite evident that noone on this site reads their bible if noone believes that God Still curses lands and people. Haiti is reaping punishment from the sins of their ancestors and their current sins such as idolatry, worshipping lwas,sacrifices to evil spirits and the rest of the evil that goes on. Stop letting the enemy blockyour minds with unbelief and foolishnesses. Read your bible and do your research about the
"BWA CARIME" CEREMONY that took place in 1797 for our independence. If anyone were wise they would accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, Repent and pray for America because we are no better. Do notspeak against Pat Robinson because he has only told the truth and EVERY TONGUE THAT RISES AGAINST SHALL BE CONDEMNED!
Complain about this comment
ALSO IF YOU GUESS CARE SO MUCH FOR HAITI THEN PRAY FOR THE PEOPLE TO TURN AWAY FROM EVIL, REPENT AND RECOGNIZE GOD FOR WHO HE IS. the voodoo priest, ougan, erzulie danton, erzulie freda, jezabel, bumbala ect. cannot take him out of GODS wrath.
Complain about this comment
America has completely moved away from the values of Christianity. The money america has cannotsolve all of Haiti's problems because it is spiritual. Think about how in 2008 (3) hurricanes hit haiti in one month, a tseunomie next, then that terrible situation when that schhol collapsed with all those children. We are only 20 days into this year and look. Stop being so stupid and understand who God is by reading his word. He is a jealous God and it is a shame that Haiti has given Satan legal ground to operate and destry the land. Only God can Restore the land and forgive the people for all these years of turning their backs on him. I am just saddedned that the children have to pay because their generation is cursed. PRAY LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER PRAYED BEFORE IN JESUS CHRIST NAME! If YOU DO YOURT RESEARCH AND STILL WANT TO BE NAIVE THEN BE READY TO STAND BEFORE GOD FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS
Complain about this comment
#109 & #110 - sandra -
Thank you for your comments. Not many people on this blog will agree with you (and I don't go along with you 100%), but you have every right to put "the other point of view". Thank God for freedom of speech.
But I have to warn you that your comments may elicit a reponse from the local inquisition, who love to huff and puff and mix their indignation with not a little amateur (and rather predictable) mockery. Their favourite word at the moment is "cabbage" (so they're making progress in the kitchen, I guess).
So if your comments are given the "cabbage" treatment - fear not. Take it as a compliment. To be scorned by atheists is an honour. The time to worry is when they start agreeing with you...
Complain about this comment
VSL, I would hate to disappoint you. Sandra, I quite agree. Pat Robinson! Brilliant! Jebus curses lands and peoples because of stuff their ancestors may have done in the dim and distant. Babies and children will die because of some superstitious mumbo jumbo that the Magic Space Pixie only now in 2009 gets round to thinking: "oh golly - must do something about THAT!". It is a terrible tragedy that people of good will are rushing to help the survivors of the pixie's righteous wrath - how awful to be actively trying to thwart the genocidal will of the almighty cosmic leprechaun! I hope they repent and turn from their altruistic ways into self-righteous pontificating ignorant cabbage-merchants, and pass by on the other side - after all, this is righteous judgement - helping someone in this situation is like breaking them out of jail!
VSL, good news for you - you are not the only purveyor of the Queen's Finest Cabbage. Rejoice.
Complain about this comment
#98, #100, #101 & #104 - grokesx, PK & Helio -
Wow! I'm being fired on from three sides at the moment (let's just hope there aren't any secret codes from "The God Delusion" stamped on the gunsights!)
Help! Shall I call on reinforcements? CC can't help me, as I'm in his bad books - he has already hinted that my departure from this mortal coil should be by the incandescent method, so perhaps I'll just have to fight my own battles.
Where shall I start?
PK - you seem to think that my views about morality and naturalism are contradictory, but actually there are not. I am not disputing that atheists can be moral, but not according to the philosophy of naturalism. Shall I dare to quote C.S. Lewis? Perhaps I will, just to irk Helio (with his erstwhile evidence-free comment: "C.S. Lewis is not up to much"). Lewis was arguing that morality has to be subjective within naturalism, since it is merely a human construct:
"I am well aware that many whose philosophy involves this subjective view of values do in fact sometimes make great efforts for the cause of justice or freedom. But that is because they forget their philosophy. When they really get to work they think that justice is really good - objectively obligatory whether anyone likes it or not: they remember their opposite philosophical belief only when they go back to the lecture-room." (from "De Futilitate", Christian Reflections)
If one's philosophy is not relevant for one's personal morality then I fail to see the point of even thinking about morality or having a view concerning moral philosophy, which kinda relates to grokesx's comment:
"I have been trying to show why moral behaviour can be explained without the need for invoking any such formally bestowed framework. If your posts have shown anything, it is that whatever the ultimate cause of our moral impulse, it is up to us as human beings to navigate our way through the maze that it builds for us."
And how are human beings supposed to navigate without a map? How are we supposed to think through moral issues without a moral philosophy - or let's call it a "moral compass"? Some people argue - with considerable justification - that Darwinism has produced moral effects which are not exactly particularly desirable - see Dennis Sewell's book "The Political Gene" (warning: ad hominem attacks coming up....but I'll mention that book anyway, in the hope that you might read it.)
As for the comments of the third member of this little triumvirate, shall I bother to even reply.....?
Oh well... duty constrains me, I suppose. Here goes (sigh)...
Helio, I feel you have an important role to play on this blog. You keep me humble. How can I fail to be entertained by such comments as? :
"As has been pointed out donkeys' ago, LSV has a very odd approach to knowledge, philosophy, science and the whole she-bang."
"News for LSV and similar cod-philosophers (armchair types who like to pretend they know stacks when in fact they are masters only in the art of cabbagery)..."
"LSV's assumption (erroneous; you wouldn't find a proper philosopher making such a mistake)..."
And finally the mouth watering "piece de resistance":
"Discovery of a pixie would certainly interest me a great deal, but it does not really affect the stuff we already know (such as evolution of course - LSV's misapprehension of that remains his chief embarrassment."
Ha, ha, ha! I love that last word - "embarrassment". I'm blushing so much that perhaps CC may not have to consign me to my incandescent fate after all - I'll do it of my own volition!!
Wonderful stuff. It's such a balm and a relief to read comments unburdened and untroubled by that grim taskmaster called logic.
Complain about this comment
Well, VSL, when you would like to have a spin around the ring with that grim taskmaster, be sure and let us know, because there wasn't a lot of logic or reasoned argument in that last post. As for your CS Lewis quotation, yep, you've nailed it - he wasn't up to much; logic wasn't CSL's strongpoint either. I suppose you can't find your way down to your local filling station without sat-nav...
Complain about this comment
VSL, you could do with watching that Jim Al-Khalili documentary too. You would learn a lot about the effects that arise from the bottom up in systems with feedback.
Complain about this comment
#115 - Heliopolitan -
"I suppose you can't find your way down to your local filling station without sat-nav..."
It grieves me to say this, but you're absolutely right. I really cannot do such a thing, since I am (happily) not the proud owner of a sat-nav. I actually prefer to use a proper map and not a contraption that (so I have been told many times by those unfortunate enough to own such a device) doesn't even recognise the by-pass up the A21 from me which has been there for several years now (poor patient villagers of Lamberhurst, these technogeeks will work it out soon, I'm sure). Oh the joys of progress.
As for getting to the local filling station (a place I try to avoid as much as possible for understandable pecuniary reasons) I rely on the map that is imprinted on something called my memory. Whether on paper or brain cell it is, nonetheless, a "map" I am using. What I do not rely on is "finger in the wind" random impulse stuff, but something more akin to "intelligent design" to get myself around the place. Being the true "empiricist" that I am, I like to observe how nature works, and I see that control and design seem to flow from the use of intelligence. The other stuff some people believe in doesn't seem to obey the laws of nature, I'm afraid.
As for logic and all other a priori concepts, well at least I think it is something that has validity and is not merely a naturally produced human construct of no more verificatory and explicatory significance than the colour of my hair or the shape of my finger nails, which, of course, would be the case if it were nothing more than a naturally produced effect.
I guess Hume was right about the knowledge of cause and effect (although I suppose he doesn't count, 'cos he's not "up-to-date" enough!). We understand cause and effect by the continual observation of patterns. Fair enough. Where he was wrong was that he failed to apply his empiricism to "ground and consequent", which he appeals to in order to prove his theory about cause and effect (since he is proferring a logical argument). If the knowledge of cause and effect is merely the result of naturally produced patterns (repeated and reinforced stimuli), and therefore we cannot be sure that cause and effect really exists as an objective relationship (since the knowledge of it relies on subjective observation, which is what empiricism means), then this must also be true of ground and consequent. Therefore on what basis should we believe his argument about cause and effect, since it depends entirely on the validity of ground and consequent - the latter relationship being a necessary condition for the functioning of logic? Just a little conundrum within the empiricist epistemology of naturalism, that I thought I would apprise you of.
But since I'm a philosopher of the fishy type ("cod" I think is the word you used, although I imagine your usage of the word is according to a non-aquatic definition), I suspect that this is all rather out of your depth.
Complain about this comment
When i read Richie Dawkins book i must admit it raised alot of questions....like "when will this bloody chapter on Meme's end?!?!"
The problem at the minute is alot of Christian literature replying to Dawkins don't take into account the studies that have been done in science and so most attacks on dawkins via scientific studies are often easily dismissed and then from the religious viewpoint rebuttals of dawkins often pretend to be modern and completly different from the church he describes... which in most cases isn't true and is easily proved wrong...
The atheists can't prove there is no God, but until christians actually start to learn what the church teaches and know it atheists will run circles around us, I know my church teaching and theology and feel that i'm able to defend it reasonably well if needs be... i can stand firm because i know what it is i believe in but sadly for far too many people Christianity is nothing more than a sing song on a sunday without any real understanding of teachings...
Complain about this comment
And how are human beings supposed to navigate without a map? How are we supposed to think through moral issues without a moral philosophy - or let's call it a "moral compass"?
Call it what you like. The maze metaphor works for me. You get through a maze as best as you can, making plenty of wrong turnings. You meet other lost souls on the way and you try and work out the puzzle together. You'll probably disagree at some point on the best plan, but hopefully you'll muddle through somehow. You might even meet someone clutching a 4,000 year old map of a completely different maze trying to convince you to follow, but you would be wise to ignore them.
I'll have stab at The Darwin Ate my Hamster thesis later.
Complain about this comment
Google "Sharlow Argument Impobability" and "Wielenberg Dawkins Hume's Aroma" to see two non-theistic critiques of Dawkin's arguments.
Atheist Graham Oppy has an interesting article on Darwin and Design arguments, but it doesn't seem to be available on line.
GV
Complain about this comment
In LSV's defence I think he's simply arguing that naturalists hold certain ideas in tension. It's just the mirror image of the problem of evil. Theists struugle to explain many instances of evil and suffering.
So naturalists - who'll only let the physical into their description of the world - would struggle to explain why anything is good. It's not that they don't believe in morality. It's just doesn't seem to fit in to their description of the world - unless you embrace subjectivism or some other form of anti realism in ethics.
Of course if you allow abstract entities like numbers in, you can allow necessary moral truths. But why did we evolve to have knowledge of those truths? It seems a priori improbable.
When it comes to knowledge you can answer - "we got lucky!" or "maybe we can muddle through". Which are both possible, but not much of an explanation.
I'm not sure that you can duck the issues as easily as you think. But then I'm a neo-fascist, so what do I know?
GV
Complain about this comment
On an unrelated note - Jeffrey Skilling (Enron) and the Columbine killers had very odd views of Darwinism that they used to justify their crimes.
Now when you look at films like Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" (which he called a "History of Darwinism") and science columns that use Darwin to explain why rich men find young models attractive, you can see why the misinterpretations arise.
(Eg.Cronenberg says that he is a complete Darwinian, and he interprets this as meaning - the most violent adapt and survive. Which is tosh. The director of "Wolf Creek" used a similar apologetic, even though the protagonist in that film left no offspring. He just killed people.)
It seems to me that something needs to be done to dispel this mythology. Creationists would need to acknowledge that there is nothing in Darwninism that implies nihilism. That would be a start. Darwinism (I'll use that term as that is the media terminology) seems comaptible with a wide variety of worldviews. It may fit some better than others. But I can't see how nihilism follows directly from the theory itself.
GV
Complain about this comment
@Sandra, I'm very much (what's the word?) taken aback by your comments, coming from a (did you imply you are a born again Christian?) . . . and of Haitian descent? WOW! Amazing. Just amazing. Anyway, I guess everyone has a right to talk; the very interesting Robertson is just exercising his freedom of speech. So can I ask if his comments are helping the Haiti natives now? Making things a little better, perhaps? You know, giving them hope and stuff? Wow, aren't people different!
Complain about this comment
Graham, lots of people do not understand evolution - that applies to creationists, AND to some people who claim to be "Darwinian". Evolution does not prescribe, it DEscribes. "The Selfish Gene" is required reading, but even then some people will not understand it (e.g. Mary Midgley, even if she did read it, or Jerry Fodor on Will's previous thread, or Al Plantinga).
As for naturalism holding ideas in tension, that is veering worryingly towards the cabbagesque. Back to labels, dear boy :-)
-H
Complain about this comment
Are you kidding me? There is no reason for me or anyone else to get offended when an atheist speaks. It is complete FOLLY. they do not know what they are talking about or have anything to stand on. Scientist are now leaning on the fact that there is an ALPHA & OMEGA. and there is no INTELLECTUAL FOOL that can argue that and its a waste of time to even argue about because we will all stand before God for wasting the time he has given us. Instead everyone please focus on your salvation that is found in OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. tHE TIME IS COMING FOR HIS RETURN AND WE MUST BE READY FOR JUDGEMENT. HAITI WILL BE FINE AFTER GOD IS DONE PUNISHING AND RESTORING IT BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER FORSAKEN THE RIGHTEOUS.
Complain about this comment
H
I haven't read all the posts, but I suspect that I'd end up disagreeing with you and LSV. And PK and Grokes for different reasons. You seem more open to facts that can't be reduced to physics etc.
I don't think Plantinga's arguments touch that kind of atheism. They certainly weren't intended to. It's only evolution + the most popular takes on Cognitive Science that his arguments hit, and where intended to hit. Put 'Folk Psychology' (which, roughly, holds that beliefs and intentions OR agents have causal power) back in there and his arguments fall apart. And popular criticism of his argument (the type you see PZ Myers use) seems to rely on Folk Psychology. It just doesn't work as an argument against Evolution simpliciter.
Anyhow, I don't think I want to stand in the middle of that crossfire just at the moment. If I get the time, I'll leap in.
Midgley - yeah, she did (mis)read the Selfish Gene before reviewing it. Some of her other work is very good though- her book on "Wickedness" is excellent. What's interesting is that she almost *wanted* to buy the books rhetoric without reflecting on Dawkins more limited goals in TSG. Moralists *and* amoralists want to see some sort of nihilism in TSG. You could interpret some passages that way - but not the whole book.
I think we're agreed that nihilism doesn't have roots in Darwin's theories. Some nihilists appropriate him. But I think Cronenberg and co. need to be told as loudly as possible that they are up there with Ray Comfort in their grasp of the Science. It's a shame that they get away with this garbage.
As for Fodor --- when reviews of his article begin with "he might mean", "seems to mean", "could mean" then it's time to find something less boring to do instead. But don't judge him on that article. His views on beliefs, mentalese etc. are dogmas to many cognitive scientists. In fact, I keep hearing echoes of his "modularity of mind" thesis when reading about Autism. I don't think that it helps, but there you go.
Gosh, that was longer than I intended. Doesn't time fly when you're wasting it?
GV
Complain about this comment
Yes, I guess what the Haiti natives need right now is someone telling them they are cursed and all that Napoleon stuff... It helps them a lot, especially the children who have the automatic brain to understand that to the last punctuation. It's extremely helpful. Great. Priceless. Much more helpful that the food/medicine aid. Wow, I'm truly intrigued!
Complain about this comment
H
Should I waste time Arguing with you? Shouldn't I just call you an INTELLECTUAL FOOL? And predict an eclipse?
It has gone surreal recently, hasn't it?
GV
Complain about this comment
Yep - Auntie Sandra is certainly getting quite excited. I think she's a Ba'al worshipper or something. Next thing she'll be admonishing us to STAND ON ONE LEG and WHISTLE DIXIE lest the DISCOMFITURE of the LORD is visited upon the hordes or some other such vegetable that really doesn't deserve the high accolade of cabbage. I don't see our little conversations as antagonistic - more like the sort of back-and-forth banter that aids digestion and contemplation.
Anyway, when philosophers make a twit of themselves, is it *really* up to the rest of us to cut them the slack they don't accord to others? Well, if they REPENT and TURN FROM THEIR WAYS we might consider it, but if they keep returning to the Fodor/Plantinga/Midgley folly like the Proverbial hound, you can understand a certain loss of patience.
And to follow Sumi's theme, what we should really be doing is helping Haiti right now, not making up silly fairy stories. I refer Auntie Sandra to the Tower of Siloam, but then she probably doesn't read her bible. If she has ever cracked it open. Maybe LSV would like to comment on where the morality of "Pat Robinson" comes from?
Complain about this comment
Sandra,
I appreciate you're angry, and I don't despise you for that. It's good to be angry at times. But would you mind just turning the megaphone down just a little notch or two? We can read lower case letters, we really can, you know!
I have to take issue with you on one point:
#109: "Do notspeak against Pat Robinson because he has only told the truth and EVERY TONGUE THAT RISES AGAINST SHALL BE CONDEMNED!"
Why should a particular human being by the name of Pat Robertson be beyond criticism? I am not aware that the Bible gives anyone the right to be beyond correction and criticism.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who takes issue with Pat should be condemned? Because if that is what you are saying, and if Pat really was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit why was he talking about something happening at the time of Napoleon III before Napolean III was even born?
The Haitian revolution was completed in 1804, whereas Napoleon III was born in 1808. OK, I know he said "Napoleon III, or whatever", but why mention Napoleon III at all? Now, if I criticise Pat Robertson for this glaring error, is the God of truth going to condemn me?
Aren't you aware that the Bible says: "Test all things" (1 Thess. 5:21)?
Like I said, Sandra, I can see you're upset, and, as a Christian, I can appreciate your concern. But try to understand why many people - sincere Christians included - have a hard time taking Mr Robertson seriously.
But thank you again for, at least, putting "the other point of view" (which is actually what a debate is supposed to be about, not that some people around here seem to understand such a simple idea!)
Complain about this comment
GOD IS LOVE.
Complain about this comment
Sumi-Assumpter Akumu, I would like to address you as a friend even though i do not know you but the answer to your question is yes i am a haitian descent, and yes i am a born again christian. Yes i agree with Mr. Robertson because as a descent i know the facts about my parents country, i have seen the mishaps that occurs when they involve themselves with witchcraft because many in my family practices it and i know the history of the land. What makes all of this even more intruiging is that the fact i know my Bible, The God that inspired the bible and how sin brings destruction. I do not believe that what Pat said can cause any more harm to my fellow haitians then but all it can do is enlighten those who have an ear to listen and would like deliverance. What he said is 100% fact and there is proof and everyone needs to agnowledge the facts instead of always wanting someone to sugar coat it with lies. My heart goes out to my people and infact i just returned from there monday evening flying out of Dominic Republic and got to see first hand what a disaster this has been. No matter how much aid, food, water or uplifting words i can offer them, the part for them to turn away from doing evil is left up to them. I am sorry that the truth seems brutal at times and maybe it was the way that Pat said it that made everyone upset but our jobs as disciples is to speak the truth of the gospel and live by it. READ THE HOLY BIBLE AND READ DEUTERONOMY, if what i am saying confuses you and i pray that the Lord opens the eyes of everyone who doesnt believe and that you can find understanding. Pray for Haiti out of FAITH EVEN IF YOU QUESTION WHAT IM SAYING, PLEASE.
Complain about this comment
THE PEOPLE OF HAITIKNOW THE TRUTH TRUST ME BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCE SUPER NATURAL DAILY BECAUSE OF THEIR PRACTICES AND RELIGION. WHAT THEY NEED IS OTHER WHO KNOW THAT TRUTH TO PRAY FOR REPENTENCE AND RESTORATION.
Complain about this comment
Sandra
A much more mature set of comments can be read here, which are in many cases sympathetic to your views;-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8469875.stm
OT
Complain about this comment
Pat Robertson was certainly right about "the pact with the devil"...
....thats according to the Operation World entry on Haiti, published by WEC and long endorsed by George Verwer of Operation Mobilisation.
Before making any other comments to me, please read my post 6o first.
Any other objections, please take them up with WEC.
OT
Complain about this comment
#135 - OT -
"....thats according to the Operation World entry on Haiti, published by WEC and long endorsed by George Verwer of Operation Mobilisation."
I'm not a great fan of Operation World - I was tempted to write a review about it (in fact, I sketched one out with a few choice and apposite quotes), but this blog is not really the place. I guess, as you say, I ought to take up my criticisms with the publisher.
Here's an interesting article and discussion about Pat's comments (critical of him, but also attempting to understand the background to his unfortunate remarks):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/qualified-defense-of-pat-robertson.html
Worth a read, at least.
Complain about this comment
If ever there was proof of the damage that the Bible can do, its here on this thread. I'd like to put on record that if a superior being deliberately brought about an earthquake in Haiti as some sort of punishment, then he is an ogre beyond contempt.
I do not wish to spend one second, never mind eternity, in his, her or its presence.
This blog site has been reduced to something of which Jeremy Kyle or Dear Deirdre from the tabloids, would be embarrassed by.
Why dont we have some bingo, Will?
When we've arrived at the stage where Helio is sent for moderation while utter tripe is printed, we've surely come to the end.
Complain about this comment
Some people argue - with considerable justification - that Darwinism has produced moral effects which are not exactly particularly desirable - see Dennis Sewell's book "The Political Gene" (warning: ad hominem attacks coming up....but I'll mention that book anyway, in the hope that you might read it.)
The general drift of Sewell seems to be that "Darwinism", like the Rounheads, is right but repulsive and that lots of people have used it to justify their own twisted views. Well, so far, nothing to argue with there (except that as well as being repulsive it has come up with some pretty neat stuff, too). As I said before, you would have to be barking to take your morality from an amoral natural process, and those that have tried to do so amply demonstrate this.
I'd have to take a look at the actual text to comment further, so I may get back to you, but from the reviews it looks like - correct me if I'm wrong - his conclusion is that nasty atheist scientists should just stop finding stuff out and look to God instead.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid.
As GV, PK and Helio have demonstrated - even CC is ahead of you here, and he's funny with it - your take on the science bits needs sharpening up. And surely your much self trumpeted mastery of logic must have left you acquainted with the perils of the naturalistic fallacy.
Complain about this comment
@GV
Just a quickie
So naturalists - who'll only let the physical into their description of the world - would struggle to explain why anything is good. It's not that they don't believe in morality. It's just doesn't seem to fit in to their description of the world - unless you embrace subjectivism or some other form of anti realism in ethics.
This is only a struggle for theists to get to grips with. It doesn't fit in with the description of the world that considers morality to be something that is sprinkled into our brains like fairy dust rather than being something integral to us a product of how we evolved. So, obviously, there is a degree of subjectivism involved in how a naturalist will look at ethics, although in its extreme form Subjectivism is as bonkers as any other position arrived at by thinking hard and making stuff up :-)
Complain about this comment
Sandra, please use lower-case, capitals express shouting, more often than not (quite unnecessary, really). I'm not asserting the existence/non-existence of witchcraft in Haiti–I can't possibly know that. Mind you, I'm Christian too. My other question was, are these "we are cursed" comments helping right now?
Picture this:
Kid: Mommy/Daddy/Nana/Papa, why is this happening to us?
Adult: We are cursed. We had a pact with the devil. We are being punished.
Kid: But I didn't do anything! Did you?
Adult: No
Kid: So why is this happening to us!
Adult: Our ancestors did bad things. We are part of their past mistakes.We must pay for OUR mistakes . . .
Come on now . . . and, you can just call me Sumi, thanks :)
Complain about this comment
Hi all,
Did Pat Robertson make reference to any scripture texts when making his statement? For me the logical inference of his statement is that he believes that all those affected by the disaster are themselves 'Devil worshippers',and that no 'Christians' suffered at all!! ermmm
Should Christians in Haiti institute a new 'Passover feast'?
Complain about this comment
If we are to believe Pat Robertson, does that mean that Christians should refrain from sending aid to those who have been judged by God? Except maybe for Bibles & tracts! Don't mean to sound ridiculous but it's incredible for someone to make a statement like that!
Complain about this comment
RJB
If you look at other threads the battle to rescue the blog is underway.
GV
Complain about this comment
Grokes
Ok, here's your problem. Is morality just a pattern of behavior that aids survival? Or a list of human preferences for the common good? Something like that?
If so it may be wise to heed it (most of the time). But it has no prescriptive force. There's no 'oughtness' about it that corresponds to any fact (as opposed to opinions on evolution or the weather.)
GV
Complain about this comment
Just a quickie - general agreement with RJB on God, disagreement on his desire to exclude any strand of the beautiful and horrific tapestry that is humanity from participation in the blog.
Naturalism works very well (as far as I am concerned) to explain both the brute facts of the material world and human behaviour. Morality is nothing other than a tool for deception, either of the self or of others depending on one's place on the pecking order.
Stop kidding yourselves, embrace the subjective folks, you know you want to and you know you do so already.
Complain about this comment
Docrevholiday has hit the nail on the head. If Robertson and Sandra are right (and they aren't, but humour them), then aid to help the Haitians is flying in the face of God's wonky wrath.
Just like a hypothetical Israelite soldier who might have wanted to show mercy to a three year-old Amalekite girl weeping over the slaughtered body of her mother, would have been "sinning" unless he visited the same slaughter upon the child.
It is not that such a hideous god is impossible, just that I really dislike the idea of a god that makes Satan look like a really nice bloke in comparison. And since there isn't the faintest jot of evidence for either of those two gentlemen, and since we know that earthquakes have nothing to do with magic space pixies, I think we can treat Robertson and his comments with the derision they deserve, and give as much money as we can to http://www.dec.org.uk so that they can help these people in real and meaningful ways, rather than shipping out loads of audio bibles and similar pointless dreck.
Complain about this comment
"Just like a hypothetical Israelite soldier who might have wanted to show mercy to a three year-old Amalekite girl weeping over the slaughtered body of her mother, would have been "sinning" unless he visited the same slaughter upon the child."
You're taking the book of Joshua's rhetoric a tad more seriously than the book of Joshua does!
GV
Complain about this comment
Or a list of human preferences for the common good? Something like that? If so it may be wise to heed it (most of the time).
Sort of, in a grossly simplified form.
But it has no prescriptive force.
And therein lies its strength. If we accept that our morality and ethics come out of our shared experiences, both genetic and cultural, but that not everyone's moral vision or experience is the same, we are accepting reality as it is and dealing with it as we go along, warts and all. The Western democracies work on this sort of idea to a greater or lesser extent. The result is far from from perfect, of course, but it is less bad than the alternatives.
There's no 'oughtness' about it that corresponds to any fact.
And does oughtness in religious prescription correspond to facts? There is certainly enough disagreement between religions, indeed within them and their endless sub divisions, to make that suggestion laughable. Just look at this blog for crying out loud.
As Parrhasios says, everyone embraces the subjective in ethics, even the godded. A recent neat experiment gives evidence for this (I'm at work so I can't look for a link, so this is a rough outline). Basically, religious people were asked their opinions on moral matters and then asked what they thought various well known public figures believed about the same issues and also what they thought God believes. They were then exposed to compelling counter arguments against their positions and the process repeated.
The result was that a significant number who changed their minds thought that God's opinion had changed in line with their new position, while the well known peoples' hypothetical opinions remained unchanged.
Complain about this comment
If it's not prescriptivem it's not ethics. Sorry. Kind of the definition of ethics.
Complain about this comment
Sumi, the answer to your questions are yes and no. The bible states that a lack of knowledge is perishing our people.The truth is that even though there are children, adults, christians, catholics etc. who have been affected by this disaster, the truth still should be revealed. Mercy is on those who are alive so do you not think that maybe if Robertson's remark penetrates the soul of some that it could bring change in the sense that people will turn away from evil? Go has eliminated entire city's for abominations so why is it so unbelievable that his wrath is upon Haiti? His word says that he gives us Blessings if we obey his word and curses are bought upon when we rebel. God warns us about our wrong doing and sins. It is sin that causes disasters as such and we have kept God out of our lives and buisness for so long so as the gentlemen he is he turns away and let us destroy ourselves. That is why it is important to repent and pray. Should we as christians send aid? ofcourse. we are here to do what Jesus would have done but in the process of feeding and providing we need to give those people the fruit of the spirit which will comfort them and convict them to do right. I appreciate the fact that we are worried about the well being of the people for now but what about the future? After this there is a chance people might go back to what they have been doing all along. That is what i and other true believers want to prevent. GOD IS GOOD NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AND HE IS FAITHFUL ENOUGH TO WARN US BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS. THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND FOR MOST OF US IT WILL BE ETERNAL. so please send food, water, money ect. but please remember that to lift up the people in prayer and ask the Lord to touch their hearts and allow them to take heed to his word and laws.
Complain about this comment
Graham, the allusion is to I Samuel 15, not to Joshua, and there I think you will find that it is taken very seriously indeed.
As for ethics being prescriptive, surely you recognise that ethics changes over time as we whittle away at the principles on which ethical reasoning are based? Ethics is very like philosophy (of which it is a subdiscipline of course) - it can have an objective validity in its reasoning, and much of the variation that arises comes as we unpack and clarify the premises. But there is nothing in any of that that points to an "other" beyond principles that we work out among ourselves as we go along.
It's the Highway Code. The Highway Code is not based on (many) objective "out there" imposed rules from Heaven above, but on what works in a system like the traffic system, and attempts that we make to have the traffic system work as acceptably as possible. And hey - Americans drive on the wrong side of the road! (Cue Markie to come in with some reason why driving on the left is evil and commie-loving)...
Complain about this comment
Gladys
Maybe if I can refer back to your comments this will put our finger on much of the disagreement on this blog and bring the reasons for it into focus.
I would also suggest that these comments are relevant to Graham Veale and Peter Morrow as they strongly endorsed your comments.
You said:-
"Robertson’s God is repugnant to those who believe in a Jesus who championed the perspective of the poor and marginalised people of his day, and who reserved his condemnation for the religious leaders who claimed that they knew the mind of God.
"In the gospels, Jesus never really explains ‘why bad things happen to good people,’ but he is pretty clear that it is not for us to judge that bad things happen because his Father is punishing people for specific and identifiable sins."
There is little I would disagree with in what you have said Gladys but what you have NOT said is pretty major.
What you have not mentioned about Christ is that he is the creator God who was wounded when Adam and Eve rebelled against him and brough sin and a curse to all creation.
You have not mentioned that Christ came to rescue the world from this sin - subject to our free will.
You have not mentioned that the same poor people that he championed called for his blood and had him crucified - they also tried to kill him a number of times during his ministry.
You have not mentioned that he rose bodily from the grave and ascended to the right hand of God.
You have not mentioned that according to the book of revelation he will come again as a conquering King and will be attacked by all the armies of the world and that he will judge every person in truth, mercy and righteousness and that he will seperarate the sheep from the goats.
I am aware you may well believe many oo all of these things Gladys and I allow for that. However the Jesus you have chosen to portray is one that is completely acceptable to athiests, satanists, pantheists, pandeists, agnostics, wiccans etc.
In other words, he is Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, but not the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.
Why does this matter when hundreds of thousands are suffering in Haiti?
CS Lewis said: "Pain is Gods megaphone to rouse a deaf world".
RJB and Parahasios - what sort of a God do you wish to be with after time ends?
Do you seriously believe that your preference in this matter will cause a change in the character and purpose of Almighty God?
I am NOT saying that God poured out judgement on Haiti - that would be presumptous. But it is also equally presumptous to say he didnt. You are presuming to speak for God just the same.
There are many mass tragedies in the bible.
Look at how Christ wiped out the world for its violence and evil in Noah's flood.
Look at how Christ wiped out Sodom and Gommorrah for its perversions, greed and injustice.
Look at the judgements Christ poured out on Egpyt, including the passover.
Look at the judgements brought upon the Canaanites who were expelled by God using Israel from the land because of their wickedness.
Almost the entire Old Testament is a story of God pursuing Israel in love and Israel's unfaithfulness and the punishments Israel thus brought upon itself from God - and his mercies towards Israel. Book of Hosea.
In Luke 19 Christ ***WEPT*** saying Jerusalem and its people and children would be devastated because it rejected him.
The book of Revelation is a picture of a loving God angered by man's self destruictive rebellion, literally pouring out judgements on the earth in an attempt to bring man to his senses.
Now other judgements in the bible are like this;-
The sin which entered in Eden and which cursed everything is seen to bring its own disasters as evil increases as Christ's return approaches. Christ said there would be an increase in earthquakes but did not say God was causing it.
There are also the many plagues which Pharoh's magicians brought upon their own land in mimicking Moses. Read this again - occultists bringing judgment on their own land!
Many people said after 911 that it was as a result of the US asking God to remove himself from their nation - and that he thus removed his hand of protection.
In Romans 1 God says he left gave certain people over to their sins because they had rejected him and that this brought its own judgement.
The book of james says we are to care for widows and orphans and the poor - that means Haiti now!!!
But read post 60 again.
Jesus said people were wrong to ask if sinners who died in accidents were getting their just deserts.
Instead he said that everyone should repent and believe in him or they would get the same.
I dont believe God takes any pleasure in the destruction of people and I believe he is grieved by the suffering all over the world today.
I also believe Christs message still stands; we all need to turn around to him and believe. I believe the love he displayed on the cross and still gives today is more than adequate reason to follow him.
Interesting points from Billy Gramham here about suffering and God on 911
http://www.seekgod.ca/billy.htm
See also my post 60.
OT
Complain about this comment
OT,
What you have not mentioned about Christ is that he is the creator God who was wounded when Adam and Eve rebelled against him and brough sin and a curse to all creation.
In fairness, neither did Jesus. That, and pretty much everything you pile on afterwards is theological interpretation or extrapolation or blatant forgery (e.g. Revelation) piled on top. By the time we dig through all those teddies, there's not many pieces of "Christ" to find at the bottom of the toybox.
-H (Jesus's bestest pal)
Complain about this comment
H
The point is that ethics is prescriptive in nature. Now maybe the whole enterprise is a mistake ("error theory"), but take away the prescriptiveness and you don't have ethics anymore.
Of course different virtues 'compete' in different situations. So there's no simple algorithm to tell us what is ethically required in every situation. And we make mistakes, and cultures make mistakes, about morality...at least, we change our minds.
None of which counts against objective ethics in the slightest.
Hopefully I can get back to this on Monday. Gotta dash. saty out of the cross hairs guys.
GV
Complain about this comment
OT, i dont think anyone could have said that any better and i truly believe that those words are not of yours but of the Holy Spirit which has touched your heart and directed your path. May the Lord Bless You and please continue praying for the people of Haiti and the unbelievers on this site. It saddens me when men talk down on our loving father who pours out his grace and mercy on us daily. Men from the beginning of time have turned their backs on God, worshipped false idols, Deny his existence and continue to sin but once something happens we want to blame the same Father who has warned us about taking that narrow path that leads to destruction. With tears in my eyes, my heart mourns for those will eventually receive eternal damnation. If they only knew! God does not take pleasure in seeing his creation stray away and destry themselves but he has given us "FREE WILL", and because he is such a gentlemen he respects our choices. All we can do is what CHRIST commanded us to do by showing compassion to those in need and pour out Agape love despite their error. How great is this God that has saved even myself from my own selfish desires which guaranteed a place for me in hell.He is worthy to be praised even if he decides not to move in this situation but because his GIFTS & WORDS are irrevocable we know our prayers will be answered for our brothers and sisters. Do good to everyone even the ones who persecute and hurt us in JESUS CHRIST NAME!Thanks again for the TRUTH which brings LIGHT to anyone who chooses to believe.
Complain about this comment
The following article may be well worth a read for those possessing anything remotely approaching an open mind (but I would advise those with a different - and more prejudgmental - cognitive orientation not to trouble themselves):
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/17/haiti.earthquake.faith/
I am aware that there are those observers who think that there is a "simple" explanation (with great emphasis on the word "simple") for the Haitians' faith (see the last few paragraphs of the article) - to paraphrase: "It's 'cos they're poor, and they've got to believe in something." Oh, how cute. And how pathetically patronising.
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to those who proffer this deeply profound and complex analysis, that their "theory" should also be applied consistently to those who believe other stuff (such as those beliefs which are at variance with Christianity). Wow, this really is an intellectually demanding proposition: "He believes something because he's got to believe something." (I think I'll go and lie down in a dark room and try and get my head round that one! If I think that I don't need to believe anything, can I then succeed in not believing anything? But if I am aware that I am not believing anything, do I not then have a belief, which is "I believe that I am not believing anything" - and so I contradict myself. Perhaps the answer is to just stop thinking or being conscious at all!!)
It seems to me that for all the theodicean arguments about suffering, it is those who actually experience personal suffering who have the most right to expatiate on the matter. And, from the sounds of it (tut tut, relying on empirical evidence, no less!) it seems that there is no mass "conversion" to atheism in Haiti as a result of the earthquake. I know this will disappoint our resident evangelist of the "Great Omission" (a.k.a. "Jesus's bestest pal"), but there ya have it, mate!! It's called "evidence". (Well, I suppose he has enough work on his hands trying to convert the Chuckle Brothers, as I've just been reading on the other thread).
Now, I wonder whether this post passes the great RJB test (#137)? Because if it has, I will consider myself to have failed.
Complain about this comment
OK sandra, I hereby declare a Poe ;-)
Complain about this comment
Following the logic of certain people on this thread -
Voodoo is a great evil and the people of Haiti are now suffering punishment from God for indulging in it.
A far greater evil is the Catholic Church, especially the anti-Christ Pope and all his minions. (Nobody mentioned Haiti on this site until a week ago.)
When can we expect the Vatican earthquake/plague of luminous green frogs/famine/drought?
Bit of a problem in basic logic there, dontcha think?
I'm now desperately trying to think what the poor of Darfur did to deserve their plight? Perhaps they should have put more in the church plate.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Hocus Poecus, perhaps.
Complain about this comment
@Sandra,
The truth is that even though there are children, adults, christians, catholics etc. who have been affected by this disaster, the truth still should be revealed... so please send food, water, money ect. but please remember that to lift up the people in prayer and ask the Lord to touch their hearts and allow them to take heed to his word and laws.
(your quote)
I believe Catholics are Christians (i.e. "believe in Jesus Christ"). And, I agree with some of the things you're saying. However,even if i was/were to meet God right now, I would not want to be found dead supporting these particular Pat Robertson-comments. (Just in case anyone finds himself/herself forgeting, this is Pat Robertson . . . you know, THE Pat Robertson, the dude from the 700 Club). He sure is "touching" the Haiti people's [and the rest of the world] hearts now . . . Negatively, that is. Couldn't agree more. I know what to pick and what not to pick from this person.In particular, I agree with him on Human Rights issues. But when someone starts with the "I know why this happened" smartness . . . I'm out.
I remain out.
Let's not forget too, that Christians have taken it upon themselves to divide the church into "desirable sections". We could spend the whole day naming them. If only I din't have better things to do with my time, I would name them :)
Complain about this comment
Sumi, Sandra's (and Pat Robertson's) comments are deeply UNCHRISTIAN; they fly in the face of EXPLICIT teaching from Jesus himself, which is why I made the Tower of Siloam remark. Far be it from me to defend Christian theodicy (theo-idiocy, more like), but the message from Jesus is very clear - you CANNOT blame people (or their ancestors) for natural disasters.
So, for once, proper Christians are correct in this - this terrible disaster is NOT the judgement of god (unless they think Jesus is a liar). Robertson and Sandra-Poe are being deeply heretical and unbiblical.
Complain about this comment
H, I can't even begin to understand how anyone finds these comments useful at this point. I had to turn my tellie off at the sight of Haiti children and full grown adults crying in devastation,the same reason why I forwarded some parts of the Blood Diamond DVD I got to watch only last month.But I guess I'm missing something here. The good thing is that I don't want to get it :)
I should make it clear too, that I don't agree with all of TV Entertainer[Evangelist my foot!] Robertson's comments on human rights matters . . . certainly not. He called for someone's assassination. French leader, I think it was. But that's another story. I wonder what Entertainer Robertson would say about death sentencing . . .
Complain about this comment
Sumi, Helio
I am already on record as saying that I think it is presumptious to say that God actively brought this judgement upon Haiti.
Now, I would be most grateful if either of you could explain how you are so sure that God *didnt* bring judgement on Haiti.
I suggest that unless we are certain we have heard from God on such issues, we might approach the issue of presuming to speak on his behalf to the world with a little fear and humility.
Isnt that reasonable?
Sumi - you describe yourself above as "very Christian, born and bred".
Can you see that *if* we are both talking about the God of the bible that he has in times passed and will in the future pour out judgements on mankind, and that in complete keeping with his character of love, mercy and truth?
If we are agreed that we are not all talking about the God of the bible then at least we know where we stand and that you are talking about some other god or concept of God.
It appears to me that people are flailing out at the idea of an Almighty and loving God who most certainly does have wrath as part of his character - according to the bible.
Why? For some people there is denial, rebellion, rejection of accountability, pride, and hatred of God.
Paul says:
"For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? 17Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God."
I'm not presuming to speak for God about Haiti.
What about you Sumi?
Have you ever met any of those Americans or English people who visit Northern Ireland and begin to pontificate about things here when they are obviously so out of their depth about what the dynamics are here?
Makes you cringe doesnt it?
Well, at least the self righteous on this thread might take a moment before dishing out verbal lashings to Sandra.
At least she is from Haiti and if you read her threads she obviously has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF VOODOO in comparison to all the wooly liberals who just think that all religious beliefs must be treated equally regardless of what harm they may cause.
Voodo has obviously caused a major part in this disaster, because it causes fatalism and passivity that will not only hinder recovery but has also compounded the impact of the earthquakes because there was no infrasture or proper building control codes before it hit;-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6990002.ece
Sumi. Just be quiet for a minute and think - Sandra speaks authentically for a very sizeable proportion of Haiti;-
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/01/pat-robertson-haiti-cursed-by-devil.html
Haitins do generally believe their land is cursed and it behoves you to show a little humilty and find out from one of them why rather than just get on your high horse about it and presume you know everything.
Note, I am not saying they are cursed, I dont understand such things, but show a little humility.
You might even start by asking Sandra if she has any friends and family affected by the disaster.
That goes for you too Helio.
Oh I forgot, you know everything.
OT
Complain about this comment
Quite sensible comment on the dangers of practising voodoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1uhmnNnmL8
Complain about this comment
#21 - Sumi-Assumpter Akumu -
"Is anyone else wondering why 'prophets' emerge only AFTER bad things happen?"
You've made a very valid point here, Sumi.
If Pat Robertson was really speaking under the authority of God, then why did he not warn the people of Haiti - before the event - that an earthquake was on the way, because of the supposed curse the nation was under? Now that would have given him some spiritual credibility.
We all know the well-worn cliche about hindsight, don't we? How all the self-proclaimed prophets and spiritual pundits crawl out of the woodwork "after the event"! There is a type of "prophet" who thinks that if he can emphasise God's wrath and judgment to the detriment of His love, that somehow he will be regarded as spiritually authentic.
Here's a notorious example (without naming names): according to one so-called prophet (analysing, of course, "after the event"), God sent prophetic warnings to the UK in 1987, including:
March 1987 - the sinking of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" killing 193 people. Apparently the name of the ferry had something to do with the disaster (oh, so the idea of "free enterprise" is evil? Let's all become Communists then. Trouble is that the Commies historically haven't exactly extended the hand of friendship to Christians, have they? Bit of a problem there, then.)
Then we have in August the Hungerford massacre, followed by the great storm in October (judgment on the south of England apparently, because it's "richer") and the stock market crash in the same month, and then an event occurred in November 1987 which is of particular personal interest to me: the King's Cross fire in London - a tragedy that I and my wife escaped by the skin of our teeth.
Given that we escaped the King's Cross disaster by the narrowest of margins, do I therefore think that those who died on that fateful evening were under the wrath of God (whereas we were not)? Perish the thought! I remember shortly after the disaster walking past the entrance to King's Cross tube and seeing the memorial there and feeling a great sense of sorrow and compassion to those who had died. The idea that my Christian faith required me to fit the fate of these people into some kind of neat theological paradigm of God's judgment disgusts me, quite frankly.
It's true that God may chastise people and nations. However... when I was a child and some other boy at school got the cane (don't be squeamish now, if you're a bit PC), did I then self-righteously start baiting and telling him to "learn the lesson" from his experience? He probably would have said to me (along with the appropriate and fully deserved "body language" in my visage) that "it's none of your business". To add to someone's punishment in that way with smarmy self-righteous comments was unheard of. The teacher dished out the punishment and we just got on with it. End of. As kids we may have been nasty to each other at times, but from what I recall, no one ever "rubbed salt in the wounds" when a boy was punished by a teacher. How the young can sometimes be so much wiser than the not-so-young!
The tendency for a phalanx of self-appointed finger-pointers to emerge at times of disaster to pronounce "I told you so's" on the unfortunates whose lives are crushed by disaster and tragedy is truly an appalling phenomenon.
If God is judging Haiti then that is for the Haitians to decide and discern. It is not for Pat - or anyone else fancying themselves as God's favourites (or "teacher's pet") - to start making unsubstantiated pronouncements "after the event" in order to sound appropriately prophetic.
Complain about this comment
Sumi,
With all do respect, i do not think you have an ounce of knowledge for what you are talking about and this is why i continue to urge you all to pick up the Holy Bible and Read.First, of all you do not know what he has done in Haiti as far as warning and another my church and i visit Haiti every year with our Revival focusing on Spiritual Warfare and pleading with people to repent and Serve God. I do not understand how individuals who do not have an idea about our country, legacy, history ect. talk and act as if they know the solutions. Before we can solve any problem we must first get down to the root of that problem.I am haitian and am proud of it but i will never agree with the practices of my country. They are aware of the EVIL and everything considered UnGodly but because of ignorance, fear, greed or family traditions they continue to follow that path of unrighteousness. It baffles me when someone who claims to be a believer acts worse then the pagans. Read Your Bible and stop leaning on your own Understandings. We are on our way to my country tomorrow to give Aid, food, water and Spread the Word. I would appreciate it if everyone would put their foolish thinking aside and Pray for my people.Another thing, not that i really want to start this conversation.... Christians and Catholics are completly different my friend.
Exodus 20: 4-6
You shall not make for yourself an idol (Virgin Mary or Saints)in he form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love top a thousand generations of those who love me ans keep my commandments.
Like i said maybe Pat maybe touched some nerves but God Words should passed on even during a disaster. The truth shall set everyone free!
Complain about this comment
OT,
Thank you so much for standing up despite anything and speaking for the truth. We need believers like you to pray even when nobody else accepts the possibilities, humble themselves and pray. The prayers of a righteous man avails much, so please continue praying for my people and lift me & my church up also. Yes i have lost 9 relatives but thank God 1 gave their lives to Christ just 2 weeks ago after a long history of being an instrument for Satan. Thank God! we are all grieving but what gives me hope is the fact that God is still showing his grace and Mercy to my uncle who has done unspeakable things in life,and was stuck under the rubble for 4 days but got rescued and told me that after calling to the evil spirits he served and not getting an answer, he surrendered to Christ after hearing for 4 nights.... recognize me as Lord & Savior or perish for life.
I would love for science to explain that!
Complain about this comment
Sandra, with all due respect:) I don't know what happened in Haiti in the past. As I said, I can't possibly know that, as I am neither Haitian nor a 'prophet'. I have also never been to Haiti. What I know about Haiti is what the media has told me. I just know that an earthquake took place and that one Robertson claims to know why it happened.
By the way, Catholics believe in Jesus Christ. (Read 'existence, death and resurrection.' Was it not Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was persecuted? Or was it virgin Mary who died on the cross?) I centrainly don't want to get into this either . . . been there, done that . . . not worth arguing about. Reminds me of us Christians arguing about the worship-day .It should be Saturday! It's THE Sabbath day! No it should be Sunday! No, Saturday! No, Sunday! . . . :)Yeh! Yoh! This! That!
Logica, call me Sumi, please. I concur. We all know the well-worn cliche about hindsight, don't we? How all the self-proclaimed prophets and spiritual pundits crawl out of the woodwork "after the event"! There is a type of "prophet" who thinks that if he can emphasise God's wrath and judgment to the detriment of His love, that somehow he will be regarded as spiritually authentic...(i can only smile at this quote).
Because we all know how many Christianity sections we have in the world today, I am one person who CHOOSES not to "adore" some pastor, priest or evangelist in the name of "man/woman of God". When I want to pray, I just pray:) I have a bible. I can pray in church, while driving, swimming, eating etc. When I go to church, i listen, when they say crazy things I still listen, but it gets out through the other ear. I always remind myself they are human beings, not God. This has put in a bit of a situation with people. But it doesn't bother me. I just choose how to live my life. I don't need someone shouting in my ear-drums and making me fall down in the name "Halleluh-II-aa! Praise the LO-I-DA! Jesus is Heee-iii-a! Repent! You sinner! Someone say E-ME-NA!" Oh please . . . Needless to say, the ones who shout loudest get caught in crimes beyond understanding. If I gave a few names you would find them on Google facing charges that even failed drug lords have never tasted:) But hey, they are human beings. No one's perfect. Tutut! The key term here is "human beings"
OT, I'm quite a good listener, trust me:) I am not disagreeing with all of Sandra's comments. In fact, she points out a number of important things in Christianity. It's the way she puts herself across that can be a bit worrying. She thinks people are "foolish" not to agree with her:) See that's quite um . . . err . . . interesting. I can't say it was NOT God's doing either. To be honest, as Sandra said, I don't know. What I think, and what i keep repeating, is that none of these comments are helping anyone. Yeah yeah, you knew this and that would happen, great.Sure. How smart.The death toll is over 11,000 now. Still, i knew this-i knew that is not ending.
Complain about this comment
And, Sandra, I'm very sorry about your family's situation. I don't believe in witchcraft and all the curses stuff. I just believe the good and the bad happens on planet earth. The reason why . . . I don't know. At least not at this stage.
Complain about this comment
Helio - # 161. At last. A post with which I agree 100%.
Sumi - a belated welcome to the blog.
OT and Sandra - my view of God does allow for His being in any way ever active in the world. If I could consider that he was in any way responsible for the Haitian earthquake I would feel I had no option whatsoever but to repudiate him, to oppose him, and to take the consequences. Fortunately I know the approximate causes of the disaster and I know that God had nothing whatever to do with it.
Complain about this comment
"Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart of God", as the founder of World Vision said.
Complain about this comment
I just have to clear up something here.
I am not saying that God caused the Haiti disaster.
But what I certainly am saying is that a certain idolatrous image of God often comes to the fore in the media when there is a disaster.
The lie goes something like this- God is good and loving and loves mankind, therefore he would never deliberately cause any pain to mankind.
This mindset suggests that we, mankind, are totally at peace with God and that God is totally at peace with mankind.
The problem is that if we are using the biblical record nothing could be further from the truth.
We, mankind, are and always have been running from God, rebelling against God and our sin has seperated us from him.
Global revolts take place against God at Noah's flood, babel, the battle of Armageddon and the murder of Christ too, if you will permit.
Christ said that most people would go down the broad road to destruction and few would find the narrow road to salvation.
We only have to look at the global oppression of the poor, wars, slaughter of the unborn, massive corruption and worship of devils, idols wood, metal and stone, even in the most civilised country to get a flavour.
Would a true and loving God just ignore all of this?
Mankind is too proud to admit that he needs God.
The God that is projected at times like this is a God in a world where man never fell, where he is essentially good and can bring himself up to an moral standard that is acceptable to God.
In other words it is a world where Calvary is not needed, where Christ's sacrifice is offensive, divisive, embarrassing.
The suggestion that mankind is rebellious and must trust Christ and turn his life around -and those that suggest this- are offensive, divisive and embarrassing.
The reason that this is all so offensive is that it is exceptionally offensive to suggest to man that we are sinners that need to take action to be right with God.
That is why this message is offensive - to pride.
It is not saying that Haitians are sinners and there land is cursed. It is much more serious than that;-
The whole earth is cursed since Eden and all mankind are sinners! This is entirely consistent with his sermon on the twoer of siloam.
As for the suggestion that this has nothing to do with a loving God, look at Calvary.
God could not have done more to demonstrate his love and reconcile us to him.
We are, if you like, a prodigal world, and the picture of a father longing for his son to return is a picture of God longing for a rebellious world to turn back.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem as he pronounced that its rebellions would cause its destruction.
He then prayed for the forgiveness of those that murdered him.
There is the picture of a loving and compassionate God, weeping over the judgement that mankind brings open ourselves.
To suggest or imply that God does allows/causes judgment in love flies in the face of the entire biblical record and any normal earthly picture of a responsible father.
In comparison to the biblical record it is at best an image of somewhat wishful thinking by Christians not yet interested in meat, and still on milk.
At worst it is an idolatrous falee image of Yaweh by a planet that will not face the biggest choice it must make for a saviour that gave his all for us.
OT
Complain about this comment
LSV complained earlier about people who emphasise God's anger.
My posts in this thread have majored on the judgement of God and the judgement that sin brings upon itself aside from God simply because we have airbrushed these important and glaring biblical facts from out of the Christian faith today.
I concurr with so much of what has been said about Gods mercy and love at this time, and I am drawing attention to this glaring ommission because I believe it is a dark and dangerous lie so imply that there is no justice or holiness or anger in God's character.
---------------------------
I am just reposting that last entry because I left so many typos in the one before;-
I just have to clear up something here.
I am not saying that God caused the Haiti disaster.
But what I certainly am saying is that a certain idolatrous image of God often comes to the fore in the media when there is a disaster.
The lie goes something like this- God is good and loving and loves mankind, therefore he would never deliberately cause any pain to mankind.
This mindset suggests that we, mankind, are totally at peace with God and that God is totally at peace with mankind.
The problem is that if we are using the biblical record nothing could be further from the truth.
We, mankind, are and always have been running from God, rebelling against God and our sin has seperated us from him.
Global revolts take place against God at Noah's flood, babel, the battle of Armageddon and the murder of Christ too, if you will permit.
Christ said that most people would go down the broad road to destruction and few would find the narrow road to salvation.
We only have to look at the global oppression of the poor, wars, slaughter of the unborn, massive corruption and worship of devils, idols wood, metal and stone, even in the most civilised country to get a flavour.
Would a true and loving God just ignore all of this?
Mankind is too proud to admit that he needs God.
The God that is projected at times like this is a God in a world where man never fell, where he is essentially good and can bring himself up to a moral standard that is acceptable to God.
In other words it is a world where Calvary is not needed, where Christ's sacrifice is offensive, divisive, embarrassing.
And the suggestion that mankind is rebellious and must trust Christ and turn his life around -and those that suggest this- are offensive, divisive and embarrassing.
The reason that this is all so controlversial is that it is exceptionally offensive to suggest to man that we are sinners that need to take action to be right with God.
That is why this message is offensive - to pride.
It is not saying that Haitians are sinners and there land is cursed.
It is much more serious than that;-
The whole earth is cursed since Eden and all mankind are sinners!
This is entirely consistent with his sermon on the tower of siloam.
As for the suggestion that this has nothing to do with a loving God, look at Calvary.
God could not have done more to demonstrate his love on that cross and reconcile us to him.
We are, if you like, a prodigal world, and the picture of a father longing for his son to return is a picture of God longing for a rebellious world to turn back.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem as he pronounced that its rebellion would cause its destruction.
He also prayed for the forgiveness of those that murdered him while on the cross.
There is the picture of a loving and compassionate God, weeping over the judgement that mankind brings open ourselves.
To suggest or imply that God never allows/causes judgment (in love) flies in the face of the entire biblical record and any normal earthly picture of a responsible father.
In comparison to the biblical record it is at best an image of somewhat wishful thinking by Christians not yet interested in meat, and still on milk.
At worst it is an idolatrous false image of Yaweh by a planet that will not face the biggest choice it must make for a saviour that gave his all for us.
OT
Complain about this comment
#172 - OT -
"The lie goes something like this- God is good and loving and loves mankind, therefore he would never deliberately cause any pain to mankind."
Well, the antecedent ("God is good and loving and loves mankind") is most certainly not a lie, but the consequent ("therefore he would never deliberately cause any pain to mankind.") could be a lie, but only on the basis of a particular interpretation of the word "deliberately".
Lamentations 3:33 - "For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men."
If "deliberately" means "willingly", then your statement is false, and therefore it is absolutely true that God does not "willingly" cause any pain to anyone. If you take out the word "deliberately" then I would agree that the statement you condemn is indeed false. So what I agree is false is the following statement:
"God is good and loving and loves mankind, therefore he would never (even out of necessity) cause any pain to mankind."
Of course, we then have to ask why God would cause pain to man out of necessity. The answer is given as "sin". You are quite right about that. But then we have to define "sin". Does it include what is termed "original sin"?
You wrote: "The whole earth is cursed since Eden and all mankind are sinners!" I assume therefore that you are suggesting that God is angry or has to be angry with people because of original sin - and the unavoidable outworking of original sin.
If God has to be angry with people because of this magical thing called "original sin", then man is a victim of injustice, since no one chose to be born with this deterministic proclivity to do wrong. Is a fertilised egg in the womb a 'child of wrath', because of the sin of Adam? Does every newborn baby "deserve" to be slung into the fires of hell, because of some unfortunate episode thousands of years in the past, over which that baby had absolutely no control? When a baby is born and snuggled in his mother's arms with his or her mother looking at her child with delight, is God, at the same time, looking at that little baby with eyes of unquenchable anger and revulsion? Because that would be true if God judged anyone on the basis of original sin, and such a 'god' is, I am pleased and relieved to announce, completely unknown to me.
Why did God create us with minds, if he then expects us to believe in a "square circle"? Because it is as easy to believe in a square circle as it is to believe that anyone "deserves" any kind of punishment at all because of original sin. And if the inevitable outworking of original sin is that everyone is completely bound into a vicious circle of evil thoughts and actions, from which it is impossible to escape, then what is there to repent of? I can understand that God may condemn someone for refusing to accept the gift of eternal life, but it is a travesty of logic and justice to suggest that anyone should repent of something that, from the moment of conception, they had absolutely no choice but to do!
This is why I believe that the idea that 'the whole human race is separated from God' because of the fall cannot be true. In fact the Bible does not present this idea. If we look at what happened after the fall we see that Adam and Eve were not completely separated from a relationship with God (otherwise how did they bring up Abel to be a godly man?), and even Cain was not completely separated from God (have a careful reading of Genesis 4). In Genesis 4:14 Cain's fear was expressed thus: "I shall be hidden from your face..." This, of course, proves that even shortly after Cain had murdered Abel he still had some kind of relationship with God (even though he was "of the wicked one" - 1 John 3:12, which obviously logically has a limited meaning). Yes, it's a shocking idea, but it's there in the text.
But this "absolute separation from God" - "original sin" - "total depravity" paradigm is constantly promoted as the only acceptable interpretation of the Bible. And from this it is reasoned that anyone who dies not having "come to Christ" - in the acceptable way - by default is sent to hell (to get what they deserve because of the sin of Adam). Now I think that that way of thinking is actually quite proud. The whole idea of making assumptions about other people's lives, and what God can and can't do even in the lives of those who "think differently from me", is presumption, and a denial of the sovereignty of God - and indeed a denial of the uniqueness of Christ, whose saving work is not dependent on human consciousness of it, but is effective on the basis of God's power alone.
There seems to be an acute embarrassment in some quarters about the idea of "the love of God", as if such an idea should not be believed too much, otherwise we will slip into weak lily-livered 'liberalism'! We so much prefer a God who punishes those who think differently from us. We love our exclusive theologies which include me and exclude those who differ from me. These neat and tidy theologies are the real spiritual idols, that we are often tempted to worship.
I am well aware that the Bible says a great deal about judgment - and I thoroughly agree in a God who judges evil. In fact, a God who does not judge evil, would himself be evil. But how do we define evil? God's judgment is based on his law. And what is the law of God itself based on? The answer: love. "Love is the fulfilment of the law" (Romans 13:10) and on the two greatest commandments (to love God and one's neighbour) "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). This is further supported by James 2:13 - "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." Judgment here is based on the ethical principle of "mercy" - nothing to do with original sin or "the curse of Eden". What about: "Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7)?
Therefore "sin" is defined as a transgression against love, not against some arbitrarily imposed scheme set up by a fickle God, who punishes people for the sins of the fathers.
OT, you are right to talk about the judgment of God, because it is there in the Bible. But, in view of your comments, I suspect that I very seriously differ from you on how we interpret the meaning of and justification for that judgment. God is angry against those who commit evil, but "evil" should not glibly be defined as simply "wrong thinking", "wrong culture", "human weakness", "inherited weakness" etc. Evil is a clear moral choice - a wilful rejection of the love of God, a love which God has clearly shown (actually in experience, not merely potentially in the gospel story) to the one being judged.
Complain about this comment
havent seen your latest post LSV - have to run but just in advance, I wasnt taking offence and welcome your input.
I dont have a problem with you disagreeing with me, and I hope I havent picked you up wrong.
regds
OT
Complain about this comment
You know, I'm still amazed that the only person on this Blog who is actually from Haiti and has first hand knowledge of what voodo is, is treated with such utter contempt and derision here, ie Sandra.
so much for us educated and enlightened westerners!
Complain about this comment
#176 - OT-
"You know, I'm still amazed that the only person on this Blog who is actually from Haiti and has first hand knowledge of what voodo is, is treated with such utter contempt and derision here, ie Sandra."
This is rather a sweeping statement, OT. Would you mind being a bit more specific as to who exactly is treating Sandra with "such utter contempt and derision"?
I am aware that one particular contributor has made statements that could possibly be interpreted in that vein, but others have disagreed with certain points Sandra has made without, as far as I can see, showing "derision and contempt". I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that an act of disagreeing with Sandra equates to an act of treating her with contempt and derision? Because if that is the case, then there goes freedom of speech!
My only contention with Sandra is the fact that she expects us to agree with Pat Robertson, but I have certainly upheld her right to express her views.
Complain about this comment
Crikey - LSV says some things that Helio at least partially agrees with! Hold the front page! Will - block off an hour of next week's SunSeq!
Sandra is not being treated with derision or contempt. She has certain views that are facile, that are demonstrably silly, and the errors of these have been pointed out. But to suggest that a vigorous challenge to these views is out of order is rather silly.
Many people who frequent this delightful blog are atheists. Some call themselves Christians, but are more interested in bangs and smoke than love. Many are Christians who regard the comments of Robertson to be those of someone of less than admirable moral fibre. Most of them recognise that IF Robertson is correct, then God himself cannot be admired, other than the way we admire insane rulers like Herod the Great or Stalin; God cannot be loved; God cannot presume to have the right to define morality. If Robertson is right, then all the lofty arguments for the existence of god, based on morality, free will, immanence, etc. become as chaff and are blown away upon the breeze. We are left with a god who is no more than a petulant storm deity, completely comparable to Ba'al, Molech or Quetzalcoatl.
I'm not interested in such a god. If I'm wrong, and it does exist, I'd rather spend eternity in hell than bow the knee to this narcissistic tyrant. Which is dandy. How much more rebellious can one be to assert higher moral standards than the divinity? There you go. Exhibit A: Helio. And I know a lot of Christians on this blog would stand with me (wouldn't you, guys? ... guys?!).
So I say to Robertson's & Sandra's cheap idol: Bring it on, big lad - IF you think you're hard enough.
Complain about this comment
Helio, the William Shakespeare of the net. Well put.
Complain about this comment
With you on this one Helio.
Complain about this comment
Helio, Helio, wherefore art thou?
or
Is this a pixie I see before me?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If Christians believe in the Justice, judgement, and omnipotence of God then we have to conclude at the very least - God *allowed* this earthquake to happen - otherwise he would not be all knowing.
Any judgement God brings upon a nation - be it a natural disaster or otherwise - is perfect justice on a wicked people who refuse consistently to turn to what is right, and what is good.
Justice in society demands that evil deeds are punished and so does the justice of God.
The problem is when we see children killed. It is much harder to understand God's justice in such circumstances - and for me it is problematic.
Nevertheless I would like to think infants who die go to be with God - as I believe David's did. Therefore to *take* a child into heaven and away from poverty is a mercy.
Complain about this comment
Pont-Rouge a a refugee camp in Haiti where an evangelical revolution is gathering speed.
Reverend Sauverne Apollon said:
"When God speaks we must listen," said Apollon, known in Pont-Rouge as "le pasteur". "The earthquake is God's voice and He will do other things. The stars will crash down onto the earth."
Ouvida Alva a voodoo leader said:
"Whether you are a [Pentecostal] preacher, a Catholic priest or voodoo, it's the same. Humanity needs to say: 'Stop. Stop now. Stop the sinning'
The rest of the world may not believe God allowed this earthquake to happen, but the Haitians *know* he did, and realise they need to stop sinning.
After judgement - comes grace and help - now is the time to help spiritualy and practically.
Go on Helio give the standard atheist response about the megalomaniac tyrant who you believe to be God.
I think you would love a far left fluffy God who judges nothing, and allows evil to run rampant
Complain about this comment
Auntjason
If no children had been killed, would it have been okay then? I reject totally this notion that children's lives are somehow more sacred or worth more than the lives of any other human beings.
The scriptural 'little ones' are not prebuscent children. They are the poor, the marginalised, the uneducated, the guilt ridden, the oppressed, the hopeless sinners, the compassionate, etc..
Why did an earthquake in Mexico kill tens of thousands when an earthquake which measured less on the Richter scale in San Francisco killed only a few in comparison? Would poverty have anything to do with it?
What was the sin of the people of Soweto when they were mowed down so mercilessly? Or the dozens of poor who were shot dead on the steps of the Cathedral in San Salvador?
Why does God very rarely attack the obscenely rich, the arms dealers, corrupt and greedy multi-national company directors and shareholders? Are you actually saying that 6 million Jews deserved to be gassed?
Finally, what if your family were wiped out completely in some tragedy and you were the only one left. How would you FEEL if some numpty started calling them sinners and saying that it was God's justice visited upon them?
If God really does target those who perpetrate real evil in this world, he's not a very good aimer is he?
Complain about this comment
I can agree with Helio that "Petulant Storm Deities" should not be worshipped.
But I think Christians are more likely to portray God as "My Invisible Best Friend" than a "Petulant Storm Deity."
GV
Complain about this comment
"My Invisible Best Friend" than a...@GV, I fall here :)
No one REALLY knows! I totally agree.
My mama always tells us it is better to live thinking He is there and find out later He exists, than live like He isn't there and find out in the end He actually does :) If He doesn't exist, you will have done good anyway (sorry to bore you up with "my mama" quotes here) She also told us not to despise people's religions thinking yours in best, just do good:that's what MOST good and true religions practice. As a child I didn't find this hard to live with.I still don't.Just a way of improving my 'this is bad-this is good' knowledge. When I see a crawling insect in a rotten apple, I won't eat the apple, I throw it away:) Some people eat it . . . that doest mean "apples are bad for you" does it? LOL! I know the same way my mama told me this is the same way another parent tells his/her kid "Kill them all! Do it for your religion!":)
I also believe in the bit about doing good to receive good. It is not hard to see the good in all the many religions of the world. You just pick the good bits and trash the crazy bits...and life goes on:) Who knows whose religion is best? Not me! People are allowed to express their views here,I believe? Some people find it offensive to be disagreed with. Why engage in a discussion then? Have a monologue instead.
(**eerrr ...testing testing...still speaking for Sumi here, not some religion**)
@Parrhasios thanks for that reception:)
@Romejellybeen, your analysis is very challenging. He certainly isn't a very good aimer, if He does target evil.
Complain about this comment
LSV SAID: I assume therefore that you are suggesting that God is angry or has to be angry with people because of original sin - and the unavoidable outworking of original sin.
I SAY: No, I understand that God is angry with all people who willfully live against their conscience and revealed knowledge of God, including those who disdain Calvary.
LSV SAID: If God has to be angry with people because of this magical thing called "original sin", then man is a victim of injustice, since no one chose to be born with this deterministic proclivity to do wrong. Is a fertilised egg in the womb a 'child of wrath', because of the sin of Adam? Does every newborn baby "deserve" to be slung into the fires of hell, because of some unfortunate episode thousands of years in the past, over which that baby had absolutely no control? When a baby is born and snuggled in his mother's arms with his or her mother looking at her child with delight, is God, at the same time, looking at that little baby with eyes of unquenchable anger and revulsion? Because that would be true if God judged anyone on the basis of original sin, and such a 'god' is, I am pleased and relieved to announce, completely unknown to me.
I SAY: Phew, thats a relief LSV because that kind of God is also unknown to me, glad we are on the same page on this one. My understanding, limited as it is, is that every child is born in sin, but is innocent in God's eyes until it reaches an age where he or she chooses sin in violation of conscience, a personal Eden experience for every person if you like. If this was not a reality, where are the morally perfect people who defy the rule (aside from Helio of course, we all know he's perfect ;-) )
LSV SAID: Why did God create us with minds, if he then expects us to believe in a "square circle"? Because it is as easy to believe in a square circle as it is to believe that anyone "deserves" any kind of punishment at all because of original sin. And if the inevitable outworking of original sin is that everyone is completely bound into a vicious circle of evil thoughts and actions, from which it is impossible to escape, then what is there to repent of?
I SAID: Who said that sin was impossible to escape from? Isnt this exactly the opposite of the entire Christian message of the cross and the reason Christ said he came? What about Romans 7& 8?
LSV SAID: I can understand that God may condemn someone for refusing to accept the gift of eternal life, but it is a travesty of logic and justice to suggest that anyone should repent of something that, from the moment of conception, they had absolutely no choice but to do!
I SAID: I think I have addressed this above ref personal Eden.
LSV SAID: This is why I believe that the idea that 'the whole human race is separated from God' because of the fall cannot be true. In fact the Bible does not present this idea. If we look at what happened after the fall we see that Adam and Eve were not completely separated from a relationship with God (otherwise how did they bring up Abel to be a godly man?), and even Cain was not completely separated from God (have a careful reading of Genesis 4). In Genesis 4:14 Cain's fear was expressed thus: "I shall be hidden from your face..." This, of course, proves that even shortly after Cain had murdered Abel he still had some kind of relationship with God (even though he was "of the wicked one" - 1 John 3:12, which obviously logically has a limited meaning). Yes, it's a shocking idea, but it's there in the text.
I SAID: LSV I take your point that God is omnipresent and of course can hear us; there are many truths in scripture that MUST be held in tension. But I suggest that an analogy might be to ask if you could be good friends with someone who defines evil in your eyes. Of course you couldnt. You couldnt stand to be friends with them. My understanding is that because God is so unimagineably holy, even the most morally upright of us seem evil to him. "All our righteousness is as filthy rags". That is not an insult to "morally upright" people, it is a comment on God's perfection, beside which we appear as filthy rags in comparison.
Not a message that proud people can accept.
LSV SAID: But this "absolute separation from God" - "original sin" - "total depravity" paradigm is constantly promoted as the only acceptable interpretation of the Bible. And from this it is reasoned that anyone who dies not having "come to Christ" - in the acceptable way - by default is sent to hell (to get what they deserve because of the sin of Adam). Now I think that that way of thinking is actually quite proud. The whole idea of making assumptions about other people's lives, and what God can and can't do even in the lives of those who "think differently from me", is presumption, and a denial of the sovereignty of God - and indeed a denial of the uniqueness of Christ, whose saving work is not dependent on human consciousness of it, but is effective on the basis of God's power alone.
I SAID: Again, glad to say I couldnt agree with you more on this LSV. CS Lewis that the bible is actually silent about the issue for example of what happens to "good" people who never hear of Christ. Romans 1.
It is just as presumptous IMO to opine on an individual's eternal destiny as it is to opine that x,y,z disaster was carried out by God for a,b,c reason (unless you have actually heard from God on said matters) - which is why I do neither
(listening Helio? RJB? Parrahasios?.
However, I am not so sure that man has no part in his own salvation, from what I can see freewill and predestination are both clearly taught in scripture. Again, truths in tension.
LSV SAID: There seems to be an acute embarrassment in some quarters about the idea of "the love of God", as if such an idea should not be believed too much, otherwise we will slip into weak lily-livered 'liberalism'! We so much prefer a God who punishes those who think differently from us. We love our exclusive theologies which include me and exclude those who differ from me. These neat and tidy theologies are the real spiritual idols, that we are often tempted to worship.
I SAID: I am in no way embarrassed about the love of God, in no way. I have focussed on the judgement of God because there is an almost complete denial that God has anger and judgement as a portion of his character. And if people are worshipping an idol as a consequence and therefore unable to hear what God is saying in the most dire circumstances, would it be loving of me to stay silent and allow they to continue blind?
What can God say through pouring out judgement? read the book of Revelation.
And if you dont mind me saying LSV, you seem to have assumed my theology wrongly on many points, and then challenged me to give you a "neat and tidy" theology in response. I actually dont believe in neat and tidy theologies, they didnt seem to exist in the early church or NT, I suspect it is perhaps a narrowness of vision, insecurity and laziness that might make so many cling to such things as time progresses.
LSV SAID: I am well aware that the Bible says a great deal about judgment - and I thoroughly agree in a God who judges evil. In fact, a God who does not judge evil, would himself be evil.
I SAID: yes but it takes a brave man to admit that there is evil permenantly living in his own breast which he is powerless to stop of his own strength. Book of Romans chap 1-3.
LSV SAID: But how do we define evil? God's judgment is based on his law. And what is the law of God itself based on? The answer: love. "Love is the fulfilment of the law" (Romans 13:10) and on the two greatest commandments (to love God and one's neighbour) "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). This is further supported by James 2:13 - "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." Judgment here is based on the ethical principle of "mercy" - nothing to do with original sin or "the curse of Eden". What about: "Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7)?
Therefore "sin" is defined as a transgression against love, not against some arbitrarily imposed scheme set up by a fickle God, who punishes people for the sins of the fathers.
I SAID: I dont disagree with that but I sense you may be trying to sidestep Paul's understanding of sin in Romans. Forgive me if I am wrong. I think two helpful factors/explanations in understanding sin are violation of conscience (not infallible tho) and also self-centredness.
LSV SAID: OT, you are right to talk about the judgment of God, because it is there in the Bible. But, in view of your comments, I suspect that I very seriously differ from you on how we interpret the meaning of and justification for that judgment. God is angry against those who commit evil, but "evil" should not glibly be defined as simply "wrong thinking", "wrong culture", "human weakness", "inherited weakness" etc. Evil is a clear moral choice - a wilful rejection of the love of God, a love which God has clearly shown (actually in experience, not merely potentially in the gospel story) to the one being judged.
I SAID: I am glad that we agree that I am right to talk about the judgement of God becuase it is there in the bible. I know we dont see things the same, but hopefully you see I am not as unreasonable as you suspected. I understand you see evil as a moral choice. I do see it as willfully inherited, even in a very subtle form. IMO it is not a personal attack on the character of man to say we are all sinners but rather a comment on the nature and character of God, which is beyond words. IMO, the sin nature, no matter how subtle is a contagion that if allowed into heaven would start the whole history of suffering again there.
In my understanding this is all working together for good in this existence, for a limited time, as God sees who is choosing to be his children and who is choosing not to be. It is not neat and tidy for me to understand by any means.
I dont have and dont try to give trite explanations for the scale of suffering and apparent injustice in the world we see today. I have seen very little of it myself.
But by faith I trust that Christ has met, equalled and bested all the evil in history on the cross and that he is currently reeling in time in order to not just to end suffering and injustice but to completely compensate for them for time without end thereafter.
There is only one way to God I believe, but I also suspect there are many ways to Christ, perhaps even broader than you suspect LSV! Christ himself will judge that.
However I also take seriously Christ's words that most people would go down the broad road to destruction and that few would find the narrow path to life. Again, truths in tension.
I dont pretend to have pat answers for difficult questions but I'm making a small contribution here.
I also belive that the evil you speak of his a real and permenant inclination in myself that only Christ can really control.
OT
Complain about this comment
Sandra
My sincere sympathies on losing nine of your family in the Haiti earthquake. It must be very difficult to lose nine people and see such chaos and fear for the future in your home nation.
How are you feeling at the moment with all that is going on?
--------------------
LSV
I certainly wasnt thinking of you when I slammed the reaction Sandra has got on this blog but I do stand by my words.
Regardless of her religious opinions, she has been spoken down to and her suffering almost completely ignored while we pontificate to her about what is happening and why ....IN HER HOME COUNTRY!!!!
I suspect none of us lecturing her have ever been to Haiti nor know the first thing about voodoo as understood by Haitians themselves.
--------------------
Helio
Hopefully if you have read 188 you might realise that your last post against me inadvertantly knocked down a colossal straw man.
Happy to engage otherwise though.
Keep well.
OT
Complain about this comment
Sumi, your mama sounds like a wise lady. If the gods do exist, they will care more for how we relate to each other than how we *think* we relate to them. I don't think it is very likely that they will care much for the likes of Pat Robertson. So I suggest we live as if they *don't* exist; like this life is all we have, and all *anyone* has. I know that I don't have all the answers; as an atheist, my only real key insight is that I know that no-one else does either, and when they tell you that some religion represents the way, the truth and the life, they are invariably either lying or deluded.
Complain about this comment
OT,
Thanks for your sympathy. I am eturning home now from a 2 day mission in Haiti. I am doing well but the memories of what i had to witness first hand is disturbing.There is so much those people are lacking and what bothers me is that some of these items are things we throw away daily.
But i can that God can still provide the same way he has in the past.
I can say that despite disaster and the stench of death 1002 individuals came to Christ during evengelism service yesterday. Young & Older Adults were praising and worshipping after many burned & destroyed rings and pigments given to them for satanic practices.That is the best thing that i can say i have witnessed in my entire life.Trust me, God has truly blessed me with worldly objects but witnessing what i believe will change this country forever has made me feel fulfilled.
Continue praying and sending whatever you can. Anything as small as sanitary pads, alcohol and bandages.
Also.... Please do not mind anyone who has something negative to say about me or do not agree with my views. They did it to "Christ" so who am i? Nobody.
We just have to love them and humble ourselves!
Complain about this comment
Sumi,
Please take in to consideration that if you have Atheist agreeing with everything that you say then something is indeed wrong and there is a need for mind transformation.
God can do but you have to allow him.
Complain about this comment
RJB 185:
"What was the sin of the people of Soweto when they were mowed down so mercilessly? Or the dozens of poor who were shot dead on the steps of the Cathedral in San Salvador?"
We do not have God's understanding RJB - until we are able to know all a person has ever thought or ever done we have no right to judge God for taking the actions he does.
There are many different forms of suffering. Bad decisions, Justice for a wrong we have committed, innocent suffering, suffering for someone else, suffering because of rebellion against God ect.
Take the jews they have been against God for thousands of years and utterly refuse to acknowledge Christ.
It is my belief they brought suffering on themselves,because they refused God and therefore had NO protection against their perpetrators.
You go on about earthquakes - again God permits earthquakes and we can see by sandra's first hand experience the Haitians know that their Vodoo cannot save or protect them - so they are turning to the true God.
"Finally, what if your family were wiped out completely in some tragedy and you were the only one left. How would you FEEL if some numpty started calling them sinners and saying that it was God's justice visited upon them?"
It depends if the numpty was right.
Let's put it this way RJB - What if one of your family members murdered and raped hundreds of children? - how would you FEEL? - I hope you would FEEL that Justice needed to be served.
How would I feel if my family where killed in a tragedy? probably the same way Job felt or worse.
The thing is God gives and he takes away - and as painful as that is it is still God's right, because without him no one would ever have experienced anything.
Until we know exactly what happens to *all* who die, it is imposible to understand fully God's justice and indeed his mercy.
So I feel like giving him the benifit of the doubt.
Suffering for what is right is a virtue.Suffering for doing wrong is Justice.
Complain about this comment
This post may be somewhat controversial and may upset some people but there are no objective reasons why we should get particularly excited about what happened in Haiti, no reasons why we should think God has been working overtime on the divine retribution front. Two things happened there: a huge amount of not remotely abnormal suffering was telescoped into a very short time-frame, and there was a sudden reversal of circumstance which a Western civilisation which likes to maintain the illusion of control finds it difficult to handle.
Suffering equal to or greater than that of the people of Haiti is the daily experience of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world and most of us find it entirely easy to ignore their plight.
In Darfur women and girls endure rape and abuse as part and parcel of the everyday struggle to obtain food and water for their families. In India lepers endure suppurating maggot-infested wounds and refuse treatment because to alleviate their symptoms would be to reduce their capacity to earn what little they can from begging. In Britain there are children who grow up materially satisfied but without having ever had the slightest experience of love and devoid of the ability to empathise with other human beings.
I don't think we can lay it all this pain at the door of voodoo or blame ancient pacts with Satan - to do so is convenient because it absolves us of our responsibility. It is part of the Western cop-out that conveniently localises suffering in a way that enables a feel-good response while ignoring the structural inequalities, which as RJB has pointed-out, load the dice against the poor.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
I have deliberately limited my comments on this thread, however, your post, #194, is the first to call me to repent, and the most biblical I have read.
Complain about this comment
PM
Now you are getting to the heart of the Gospel and pointing to the real worth of the Bible. It continually throws up truths like, those who have the least to be repentant about, tend to be those who recognise the need to be repentant. Those who probably have the most to be repentant about, tend to be completely blind to it in themselves.
Humility, pride, purity of religion, having ears to hear, etc.. they're all there.
Complain about this comment
Jesus said to "pray that God's will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"...storms that have devastating effects are not God's will (as revealed by the person of Jesus Christ who revealed the FAther's heart to us).
However, we can pray this and let God have His way, or we can worship false gods and THEY will have their way. Haiti has long been a nation that practices VooDoo and so it will have an effect.
Having said that, when the battle is raging in the heavenlies and people are looking to God, then the enemy will surely get angry and cause the type of earth shaking that happened in Haiti. Sometimes these things happen because we are doing the RIGHT thing.
As far as the "making a pact with the Devil", you never know. This could be true. If you sell yourself to the enemy he will take advantage some time or another, especially if the grip on humanity loosens, he will try to do these things so everyone will turn away from God. The wrath of the enemy does not distinguish between guilty or non-guilty just those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. May God's will be done in Haiti...for prosperity, people to flourish and gain abundance, for peace, for a bright today (not just trying for tomorrow).
It is the job of Christians to take territory for God in the heavenlies thereby dispelling all the darkness that causes these disasters. Occupy until He comes. And may God's will be done through His people!
Complain about this comment
Peter Morrow
Ok I'll take your bait.
That post 194, if I understand what Parhasios means correctly, is saying that there is no such thing as the devil, that he is therefore not a negative influence in Haiti and that the Christian message is instead to focus on "structural inequalities".
How biblical is that really Peter, given that everyone believes in rebuilding the country anyway?
How biblical is it to say that the devil is not active in Haiti, where murder, rape and looting have shot through the roof since the quakes?
How biblical is it to play down attention on Haiti, given that aid always dries up when the media gets bored and forgets about the suffering?
Will that help India or Sudan?
It reminds me of your endorsement of Glady's humanistic Christ above, who came only to help the poor and challenge religious oppressors, nothing more.
How biblical is that Peter?
I am also concerned that Helio, Para, RJB and yourself and have yet to express any sympathy to a Haitian posting on this thread who has lost nine relatives to the quake and who has also personally had a hand in bringing aid to her country.
How biblical is that Peter?
You might not like her religious opinions and I dont agree with all of them, but where is the grace and tolerance?
Please dont lecture me on grace and against using theological language on an "intellectual" religious debating blog.
If you did I might be tempted to say that some people only appear to have grace for people who insult them and their faith.
And I might be tempted to say that some people thoroughly enjoy debating using theological language when it suits them.
But as you wont lecture me, I wont raise such points.
I think I have said enough on this thread.
OT
Complain about this comment
Peter
Would it also be biblical of RJB yourself, Helio and Parahasios to offer a little sympathy to the Haitian lady on this thread who lost nine of her family to the quake and also brought aid into the country personally?
Maybe not.
OT
Complain about this comment
OT
I can only explain how I reacted to post 194 by Parrhasios. It was a purely personal response and not any kind of bait; if previous misunderstandings or disagreements of ours have led to you thinking it was bait, I apologise, there was no such intention.
Here is what I was thinking.
Post 194 reminded me that however sympathetic I feel towards this present tragedy not only have I little to offer by way of help, but I am alerted also to the fact that I regularly forget those in need. That, I found to be chastening, that requires me to think again. In that sense, in provoking a 'repentance' or a change of mind in me I thought the comments biblical.
I doubt very much that Parrhasios will think I have left my evangelicalism behind, I haven't. We have had many disagreements.
In terms of Sandra and her loss, all I can say is this; Sandra, until I read OT's post 189 I hadn't realised the personal tragedy you have found yourself in. I haven't read all the posts on here and my recent entry was not intended to cause any hurt or pain, if I have done so, again, apologies. In thinking of your loss all I can do is extend my sympathy and offer the promise of prayer. As my family meet each evening we will think of you.
Complain about this comment
OT
You have sunk to a new low.
Complain about this comment
Indeed, Sandra, I am sorry for your loss and the loss to so many many people. Which is why I would just like to once again highlight the Disasters Emergency Committee website: http://www.dec.org.uk - what people in Haiti need right now is aid and assistance; help to get back on their feet, and to make Haiti free and prosperous.
But I am afraid I still regard Pat Robertson's comments as offensive guff, and actively damaging to the multi-agency relief effort. Stupidity is not just a neutral thing; stupidity means that people die, people suffer. Like so many others, I yearn for the day that his sort of cheap superstition is replaced by reason and compassion.
Sorry, but that has to be said. As an atheist, I wish the people of Haiti well, and although I have tried to help a little, I know it is very very little indeed in comparison to what is needed. No-one deserves what happened to them, and if you think this is divine "justice", then your little god does not deserve the description "just".
Complain about this comment
The grief and suffering which is the lot of humanity continually pains me and I offer to Sandra, as to all those others currently in the same position as she, the only consolation I know: that, in affliction, the love and care of those to whom we are close (and that may include God) is often made manifest in a way which is sustaining long after the immediate experience.
Peter you are correct in your assumption - I am aware that your evangelicalism informs all of your communication here. If I may say so, it shines through in the most positive way and has my complete respect. Strange as it may seem I respect OT's position too though it commands my comprehension rather than my sympathy. It is an historically faithful reiteration of an understanding of Christianity with which I fundamentally disagree but OT promotes it consistently with a dogged determination and, I must say, not without occasional humour.
Complain about this comment
Although I will say this; IF there is a god, and IF that god is the ultimate source of everything (i.e. the ontologically fundamental god of the chinstrokers), THEN all the bad things that happen as well as the good things that happen ARE the responsibility of that being, so technically Plantinga and Craig and McGrath etc can't really criticise Robertson. But then since the devil and we would need to be ontologically subsumed under such a declaration of reality (I refer you to LSV's amusing flourishes on this), there is really no justification for losing the bap over pacts with the devil, since such a god is necessarily responsible for our decisions (poff! there goes free will!) and indeed responsible for the devil, as well as any phenomena, whether natural, supernatural or mental that happen within this universe whose very structure is upheld by this goddy thing, INCLUDING the very "Fall" itself. Now the problem with the Craig/Plantinga/McGrath (and I could probably chuck Swinburne and Leftow and others into this big cabbage pot) is that this "necessary being" is isomorphic with pantheism - or at the very best, it is a subset of pantheism (we have no reason for assuming that an ontologically fundamental god wouldn't have made any number of other universes - indeed, an infinite multiverse seems necessary under such a model).
So in some ways we could say that Pat is correct; the problem is that our opportunity to do anything about it is nil, as such a god contravenes free will; it is a necessary accessory to "our" crimes before, during and after the fact.
IF we assume a god in the first place.
So perhaps these "intelligent theologians" should return to the drawing board and concede that their "ontologically necessary being" is provably incapable of holding attributes such as "good", at least in any context that is meaningful to human beings. It makes no sense to thank god for blessings while excusing him from curses. The problem, therefore, is not Pat Robertson or Sandra or OT. The problem is that the fancy pantsy definitions of god so beloved of our chinstroking pals necessarily exclude "goodness" or "badness" - the very least we can say is that an ontologically necessary god is entirely amoral.
And since ontological arguments are fallacious anyway, we are left with the position that it is unnecessary to even posit a god in the first place. Really, we can only look kindly upon, or even *love* with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength a god who doesn't actually exist.
Ergo Christian Atheism, Peter ;-)
QED.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I meant "type" of pantheism, rather than "subset".
Complain about this comment
#188 - OT -
"I understand you see evil as a moral choice. I do see it as willfully inherited, even in a very subtle form."
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply, OT.
But I do have a bit of a problem with the phrase "willfully inherited". Isn't that an oxymoron in the context of original sin?
The only way that evil could be "wilfully inherited" is if someone, who is conscious and of responsible age (certainly much older than a young child) decides to follow in the footsteps of his evil parents. That explains the concept of "wilful", but then again it doesn't really explain "inherited", since that person has not received some magical property called "evil" from his parents, but has simply decided to be evil himself. The only "inheritance" aspect would be if the son decided to use his parents' behaviour as some kind of justification for his own - but that is not really a true definition of "inherited".
This has absolutely nothing to do with "original sin", which is inherited at conception, and, speaking for myself, I don't think that I, at the moment of my conception or throughout the whole period of gestation, was really in a position to make wilful moral decisions! (I think even Helio might possibly agree with me on that latter point!!)
Complain about this comment
#206 -
This comment has been referred to the moderators?
Well, unless there is some hidden code in my words that I can't see, but the moderators can see, which is offensive, I am seriously struggling to understand quite what the problem is.
My post was simply a discussion of the contradiction in OT's phrase "willfully inherited". No swear words. No dirty language. No salacious insinuations (unless one of the moderators mistakenly has a view of original sin which only implies one thing). No quotes from copyrighted material. No slander. No libel. In other words, my views have been censored.
Off I go to another blog where at least I can express my point of view without being paranoid about every word I write.
Complain about this comment
It would seem that now the knives are out for OT....
RJB seems to stick to the jesuit school of thought very well, a protestant amongst protestants and nicey nice to your face then bam the daggers in and you realise it was all a ruse... he denys the sole authority of scripture and for some reason some of you lap it up, it wasnt that long ago they were planting gunpowder under parliament and now look...now they plant the seeds of doubt in our church's teachings and pretend to diagree with the Pope to get on our good side...it would work but it's the same thing they've been doing since the reformation...convert or die but this time they do it with a smile
Complain about this comment
LSV when i said about the freedom of speech on this blog you didnt exactly jump to my denfence...now that it is happening to you i hope you see what my problem was.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Please - what is the obsession with cabbages lately?!!
GV
Complain about this comment
Hmmm. I like RJB. Maybe there is something wrong with me? I will support LSV's point about "wilful inheritance" - crikey - maybe OT has highlighted the key contradiction inherent in the silly doctrine of original sin. Fancy that.
As for the sole authority of "scripture", a book that gets the age of the universe wrong by 13.7bn years and can't even make up its mind how many donkeys its christ straddled on the journey to Jerusalem strikes me as one that should be taken with a pinch of proper historical salt...
Complain about this comment
Helio
"THEN all the bad things that happen as well as the good things that happen ARE the responsibility of that being, so technically Plantinga and Craig and McGrath etc can't really criticise Robertson."
How is it Gods "responsibility"?
Your looking at things from your own presuppostions. God *is* being responsible for his creation through his judgements and grace.
There is no conflict in God creating a *free will* and allowing his creation choice.
A choice is neutral in it's essence, but once that choice is made, it is the responsibilty of the one who made it.
Complain about this comment
Hmm. On paranoia - am I being censored?
Complain about this comment
Helio
ref 202.
Cant say if I have ever heard anyone being more insensitive in my life.
A lady loses nine of her family and you cant bite your tongue for an hour to offer sympathy without calling her and her views "stupid".
You do realise that virtually all of Haiti substantially shares Sandra's views;-
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/01/pat-robertson-haiti-cursed-by-devil.html
Would that make you an imperialist-athiest tyrant for denying them the right to think for themselves Helio, you freethinker you?
Ever heard of national self determination and freedom of conscience and expression? ECHR.
Could you at least pretend to offer it to people who are grieving, just for an hour instead of calling them "stupid" to their face?
If I had called someone "stupid" to their face on this blog on account of their sexuality for example (which I would never dream of doing) the evangelical-liberal-agnostic-athiest alliance on this blog would be on me harder than an IRA nutting squad.
They have done it before for much much much less.
Why do they let you away with it?
Might they love the praise of men more than the praise of God?
Its so sexy to be a God hater these days. Some form of Stockholm syndrome?
--------------------------------
RJB
I'm confused. For a former priest who never quits lecturing me about love, humility and helping the poor and oppressed, why have only used terms like "numpty" towards Sandra and yet not offered her any sympathy?
And she a citizen of a very poor country, who is grieving and yet still went on an aid mission to help the helpless?
Will the evangelical-liberal-agnostic-athiest alliance break its all important oath of mutual aid and loyalty and rebuke two of its own?
Or must the praise of God play second fiddle to the praise of men?
--------------------------------------
Thanks Parahasios; Peter Morrow for your comments.
Respect.
Welcome to the blog Christian Calvanist!
Do try again LSV I want to hear your repsonse.
Would be ineterested to hear if any of my responses to your queries begin to address them in your opinion, as opposed to only a query about a single point you think doesn't.
A contradiction in "willfully inherited"?
What if my great uncle leaves me an estate in his will but I never get around to going around to collect the keys - or actively reject it? Have I willfully disinherited it?
What if we all are born with the potential to sin and -bingo- we all choose to do it also?
Turn it on its head - how many people do you know LSV, who have chosen never to sin - not once?
There is no way this side of time anyone will give complete answers to all such mysteries I grant you that.
But the fact that we are all here and we are all plainly sinners (that Christ dearly loves) proves that we all got to be sinners one way or another. The end result is the same even if you dont agree on how it happened.
You still must come to the same conclusion and reality even if you cant accept traditional explanations.
If you are going to suggest we are not really all sinners then you dont take the bible seriously and you dont appreciate the holiness of God, I suggest.
If you are going to accuse God over this then be my guest. That would assume God is to blame and I'm afraid my faith does not allow for that.
What if God did not allow us free will to sin LSV?
What sort of people would we be? Would we really be human?
Ever seen pleasantville?
If you could actually programme your own children never to be naughty and to always be completely obedient without question would you really do it?
That would be a great question for Helio too.
Well Helio would you???
You are excellent at pulling apart everyone else's faith.
What you could never do is to explain how the universe and life on earth came to be here without God as the prime mover and the source of life.
There's the gauntlet you old chancer. Scared?
;-)
OT
PS yes I said I had finished on this thread. Difference was I got the impression from Parahasios, Peter M and CC that some people might actually be engaging in real discussion and not just rearranging their prejudices. Thanks guys.
Complain about this comment
Everyone can argue about their UnGodly views and why they believe in evolution and all that man made folly but one thing, no one on this blog can argue with me is my testimony, the testimony of my family and late ancestors. Nobody knows where i have come from, why i came to believe in what i believe or what pit hole the Lord graciously pulled me out of. Science can never explain certain things that i have witnessed or the reasoning behind the spiritual realm. It exist my friends. God is Real, Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose after 3 days. He will return and he loves each and every one of us but if you choose not to accept him as Saviour then you have chosen your own destiny in Hell.
If the Atheist want to argue about this for the rest of the year, please be my guest but i will not participate because i have work to do in spreading the good news to those who want redemption. If you should decide later that maybe that crazy haitian girl was right then please feel free to write to my attention. I will be glad to pray with you.
IN THE END OF THIS GENERATION, ONE OF US IS WRONG BUT ATLEAST IF IT IS ME... I ONLY MISSED OUT ON THE MOMENTARY & FADING PLEASURES OF THIS WORLD.WHAT ABOUT YOU? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? ETERNITY. Ponder on that! Until then please take care and continue sending whatever is in your hearts to Haiti.
-Because he died for me, i will live for him
Complain about this comment
Sandra, he rose after only about 36 hours, not 3 days. Get your facts straight. Maybe you need to read a bit more of your bible. You too, OT.
Complain about this comment
You know, Helio, if you read the text through....... na, never mind.
Complain about this comment
#214 - OT -
Right, OT, I will try again to explain myself.
On the few occasions when I have transgressed the law of moderation, I have managed to work out what went wrong, but this time I have to admit defeat. I have read and reread and reread again my post and, well, all I can say is ..... there are profound mysteries in life, and this is one of them.
Right, here we go again, concerning "willfully inherited".
A certain poor chap is born bound up with original sin and as a result grows up sinning and sinning and sinning. He is then accosted by an evangelist of the Reformed tradition who tells him that he deserves to go to hell (let's call the evangelist "Ray" after a particular one I know of). The poor and bemused so-and-so asks Ray: "Why do I deserve to go to hell?" Ray then says to him: "Because you have broken the law of God."
"Oh, I suppose you're right - I have done things wrong in my life" replies the 'totally depraved' and evil sinner rather sheepishly. But then a certain indignation rises up within him and he begins to defend himself by claiming: "But I couldn't help doing those things. Why should I say sorry for what I couldn't help doing?"
What's Ray going to say to that? Let's go through it:
A: "But you could help what you were doing. Throughout your life you have been morally responsible and should therefore repent. You did not have to do those things."
B: "I agree that you couldn't help sinning, because you are totally depraved and born in original sin, but you still deserve to go to hell, because you have sinned."
Unless you can think up a third possibility I would like to venture that these are the only two responses Ray could make. But there is a serious problem with both of them:
A: This suggests that Ray believes that man can save himself by his own efforts. This is a denial of the gospel of grace and is certainly a denial of the doctrine of total depravity.
B: This is complete nonsense, because how can someone be held morally responsible for something they could not help doing? This makes God the author of sin, by wilfully allowing human beings to come into the world preprogrammed to sin. God would therefore have no moral right to judge someone for what they could not help doing.
If you don't 'get' that this is unjust, then let me give you an example from the world of sport. Let's say that it's a football match and a spectator throws a missile from the crowd and it hits the goalkeeper on the head and knocks him out just as he is about to save a penalty. As a result he fails to save it and the other team wins the match. Would you suggest that the team which lost 1-0 'deserved' to lose, because the goalkeeper failed to save the goal, even though he couldn't help not saving it, because someone had thrown a missile from the crowd which knocked him out? The terrible thing that happened to him was outside his control - it was an evil forced on him against his will (like original sin). How therefore could anyone in their right mind call it 'just' that that team should lose that match? It's totally absurd! Any sane person knows that the losing team suffered a grotesque injustice. But apparently this idea does not seem to have filtered through to the theology of some Christian denominations.
Either man is morally responsible or he is not. If he is not, he cannot be judged, because God has decreed that he cannot help what he does. If he is morally responsible then his will is not bound in sin. You cannot have it any other way.
Now where does the grace of God come into all this?
I agree that righteousness comes by the grace of God. And I am willing to concede that there is a kind of 'original sin', but this is an influence which is continually counteracted by 'original grace' - this is what the whole teaching in Romans 5 about the influence of the 'two Adams' is about. Every person born into this world is subject to BOTH influences. The influence of the first Adam to sin, and the influence of the second Adam to do what is right, that is, to respond (in some way or other - only God is the judge of it) to love. The work of the first Adam has created one option we can choose, and the work of the second Adam has created the other option which we are also free to choose. This is a much bigger idea of the atoning work of Christ than the gnostic idea that tells us that Christ is only able to work in someone's life if they hold to a correct doctrinal view of the atonement (and go to the right church, to boot!). Can't Jesus Christ save someone whose mind is in a mess?
So it is not a matter of people being able to save themselves, but God is able to influence the lives of everyone, and only He knows how we should respond to Him in our daily lives. That is why we cannot sit in judgment on anyone concerning exactly where they stand with God. God is much bigger than our weedy little exclusivist - and rather conceited - evangelical theology.
What really cheeses me off, frankly, about evangelical theology in practice is the inability to distinguish between "sin" and "human weakness". As far as I am concerned, "sin" is synonymous with "evil" - the kind of evil described in Proverbs 1:11 - "Let us lie in wait to shed blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." This is the attitude of the evil person, who delights in targeting the most vulnerable people. Most people who are harangued by Christian evangelists are not "lurking secretly to destroy the innocent without cause", but are just ordinary people struggling through life and burdened by all sorts of problems.
Dare I say it, but RJB made a good point in one of his posts: "those who have the least to be repentant about, tend to be those who recognise the need to be repentant. Those who probably have the most to be repentant about, tend to be completely blind to it in themselves." (#196, this thread).
Why constantly target the weak and the vulnerable for whom the gospel is supposed to be good news? See Isaiah 61:1-3 - a description of the true gospel: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound..." What a far cry from the so-called gospel of "you deserve to go to hell because the whole human race is cursed because of the sin of Adam" stuff.
You have written the following: "If you are going to suggest we are not really all sinners then you dont take the bible seriously and you dont appreciate the holiness of God, I suggest."
I take the Bible very seriously - and also the frequently ill-defined concept of the "holiness of God" (which is not the "nasty side of God" by the way). It is because I try to understand the Bible that I hold the views that I do. If I did not take the Bible seriously, then I would probably default to the diluted "milk" interpretation (1 Corinthians 3:2) that characterises Reformed Evangelicalism.
So coming back to "wilfully inherited" - our moral choice is to accept the love of God now, and we are judged on that basis - not on the basis of something some ancestor did thousands of years ago - which kind of brings us back to the subject of this thread: is God judging Haiti for some evil inherited from the past?
Complain about this comment
OT
Unlike Parr and PM, I am not going to be coerced into a public show of sympathy for the people of Haiti to appease you and allow you to continue this little game you are playing - using human tragedy to show how uncaring and inhuman your opponents are on here.
I called you a Pharisee ages ago and you continue to give validity to that accusation.
You have no way of knowing what Helio, PM, Parr or myself have done in terms of helping Haiti, yet you are quick to attack and level at them a pretty serious charge. (Then accuse Helio of doing exactly what you are doing.)
Why not reflect for a while on that lovely Gospel passage where the Pharisees thank God that THEY are not greedy and grasping like those tax collectors over there... Look how bad they are.... Look how good I am..
Then remember which ones went home at rights with God.
Complain about this comment
Helio,
You are wrong, wrong, wrong again. Like i told you before i will not argue with you about the word of God because it is too precious and with a hardened heart you will not understand what i tell you anyway because of your spiritual blindness. What i will tell you lastly is for you to read (Matthew 28:1, Mark 8:31,John 11:9, Colossians 2:8), before you return with the ignorance. The bible is here to lead us to Christ not for us to misuse and misrepresent. Get your facts straight and i will pray that somehow you are touched by sword of life.
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"Unless you can think up a third possibility I would like to venture that these are the only two responses Ray could make. But there is a serious problem with both of them."
A third possibility is that all are dead in sin but only some are saveable.
Lets say we have three different materials say 1 plastic, 2 semi plastic/metal, and 3 plain metal.
Now if a magnet is placed over the three materials the plastic will not stick, the mixed plastic will stick but will not hold under pressure, the metal will stick, hold on and become magnatized.
"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do."
See how the clay *spolied* in the potters hand it was unworkable because of it's makeup.
So to put it more clearly God is the magnet which draws all men but the elect are the only ones who stick.
Is this unfair to the other groups? No - because their very nature is totally depraved and they *want* darkness rather than light.
So if the fall had not taken place only the elect would have been born which God is still going to save in spite of the fall.
So God calls all men to repent, and the result of that is those who come have come because they are his, the others did not come not becauase they were not called, but because they are in the nature of Satan and unsavable. But God being consistent with his holiness and juistice calls them to repent and in so doing shows their wickedness and moral failure.
So the reprobate is a perversion of creation and belongs to Satan not God. However God shows grace to the wicked even though they don't deserve it.
Complain about this comment
"So the reprobate is a perversion of creation and belongs to Satan not God."
And just in case they dont realise it, we give ourselves permission to spend our lives reminding 'em all at every opportunity!
Complain about this comment
#221 - Auntjason -
I can only "congratulate" you on your ability to believe in a "square circle". I'm afraid I don't have the ability to perform this sublime feat.
So please pity us humble people who have to settle for mere logic (who obviously mistakenly imagine that the word "deserve" implies the ability to exercise moral responsibility), and who cannot rise to your invigorating heights of intellectual acrobatics and cognitive contortion.
Oh by the way, Aunty, in your theology is there any difference between God and Satan (I can't see any difference myself)?
Complain about this comment
Sandra,
I'm right. Dies Friday afternoon. Saturday in the tomb. Rises Sunday morning (poor chap doesn't even get a lie in on a Sunday!). 36 hours tops. "After 3 days" is incorrect; "on the third day" is *just about* tenable, but only with some mighty crazy temporal prestidigitation as PeterM well knows.
Now, I have just read LSV's most recent posts and find myself in substantial agreement.
I think I need a lie down...
-H
Complain about this comment
Helio
Never mind the earlier 'prestidigitation', after reading, "I have just read LSV's most recent posts and find myself in substantial agreement." I've no idea what you're pulling out of that hat!
Apart from that, Matty, Markie, Luke and Jono, weren't Swiss watch makers, at least not as far as I remember ;-)
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"Oh by the way, Aunty, in your theology is there any difference between God and Satan (I can't see any difference myself)?"
By that you mean Satan can create? - on the contrary he can only pervert what already is.
Complain about this comment
#226 - auntjason -
"By that you mean Satan can create? - on the contrary he can only pervert what already is."
Let me be more specific then: in your theology there is no difference between the 'character' of God and the 'character' of Satan. To illustrate my point...
Two declarations to the reprobate person (the person to whom God, by decree, refuses to even offer salvation):
GOD: "I refuse to save you and I know that you will inevitably go to hell (because I have deliberately put you in a world where you cannot avoid being infected by original sin). I refuse to offer you salvation, because I hate you."
SATAN: "I want you to go to hell, because I hate you."
Now, auntjason, you tell me what the fundamental difference is (in your theology) between God and Satan vis-a-vis the reprobate person?
You cannot say that your 'God' loves the reprobate person, because if he did, he would at least offer that person the chance to avoid going to hell (unless, of course, you have some concept of 'love' in your mind that does not involve trying to help people avoid eternal destruction - in which case such a concept of 'love' is no different from hatred). Therefore, according to your interpretation of the Bible, God hates those whom he refuses to predestine to salvation.
And of course Satan hates the reprobate person, as he hates everyone.
So therefore my point stands. The 'God' of double predestinarian Calvinism (of both the supra- and infralapsarian kind) is none other than the .......
(you fill in the blank)
Complain about this comment
-H
Back in those days they did not have clocks to refer to time so just like the beginning of creation they intrepret time through evening and then morning as another day. Sun up to sun down. Unlike our days with 24 hours they had 12 hours to consider a day. Christ passed away the day before they were to prepare for passover which is wednesday to thursday considering we are talking about there timing.
If you do a little more research you will see that good friday is a pagan made day because it contradicts what Christ said in those verses i mentioned earlier. I choose to believe in everything the Word says because it brings light my friend. I am sorry to interupt your rest but i wanted to respobd so that we can gain something for atleast agreeing on one thing. Its nice to see that you atleast gave a moment out of your busy life to read the book of life.
-Auntjason
you are right on point with everthing that you wrote in post#221.
I love when there is such clarity dealing with the truth.
Complain about this comment
Sandra, they could count days. Jesus died on the Friday, was tatie bread on the Saturday and was skipping among the daisies on the Sunday.
People, back me up here! (Yes, I know the gospel of "John" gets this wrong and has a different relationship between the passover & the crucifixion).
Peter and Graham get around this by the "third day" ruse, which is a bit thick, BUT at least it has some degree of logic, if rather strained.
Complain about this comment
#228 - sandra -
"-Auntjason
you are right on point with everthing that you wrote in post#221.
I love when there is such clarity dealing with the truth."
I love it when people make statements that have been liberated from the bondage of logical argument and evidence. Oh, it's great fun!!
Look, I can play as well. Let me see, now. What "evidence-free" and "argument-free" statements can I write down? Ah, I know...
1. London is the capital of France.
Wow, that was fun. Don't ask me to prove that that is true. But it must be true, cos little ol' me wrote it. That's the only evidence you'll ever need! And don't you dare tell me I'm wrong!!!!!!
Here's another one...
2. Elvis Presley is the Queen of England.
Come on, now. You know that must be true. But where's the evidence? Evidence?? We don't need to bother with such a trifling thing as evidence! The only evidence we need is the fact that I have written it. Look I can do it again - come on fingers, tap away: "E-L-V-I-S ...." (you get the picture).
Shall we think of some more little ditties to write....?
No, I think I've made my point, haven't I?
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"GOD: "I refuse to save you and I know that you will inevitably go to hell (because I have deliberately put you in a world where you cannot avoid being infected by original sin). I refuse to offer you salvation, because I hate you."
"SATAN: "I want you to go to hell, because I hate you."
Now, auntjason, you tell me what the fundamental difference is (in your theology) between God and Satan vis-a-vis the reprobate person?
You start from the presupposition that man is somehow good and deserving of God's mercy.The difference is that God *justly* punishes evil people in hell. Satan cannot *justly* do anything - for he is unjust.
God hates evil and commands all men to repent, it is the darkness of Satan and the reprobate who bring upon *themselves* the punishment of hell.
Does God love the Devil? Is there such a thing as omnibenovlence?
I simply stated that "some" are unsavable and are by nature and substance Satan's children.
God cannot *love* what is evil otherwise he is not God.
Nowhere did I state that God refuses to save anyone I simply pointed out that some *cannot* be saved because there is nothing in them to save.
Sandra - I hope all is well with you and I have enjoyed reading your all posts - may God blesS and keep you.
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"I love it when people make statements that have been liberated from the bondage of logical argument and evidence. Oh, it's great fun."
If you accept the Bible as evidence I would be more than happy to point you to scripture.
It seems you had a senior moment with that post logica - deep breath.
Complain about this comment
LSV, this is your show, and you have lifted your game admirably. This is good stuff. Please continue.
-H
Complain about this comment
#221 - auntjason -
"A third possibility is that all are dead in sin but only some are saveable."
So let's get this straight. Everyone is dead, but only some of these dead people can be saved? Hmmm.
It's getting late in the day, but since I am a moderate insomniac I may still have a little bit of energy left to cogitate on this.
If everyone is dead, then presumably everyone is in the same boat? Yes? Or no?
So on what basis does God decide to save some and chuck the rest away? Perhaps your magnet illustration might shed some light on this conundrum...
"Lets say we have three different materials say 1 plastic, 2 semi plastic/metal, and 3 plain metal.
Now if a magnet is placed over the three materials the plastic will not stick, the mixed plastic will stick but will not hold under pressure, the metal will stick, hold on and become magnatized."
So we have three types of people:
1. Dead people who are like plastic.
2. Dead people who are like a mixture of plastic and metal.
3. Dead people who are like metal.
So even though everyone is dead, there are different types of "death". And some dead people have a property which enables them to respond to the magnet (which I assume is the grace of God) and some don't have this property. But you've said they are all "dead" - so what difference does it make what their "property" is?
Forgive me if I'm being a bit thick here, but in my mind "dead" is "dead". A dead clever person is dead. A dead stupid person is dead. A dead genius is dead. And so on... Death is the great equaliser, and the fundamental property of "death" is a complete inability to respond to anything.
Now if that is true of "physical" death, then it is also true of "spiritual" death. If that is not true, then it is misleading to use the word "death".
So therefore, since everyone is dead spiritually (according to your thinking), then the only way some people can respond to the 'magnet' is if the magnet makes the decision for them. They cannot make the decision to respond to the magnet, because they are dead - and I have just explained that the nature of death is "an inability to respond to anything".
In other words, you are promoting a form of predestination.
Would it not be more sensible if the magnet picked up everybody, but if some people, having been picked up, decided to fall off the magnet - of their own volition - then that's their fault? And the consequences of their decision to fall off the magnet is the "judgment" they suffer. This idea is supported by Isaiah 5:1-7, in which God did all he could to ensure the vineyard brought forth good grapes (responded to His love), but instead it brought forth wild grapes (because the "vineyard", representing human beings with volition, chose to reject what God had already done for it).
That's the way I see it, anyway.
What I cannot accept - indeed will not accept - is the idea that God creates a spiritually stillborn person - and then damns that person to hell for being stillborn ("stillborn" = "dead in original sin"). That idea is more crazy than (to use my memorable phrase from #230) Elvis Presley being the Queen of England!
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"If everyone is dead, then presumably everyone is in the same boat? Yes? Or no?"
No - the illustration I gave of the potter and the clay Jer 18 shows how the clay simply spolied in God's hands there was nothing he could do with it.
We see in Gen 3 15 the two seeds one from Satan and the other from the woman. We also see the parabale of the wheat and the tares in the gospels.
If you look at Cain it was said he was of the Devil 1 John 3 12.
So all are *dead* but only the elect *can* be raised from the dead.
The reprobate and the elect both are drawn by the Holy spirit but only the elect *will endure* because they are by creation of a different spiritual make up.
"Would it not be more sensible if the magnet picked up everybody, but if some people, having been picked up, decided to fall off the magnet - of their own volition - then that's their fault?*
It is their fault, because they *did* fall off the magnet by their own choice, but their choice is always going to go against what God calls them to do.
I assume you believe in God's omniscience? and if so - *foreknowledge* which I think is what you believe, is a determined belief.
If God can foresee every choice, then everything is determined and nothing can be changed.
The only way out of that problem, is to go down the route of open theism which is a nonsense.
"What I cannot accept - indeed will not accept - is the idea that God creates a spiritually stillborn person - and then damns that person to hell for being stillborn."
Like I said before there is no such thing as omnibenvolence and so God is not required to save any.
Evil is not God's creation it is something that was born out of free will.
So a dead *evil* person who is a child of the devil deserves justice and by their very nature will choose darkness everytime.
The difference in the elect is that they will respond to light because they are by nature in the seed of Adam not Satan.
Complain about this comment
#235 - auntjason -
"If God can foresee every choice, then everything is determined and nothing can be changed.
The only way out of that problem, is to go down the route of open theism which is a nonsense."
Absolute utter nonsense.
I can't write much now and I will deal with your "there is no such thing as omnibenevolence" lie later, but this error just cannot be allowed to stand all day without being challenged.
"Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are not the same thing and the former is not a sufficient condition of the latter - in other words, the latter does not inevitably follow from the former.
If I am sitting in a stadium watching a football match and I know what the result will be, does it follow that I am the one playing the game? Of course not! God has delegated free-will to man, and therefore he allows us to "play the game". He may know the outcome, but that does not imply that he makes our choices for us.
You Calvinist types claim to have the highest view of God, and claim to seek to glorify him by belittling the role of man; in reality you have a highly mechanistic and impersonal view of God, which is actually demeaning to him and does not glorify him at all. And your inability (or rather unwillingness) to distinguish between the concepts of foreknowledge and predestination is highly presumptuous concerning how God should act.
I've got to go to work now, so I will revisit this topic later.
Complain about this comment
LSV, you're on a good roll here, and I hate to poke my nose in, but are you saying then that god is omniscient in the *macro* but omnignorant in the micro? Let's say he does know the result of the soccer game aforetime; surely that constrains the free will of the players anyway. albeit spreading the constraint over two teams. Is your dispute with AuntieJ merely, therefore, a matter of degree?
Just a side issue - please carry on. This is good stuff.
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
"Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are not the same thing and the former is not a sufficient condition of the latter - in other words, the latter does not inevitably follow from the former."
By that statement I now believe you don't even hold to Omniscience.
"I can't write much now and I will deal with your "there is no such thing as omnibenevolence" lie later, but this error just cannot be allowed to stand all day without being challenged."
Ok to be *all* loving you have to love *all* - right? Now for God to be all loving - if all means all - then we have to include *all* he ever made, including Satan.
The problem is God does not *love* Satan, in fact he does not love evil people in general - and to take it a step further, he *hates* evil people (see PSALM 5)
So we have to include *hate* God hates certain things - evil things.
What is important is what the scriptures say and not what you and I think. And there is plenty of support for the view I have presented.
We can speed this up if you tell me what theological postion you hold to.
Complain about this comment
-H
I refuse to argue with you about the accuracy of the word. You will not get it even if Jesus personally paid a visit to you tonight because of your unbelief so why waste my time in this premature conversation. Though, i like the fact that you atleast acknowledge him enough to care about the day he died for your and my sins and the day he rose.... lol.
Despite what you choose to believe or feel, it still does not matter! He is God and your unbelief can not stop him from being who he is.
Are we that Self centered that we can not accept the fact that we did not get here ourselves ? The explanations behind science doesnt add up. But you say the same thing about the bible but i would rather live by Faith and not by sight. Man is made up in 3 parts.
-Spirit (which comes from God because he is a spirit)
-Soul (mind, emotions, will)
-Body (Our flesh)
When we die, our spirit goes back to the creator, our body goes back to the dust of the ground and our soul goes to heaven if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour or to Hell if you refuse salvation and your time has ran out.
It sounds bizarre but what is more bizarre is that individuals will be condemned for eternity for being stupid! All you need is just a little bit of faith in God, because faith in faith can not do anything. While faith in Him(GOD) can move obstacles. and after that he will do the rest trust me! He can save you from yourself because other then satan you are your worst enemy.
I know that you nor any other man are responsible for creating the heavens, earth and the beginning of mankind.
Please let me know if anyone of you can come up with a scientific method to create a new earth to reside in. Apparently it is too difficult to accept that we are not God and we can not even save ourselves from destruction.
GOD IS SO GOOD AND HE DESERVES ALL THE HONOR AND GLORY. Not his creation that can not guarantee me or themselves a place in heaven. The day that all you atheist can for tell my death, and give me a V.I.P section in heaven then i will accept your weak arguments that we somehow created ourselves and deserve all the credit. Until then i will continue praying for your salvation. May the Lord Bless you all and hopefully your time does not run out like so many 3 weeks ago.
Complain about this comment
LSV
Thanks for your patience with moderation, yes it often sucks.
And thanks for coming back with your thoughts.
I wrestle with many of the same issues and don't think there are clear answers.
Aside - If there is no clear answer from Christ on suffering then that goes for this too. Perhaps he didnt mean us to dwell on it???
I would say two things I think are very important though.
1) Almost all the criticisms of contemporary "Christianity" you make and appear to attribute to me are arguments I have never advanced and don't hold. This includes almost all the points which you describe using highly emotive language. ge "torturing babies in hell" and holiness as "the nasty side of God".
2) More importantly, the points you argue are unbiblical do not have any support from the bible, so far as I can see.
Ergo, if I havent actually argued something specifically please don't lambast me for believing it.
The ONLY exception is original sin. I have much sympathy with the points you make that it is "unfair" and degrees of guilt etc and also with RJB's point (...peace RJB!).
However, I still stand by my conviction that I believe that we have all had our Eden experience, all eaten the fruit spiritually and invididually all willfully chosen to rebel against God.
Whatever other arguments you can make, once you have done this there is no going back to innocence. Otherwise you *sound* like you are scratching around for a way to avoid submitting your pride and indepedence and free will to the living Christ.
LSV in short my response would be that I see that salvation is "an opt in" plan.
Turn the issue on its head.
If God has made salvation clearly available to every person ever born, then the question of how responsible we are for our sin is a real moot question, in ultimate terms.
Romans 1 says that those who have not heard the gospel are "without excuse" regarding salvation; God has given him conscience and the natural world as guides to his existence. This, to me, implies that these are valid routes to salvation for those who have not "heard" the gospel.
I nowhere advocated "sinner's prayers" and church attendance as key boxes to tick for salvation.
Nor have I EVER EVER EVER presumed to point the finger at any individual or group and say: "God has decided you will not get into heaven".
So why bring this up?
Amazing how often I am accused of such things and yet they are exactly the opposite of what I believe.
Stereotyping and prejudice??? It seems so.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a sinners prayer sincerely meant and followed through on, and mixing with other believers is bound to be helpful to a Christian IMO.
The NT actually gives plenty of support for both points. And if someone actually spurns Christ's sacrifice and resurrection ( "I am good enough without it" ) refuses to pray and loathes all churches it might be a wee hint that we are not at peace with God and he is not at peace with us.
CS Lewis once told a story of an "enemy" soldier who had not "heard the gospel" but was saved by following his conscience, as I recall.
The counter caution to that is still.... that Christ warned that few would be saved (I'm can't presume I'm one of them) and that most would be lost.
CS Lewis also said that the gates of hell "were locked from the inside".
In other words.....IMO.... CS Lewis supports my argument (gracious of him, no?) that EVERYONE has a clear chance to be saved whether or not they have heard the gospel.... and those that end up in hell have done so NOT because of original sin BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR CHOICE TO REJECT CHRIST. This would assume that those who have never heard the gospel can still access it through their consciences and creation etc.
I suggest that such a position, if true, completely satisfies ALL your ultimate concerns about a doctrine that would send people who you suggest are sinners through no fault of their own, to a hell for rejecting a gospel they never heard.
Incidentally, if you quote from one part of Romans for authority, you dont have much of an argument to reject the many parts of it which clearly teach universal original sin. And yes, there are parts of it I find hard to accept too. However, in the context of the entire epistle and the rest of the bible, I think it works.
On the rest, I think I will be gracious enough to God to allow him that it is me that needs to catch up with him, not the other way around.
A key further argument is that spreading the classic gospel of Acts a clear biblical responsibility in order to persuade prodigals who have rejected their consciences.
Christ says those of us rebelling against him are in the majority .....and he is calling us all back!
Best regards
OT
Complain about this comment
Well put together OT.
Complain about this comment
Helio
The forces of middle earth are gathering to smite thee down and cast thee into the abyss. Want a chum?
Complain about this comment
#238 - auntjason -
"We can speed this up if you tell me what theological position you hold to."
No short cuts, auntjason, I'm afraid. I'm not falling for that one which goes like this: "tell me which Christian package you subscribe to and then I can make all sorts of assumptions about you."
Now I confess (confession's good for the soul, remember) that I have made an assumption that you subscribe to the package called 'Calvinism'. If I need to repent of that rash assumption, then please provide me with evidence that will convict me of the error of my ways. Concerning my position, I have shared so much already that I am surprised that you are even asking the question.
You conclude from my comments that I don't "hold to Omniscience", presumably because I distinguish between 'foreknowledge' and 'predestination', and that I do not accept that the former is a sufficient condition of the latter - i.e. that the latter inevitably follows from the former.
Well I have some unwelcome news for you. I can show you logically that it is actually your position which is a denial of God's omniscience. Here goes...
I will base my argument on Isaiah 5:1-7. God planted a vineyard (a spiritual 'vineyard' of course, referring to the house of Israel, in this instance). He did everything he could to ensure that his vineyard brought forth good grapes. In verse 4 God says: "I expected it to bring forth good grapes". But it brought forth wild - or sour - grapes. Clearly this shows that God did not predestine the vineyard to bring forth wild grapes, since he expected it to bring forth good grapes. God's plan with this vineyard was thwarted and frustrated by the evil of man. The rebellion was successful and God was disappointed. God actually 'failed' in his plan to create a good vineyard due to the operation of human free-will, although, in another sense, God 'succeeded', in that this event shows that God is able to create beings with genuine free-will. God permitted this 'failure' because he makes room for human moral responsibility.
God knows everything, and is above time (but let's use the term 'foreknowledge' in order to put this into some kind of time frame for the sake of ease of understanding - and this 'ease of understanding' does not undermine my argument). So before God even started to build his vineyard he foreknew that it would turn out to be a failure. Before God even started digging and planting he knew that he was wasting his time, because the vineyard was going to bring forth bad grapes, even though God wanted it and expected it to bring forth good grapes.
So therefore you could argue that God should have acted on his foreknowledge and refused to plant this vineyard, thus saving himself the effort of doing something which he knew would turn out to be a failure. Since you believe that "to foreknow" implies "to do", you would have to think like that.
But there's a problem with this.
'Knowledge' is based on reality. The knowledge of an event is dependent on the actual occurrence of the event. If the event does not take place then it is impossible to have knowledge of it, which is obvious if you think about it. The only kind of 'knowledge' you could have of an event which does not take place is not 'knowledge' at all, but 'imagination' and 'conjecture'.
How did God know - foreknow - that his 'vineyard' would rebel against his goodness? He knew that this would take place because it actually did take place - it was a real event not an imaginary one, and this real event could only have taken place if the vineyard had actually been planted. If God foreknew that the 'vineyard' would rebel and therefore he decided not to plant the vineyard, then there would not have been a rebellion at all to know about or foreknow about! And therefore God would not have known - or foreknown - anything about a rebellion. All that God could have done is guess or conjecture that, given the character of these people, they would rebel IF he 'planted a vineyard'; in other words, this is supposition based on contingent or conditional thinking. Now being God, his conjecture may be perfectly accurate, but it is conjecture nonetheless. It can never have the status of 'knowledge'. And of course 'omniscience' concerns knowledge and not conjecture.
Let me use another example. Suppose God, foreknowing the horror that would occur in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, decided to cause all the Nazi leaders to die at birth, in order to prevent this happening. If that were the case then what would God be 'foreknowing', since the events now would not take place at all? God could not then 'foreknow' something imaginary. It would simply be conjecture, and not knowledge.
The same applies to the idea of God foreknowing a person's ultimate rebellion against him, and then deciding not to offer that person salvation, deeming it to be a waste of time. So here we see 'foreknowledge' leading to 'predestination'. But how could that person cause the real event of rebellion against the goodness of God, if God had not actually shown that person his goodness in the first place? And, as I have argued, if the real event of rebellion had not taken place, how could God have knowledge of it, since knowledge is dependent on events which actually take place? All you would have is conjecture: God guesses that that person is likely to rebel, and on that contingency he decides not to waste his time offering that person any hope of salvation.
Therefore, foreknowledge cannot be the same as predestination, in which God tampers with events based on his foreknowledge - a bit like someone going back in time to rewrite history, which, of course, is a contradiction in terms.
If foreknowledge and predestination are inseparable, then God is not omniscient ('all-knowing') at all, but simply one who engages in eternal conjectures ('all-conjecturing'), sifting through endless contingencies, and not actually genuinely having 'knowledge' of the future.
I know this is difficult to understand because of the idea of God being above time. I certainly do not subscribe to 'open theism', since that requires God to be subservient to time. Time becomes the eternal reality in that way of thinking. And then if time becomes the absolute how then did it begin? And how could we imagine time not beginning? (By the way, this question is not just a problem for theists!)
That's enough for now. I am satisfied in my own mind that I have proven my point. If you choose to disagree with me, then please offer some evidence and argument, and if not, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion, and there is nothing I can do about that.
I will, in due course, tackle the 'omnibenevolence' issue.
Complain about this comment
rjb, you can be Aragorn; i'm happy as gollum ;-)
Complain about this comment
#240 - OT -
"More importantly, the points you argue are unbiblical do not have any support from the bible, so far as I can see."
What points of mine are 'unbiblical'?
(Bearing in mind, of course, that 'unbiblical' can mean many things, depending on one's interpretation of the Bible).
"Almost all the criticisms of contemporary "Christianity" you make and appear to attribute to me are arguments I have never advanced and don't hold. This includes almost all the points which you describe using highly emotive language. ge "torturing babies in hell" and holiness as "the nasty side of God"."
What I have been doing is drawing out the implications of certain doctrinal views. If people deserve hell because of original sin, then the logical implication of that is that God sends non-Christian babies to hell.
My question to you is this:
Does the whole human race 'deserve' to go to hell because of the sin of Adam?
Yes or No?
If your answer is 'yes', then you cannot criticise me for drawing out the logical implications of that view, and you cannot try to disown those implications.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Agreed! You can be Gollum or whover you want, just as long as you leave my ring alone.
Complain about this comment
RJB, it's a deal, my precious... what has it got in its pocketses?
Complain about this comment
Helio
got my threads in a twist. Theres a message for Golum # 75 on the Bible and Bitches thread. (That wasnt a typo.)
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, "witchunt", "witch-hunt" or "witchhunt"? I think that's what we should be focussing or focusing our efforts on.
Complain about this comment
LSV
Sorry for my clumsy wording.
What I meant to say was that almost all the points of theology you object to in the faith of a certain type of Evangelicalism are points that so far as I can see, are not found within the bible. ie such points would appear to be the traditions of men.
Well you have explicitly conceded that the points of theology that grieve you are not found in my arguments or views but are your interpretation of the implications of your caricature of my views.
Some people might suggest that means you are knocking down straw men.
Every biblical passage you have referred to in your posts are valid and make important points, without question.
The same goes for RJB, who often speaks about how Christ's words mean we are to care for the poor and reject religious pretensions. I can tell that RJB has lived these values out for years.
Peter Morrow too makes a critical biblical point about "Good news" and grace in the scriptures, and I can tell he has lived that out for years too.
No doubt I could learn a lot from them and their examples in both of these areas.
Then Helio has also weighed in above in support of my argument with references to judgement on Sodom and on Noah's generation.
You have correctly cited OT scripture which makes it very clear that the gospel is for the weak, the hopeless, the vulnerable. You make many other important points and raise important questions that any thinking Christian should, if you don't mind me saying so.
But one thing that seems like a very rare thing on this blog is anyone who will attempt to pull all these threads together and make sense of them.
IMO if the bible is the word of God then no one them should take ultimate precedence over any other and all should be capable of being synthesised into good news.
I am not pointing to my character or my opinions as being worth following; attacking either is therefore pointless.
But in the context of this thread I am simply saying that to ignore the fact that God is also a God of judgement as well as a God of mercy and grace and love is to ignore vast swathes of the bible and to run into the arms of an idol and a false gospel.
However I have to say LSV I HAVE made a rough but workable job of tying together all the loose threads you have presented me with and you are refusing to even engage with that.
Instead you are asking me, in effect, to simply condemn the character of God because man has brought original sin on himself.
Therefore I think this discussion is at an end.
Neither of the two options you force me to choose from represent the attitude or heart of God in this matter; you have admitted caricaturing my views.
John 3 says;
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Here is a clear and accurate picture of how the love of Christ sees our sin and the implications of it;-
Luke 19
41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
Paul says in Romans that all those that call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
Sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
#250 - OT -
"Well you have explicitly conceded that the points of theology that grieve you are not found in my arguments or views but are your interpretation of the implications of your caricature of my views."
'grieve me'?? Yes, I am truly bereaved, OT.
'caricature'?? ...
I remember with fond nostalgia our first encounter on W&T. Shall I refresh your memory? Shall I dig around in the archives (oh, no, musn't let PK know about this)? Well, perhaps I shall, since you accuse me of making a caricature of your views...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/jeremy_marks_and_the_exgay_mov.html#P76240967
I, rather naively, it has to be said in hindsight, dared to suggest that some people may interpret the Bible in a certain way that is not in keeping with the traditional 'evangelical' view. And then - and this is what really 'takes the biscuit' for me - I argued my point with reference to biblical evidence. Allow me to express this again a la Sandra: WITH BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.
And there then followed a litany of insinuations about my motivation and character from a certain contributor. Shall I quote one of your 'greatest hits' from this 'album':
OT: "Even if you set aside interpretation for a moment, it is quite clear you are on a radical departure from traditional JC thought, in a stream which is only a few decades old. I normally find that people with your line of reasoning have simply no intention of letting the bible have authority over their life, they are in control in a new radical stream."
I have simply no intention of letting the Bible have authority over my life? By referring to BIBLICAL EVIDENCE?? Interesting, OT. Very interesting reasoning indeed!
My justification for digging around in the archives is that clearly your attitude has not changed. We now read in #240 - OT -
"...you *sound* like you are scratching around for a way to avoid submitting your pride and indepedence and free will to the living Christ."
And to think that this is someone who accuses me of making assumptions about him!!!
But this is exactly the problem, isn't it, OT? You think that you have the right to make personal accusations against people, because your theology permits you to do so. Since we are all, supposedly, 'totally depraved' and deserving of hell because of the 'original sin' we have all apparently chosen (despite the fact that such a thing is impossible to choose), then anyone is 'fair game' to be accused, condemned, spoken down to, preached down to etc.
It reminds of Jesus' words to the Pharisees: "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matthew 12:7).
The Pharisees saw everything in terms of law, but Jesus came to show a new way - a proper understanding of the law built on mercy and love. Mercy - and not the loveless law - is actually the basis of judgment - James 2:13, since the only people who will be condemned are those who hate and reject mercy, not those who have clocked up a whole list of little misdemeanours because of the effect of what Adam did thousands of year before.
But I can understand why some Christians cannot bear this 'love and mercy' way of thinking. It means that they would lose their "theology of control' over other people. It means that life becomes 'messy' - as one "damnation by default because of original sin" preacher once said to me: "you are muddying the waters".
This is the reason why the church has clung to this erroneous doctrine down the centuries. If everyone begins life damned, and the only way to be undamned is to sign up to a church programme (with all the pecuniary implications of that), then these preachers are onto a winner.
It's far most costly - and Christlike - to have to swim in the 'muddied waters' of the love of God.
Complain about this comment
LSV, swim in the wee wee would have been a more apt metaphor, but fair play to you.
Carry on. :-)
-H
Complain about this comment
#252 - Helio -
"LSV, swim in the wee wee would have been a more apt metaphor, but fair play to you".
Now don't you go breaking the truce, or were you just referring to RJB's interpretation of Andres Serrano's art?
I know this is a bit of a belated illustration but the current surreal atmosphere reminds me of this: http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/lincs.html
It would be a pity if our respective commanding officers blew the whistle and ordered us back into the trenches. But back into the trenches I may have to go, if duty constrains me.
But I would rather play footie in the shell holes of no man's land, and leave my bayonet to rust until the war is over (but of course that depends, I guess, on who wins the war).
For the time being I am quite happy fighting on another front.
Complain about this comment
LSV:
"If the event does not take place then it is impossible to have knowledge of it, which is obvious if you think about it."
Ok when God decided to create the world, would you say there was a possbility it could not have come to pass?
If your hypothesis is correct then how does prophecy work?
I think your view puts you in a cul-du-sac.
"God 'succeeded', in that this event shows that God is able to create beings with genuine free-will. God permitted this 'failure' because he makes room for human moral responsibility."
God works both monergistically and synergistically, so I don't see a problem with God allowing for the failure of his creation.
At certain times God allows his creation to do the opposite of what he commands - even this he has planned for, and works all things together for good.
For God to be consistent with himself he will command evil men to repent even though he knows they will not.
You seem to be in between Arminian Foreknowledge and open theism. To say that God cannot know something until it actually happens is to deny every prophetic book in the Bible - and on top of that your position makes God subervent to man.
You seem to contradict yourself in post 236 you state "He may know the outcome, but that does not imply that he makes our choices for us."
Then in post 238 ""If the event does not take place then it is impossible to have knowledge of it, which is obvious if you think about it."
Either God knows the future or he does not - unless you hold to a type of middle knowledge where God knows some things but not all things.
Complain about this comment
#254 - auntjason -
"To say that God cannot know something until it actually happens is to deny every prophetic book in the Bible - and on top of that your position makes God subervent to man."
No, you have misunderstood.
I did not say that God cannot know something UNTIL it happens. I was writing about FOREknowledge. But how can God FOREknow something that will never come to pass?
Let me revisit my illustration about the Nazis.
God foreknew that the Nazis would arise and murder millions of people. Now if foreknowledge implies predestination, suppose God then decided to act on his foreknowledge to kill all the Nazi leaders at birth to prevent this evil happening.
But if God killed all these people at birth, then the thing that God "foreknew" would not then happen. And so therefore God would not have been able to foreknow it, since it was not then going to happen.
This is what I mean when I say that God's foreknowledge is based on real events, and God cannot then subvert those real events by some kind of prior action based on foreknowledge.
So coming back to my illustration about the vineyard, God could not have foreknown that the vineyard would 'rebel' unless he had first created the vineyard, otherwise the rebellion would not take place. Therefore he could not decide that it was a waste of time to create the vineyard because of his foreknowledge that it was going to turn bad, because its act of "turning bad" is dependent on the existence of the vineyard.
I realise that this is difficult to understand because our minds are locked into time, whereas God's mind is not, but my argument still holds true.
As for God being subservient to man: God is, in certain situations, subservient to man, because God has chosen to be subservient to man - it's called respecting human free will. You may not like that or agree with it, but you will have to come to terms with the fact that this is a biblical truth. And if you genuinely acknowledge the sovereignty of God then you have no choice but to submit to that truth.
If you assume that acknowledging God's sovereignty must imply that God does not grant man free will, then you are actually rebelling against God's sovereignty, since God, in his sovereignty, has given man free will. God's act of delegating authority to man is a sovereign act. He did not need to do it, but he has done it. To deny this is therefore to deny God's sovereignty.
A refusal to accept this aspect of God's sovereignty is therefore highly presumptuous.
Complain about this comment
auntjason -
To add to my previous post, I realise that we also need to look at the relationship between 'foreknowledge' and 'predestination' from another angle.
I have been arguing that foreknowledge cannot be a sufficient condition of predestination (i.e. that predestination inevitably follows from foreknowledge), but what if predestination is a necessary condition of foreknowledge (i.e. that it's not possible to have foreknowledge without predestination)?
I suspect that this is actually more relevant to your way of thinking.
The thinking goes like this:
God foreknows that Judas is going to betray Jesus.
We both agree (I assume) that God foreknew that Judas would do this. But how then could God foreknow it if he then did not make it happen? If God did not make this event occur, then it's possible that Judas may have decided not to betray Jesus, thus undermining God's foreknowledge (and the Old Testament prophecy about this act).
The problem with this is that this argument only works if God is subject to time. It is saying that God has to make sure that something will happen in order for the prophecy to come true. In other words, God would be manipulating events in order to validate prophecy.
But if God is above time, this is not necessary. God's foreknowledge is actually not really 'foreknowledge' at all, but rather the knowledge possessed by a mind which is above time. There is no 'fore-' about it! ("Before Abraham was I AM" is a good example of God being above time). The term 'foreknowledge' is actually an anthropomorphism.
The event of the betrayal of Jesus had to happen in order for there to exist knowledge about it. But God knew about this before it occurred. Is this a contradiction? No, but only if God is above time, in which there is no "before" and "after" limitation.
Since God is above time, he therefore does not need to make prophecies come true through an act of predestination, as we would have to. He can look at the results of human free will decisions - decisions over which he has limited control (because he has chosen to limit himself out of respect for human free will) - and know these things at any point within a time-scale. But that does not mean he has willed or caused these events.
But if God is subject to time, then he has no choice but to will these events in order to make sure they come to pass and that man doesn't "throw a spanner in the works".
My conclusion: the idea that predestination is a necessary condition of foreknowledge therefore implies that God is subject to time. This is actually the error of the open theists.
So I would like to suggest that it is your understanding of linking foreknowledge and predestination together, which demeans the sovereignty and power of God, and is more akin to an aspect of open theism.
In fact, once foreknowledge and predestination are seen as two completely different and causally unrelated concepts, then the whole edifice of Calvinistic predestination collapses and all the tortured theology with it.
Complain about this comment
LSV -
"We both agree (I assume) that God foreknew that Judas would do this. But how then could God foreknow it if he then did not make it happen? If God did not make this event occur, then it's possible that Judas may have decided not to betray Jesus, thus undermining God's foreknowledge (and the Old Testament prophecy about this act)."
Given a certain amount of information we as humans can predict that certain simple things *will* happen. God who is beyond our comprehension has *all* the information so he knows exactly what *will* happen given a certain set of circumstances.
So he knew exactly what Judas would do because by nature he could do nothing else - so God simply uses the corrupt nature for his plan and purpose.
God simply knows what evil people will do because he rules over evil.
You are creating a very serious problem when you suggest that God has limited control over man - what that actually leads to is evil being able to act outside of God's knowledge.
I have heard this argument you are putting forth about God acting out of time. This is something I have never really understood because the way I have understood it, is that God see's everthing at once, and therefore he knows what we call future events because to him they are not future but part of the same picture. This is all fine and dandy, but I don't see any real good scriptural evidence for such a view, also from man's point of view there is no way to change what God already knows whatever way you slice it.
"So I would like to suggest that it is your understanding of linking foreknowledge and predestination together, which demeans the sovereignty and power of God, and is more akin to an aspect of open theism."
LSV - come on now you should know better than to say something like that. When God speaks and renders something certain that thing will come to pass just because he said so. He does not need to sit watching over his decree like some mummy watching her children - he speaks with power and authority and when he speaks uncondtionally time does not limit any of his decree's.
Open theism is more to do with the denial of God's omniscience rather than confining God to time. You can't be serious in attributing a calvinistic view to open theism.
Trying to say I believe that God's determined will requires time to make it work is crazy.
I am willing to admit I don't understand this subject fully but I simply try and understand what scripture has to say about the subject - and when I read romans 9, eph 1, and similar texts I can not come to any other conclusion but a determined one.
Anyhow I really wish you good and I hope and pray God will continue to bless and help you in your faith.
Jas
What it really leads to is that there is a *possibility* God could be wrong about future events.
Either God knows the future exactly or he does not - by you admitting he has limited control means
Complain about this comment
Sorry about the last few sentences please ignore
Complain about this comment
auntjason -
Thanks for your replies.
I think this discussion is going round in circles a bit.
All I can do is affirm that I believe that God is omniscient and sovereign, but that he, in his sovereignty, has granted man free will. God is not limited in his nature or attributes, but he has made the sovereign decision to "limit himself" in order to allow for the operation of human free will. This is not the same as being "subservient to man", as if man could control or exercise authority over God.
I am aware that my views have been expressed in a rather strident way, and I apologise for that, but the issue of God "having it in" for anybody is an idea that deeply troubles me, and seems to be implied by the discrimination inherent in Calvinistic theology.
I am also aware that I haven't yet written anything about the "omnibenevolence" issue. I don't know whether this thread is burning out, but I hope to address this issue either here or on another appropriate thread.
Wishing you every blessing, Al
Complain about this comment
Not much contributed lately by the Atheists, but then the stuff Auntie and LSV have been posting between themselves does the job better.
Complain about this comment
Come on Rochie we all know there is no such thing as an atheist.
Debate is healthy Rochie - break free from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Complain about this comment
LSV
I think I can see how I have angered you and I think you have made a fair point. Sorry.
I certainly don't believe it is right to make unfair assumptions about people.
So perhaps I might ask you directly instead;-
1) Do you believe that people can choose not to believe in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection and still be accepted by God? Is this what you are trying to argue?
And if so why do you believe that God sent his son as a sacrifice?
I know you may not like to explain your views but that will leave us wondering why you argue what you do.
Al, I notice that the further we go in this discussion and the more I feel I have given credible answers to your points, the more you seem you turn this into a discussion about my character and motives, using, shall we say, ever more colourful language ;-)
Am I expected to have a higher standard of behaviour in how I address you than in how you are allowed to address me?
I notice that anyone holding a traditionall orthodox view on this blog usually have their character and motives seriously attacked if they draw attention to that aspect of their faith that is in conflict with modern culture, no matter how objectively it is done. If you profess Christian faith, discuss the latest book you have bought, discuss the latest philosophy ( a la the Athenians in Acts) but are careful never to mention anything of your faith which might be considered "controversial" then all is well.
For example, most people on this blog (me included) believe that God is a God of love, mercy and grace and that Jesus helped the poor and challenged religious oppression. Nobody has a problem with that. We all believe it, it would seem. There is not even any need to debate it for most people. It doesnt cause any rows.
But if you suggest IN ADDITION to the above that man is guilty of original sin, that God became man and died and rose again to atone for man; that God is also a God of holiness and judgement; that hell and the devil are real; that man must repent of sin and believe in the risen Christ to be saved and that Christ said repeatedly that there is a very real danger of hell we must flee; that Christ said that most people would fail to make it to heaven; that Christ warned Christians to be holy regarding their use of sexuality...
Well then you are in trouble even though these things are in black and white in the NT. ( I say all of that subject to my previous posts about those have not heard the gospel etc).
Now is it because the people who express such views make them objectionable by their attitude or means of communication?
Or is it that the people who attack their character and motivations are more accurately trying to discredit these views?
Or is it sometimes a little of one and a little of the other?
I suspect it is mostly the case of ad hominem attacks in order to discredit the gospel. Otherwise why attack my character at the END of the debate and not at the START?
But tell me your own views and position on this?
The more I have provided reasonable answers to your questions the more the discussion has shifted onto my character and motivation and away from the beliefs we are discussing.
Why is that Al?
When i say these views are in black and white, I will undergird that saying that these key doctrines were held by the disciples, the early church, church fathers, reformers, the founders of all today's main worldwide denominations.
I certainly accept people have a right to disagree with these views but I find it difficult when they are portrayed as out-of-date, unreasonable and unrepresentative of historical, mainstream Christianity.
That is dishonest and just factually wrong.
CS Lewis went to great lengths to explain and defend most of these doctrines in Mere Christianity and he didnt spare the blushes of whom he saw as heretics!
He actually slammed the version of Christianity which was embarrassed to talk about "hell, sin and the devil", calling it "Christainity and water".
Because if hell, sin and the devil are real (as according to historical mainstream Christianity) and I sound a warning for people to escape danger and into the arms of a loving Christ, would it be "merciful"
of me not to mention such distressing doctines?
Or would it be more merciful and loving of me to keep my mouth shut?
If you don't believe any of these things and you accuse me of being unmerciful in talking about them, is that an honest response from you?
It would be like me shouting to warn a neighbour that his house is on fire and you warning *me* off bothering him on the grounds that I was being "unmerciful". It would be a nonsense from you wouldnt it?
And that is frequently the way that normal orthodox Christianity is treated on this blog. Yes, I believe in grace, love, mercy and compassion, of course. But if people are going to argue that these abstract terms should deny us a chance to present the actual historial gospel of Acts and Romans then I'm afraid I wont find that acceptable.
I note that most of the people who attack such teachings the loudest have perhaps explained their own detailed beliefs with the least clarity.
Another response is that it is not loving, gracious or merciful to talk about such things and that doctrine is dead without love. But the NT espistles are in fact to a large extent teaching of doctrine, corrections of wrong doctrine, and wrong conduct. Love is key, yes, but so is doctrine, according to the NT. Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Galations....
You quote from John where he says that all that love are from God, but that espistle also majors big time on the divinity of Christ, his sacrifice for sin and resurrection, the need for re-birth and warnings about false teachers. And John is "the apostle of love".
So why do YOU think Christ died and rose again LSV, if you think he did at all?
And how do you think man can obtain salvation with God, if at all?
And do you believe in "sin, hell and the devil" with ref to CS Lewis? Do you think these terms are "outdated"?
What do you think the NT teaches about these and what should we know and believe?
Sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
#262 - OT -
"I know you may not like to explain your views but that will leave us wondering why you argue what you do."
auntjason asked me a similar question, and it baffles me, quite honestly. You say that I may not like to explain my views. What do you think I have been doing then throughout this and other threads (it feels like I am virtually writing a book on topics like this)??!
What do you think this is from my post #218 ? -
"I agree that righteousness comes by the grace of God. And I am willing to concede that there is a kind of 'original sin', but this is an influence which is continually counteracted by 'original grace' - this is what the whole teaching in Romans 5 about the influence of the 'two Adams' is about. Every person born into this world is subject to BOTH influences. The influence of the first Adam to sin, and the influence of the second Adam to do what is right, that is, to respond (in some way or other - only God is the judge of it) to love. The work of the first Adam has created one option we can choose, and the work of the second Adam has created the other option which we are also free to choose. This is a much bigger idea of the atoning work of Christ than the gnostic idea that tells us that Christ is only able to work in someone's life if they hold to a correct doctrinal view of the atonement (and go to the right church, to boot!). Can't Jesus Christ save someone whose mind is in a mess?"
(I would also like to add to this a mention of Romans 5:20 - "where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" - proving my point that the reality of God's grace counteracts original sin wherever it is found.)
Now answer me this question, OT. Is this an explanation of something I believe? Yes or No?
I remember you once asked me this before when we were discussing homosexuality. What do I believe? And yet you asked this of me after I had expounded at length on many things I believed!
It really is so bizarre and surreal to encounter this kind of attitude. I write hundreds of words on serious topics and then you ask: "please tell me what you believe". Uggh! Despair!!
And you have asked me a question here:
"Do you believe that people can choose not to believe in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection and still be accepted by God? Is this what you are trying to argue?
And if so why do you believe that God sent his son as a sacrifice?"
It depends what you mean by "choose" and "believe". Someone may have been severely abused in the Christian church, and as a result may have grown up with a distorted view of Christian doctrine, with the result that that person seemingly "chooses to reject" doctrines considered to be central to the Christian faith. But God knows the heart, and God, being a God in whom there is not the slightest trace of injustice, knows when there may exist mitigating circumstances in the lives of some people. So therefore, it is possible for someone to hold wrong doctrines - and to even believe that they are rejecting true doctrines - and to be accepted by God.
In fact there is a sense in which all people are "accepted" by God anyway, in that God loves all people, and Christ died for all people - not potentially or contingently, but actually. But I suspect your immediate reaction to that comment may possibly be: "Oh, so you believe in universal salvation?"
No, I do not believe in "universal salvation". And why do I say that? Because no matter how much God accepts and loves a person, and no matter much Christ died (in actuality) for that person, if that person hates the love of God, if he hates mercy, if he hates compassion, if his pride causes him to despise God, then his experience of eternity will be hell. That is because that person has chosen evil. His experience of God in eternity will be hell, not because God hates him, not because he has gone to hell by default because of someone else's sin (Adam's), but because HE HATES GOD. And he hates God, not because of original sin, but because of the evil that he has chosen, having wilfully rejected the light and the love that God has actually shown to him (which is consistent with the clearest explanation of judgment in the Bible - John 3:19-20 - a rejection of the light which has been revealed).
The Bible makes absolutely clear that God does not judge people on the basis of original sin: Romans 11:32 - "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." If there is any purpose in original sin, it is simply in order to lay the groundwork for mercy being shown to all people. No one can possibly avoid God's mercy by slipping into hell as a result of the sin of Adam. In fact the Bible states that judgment is based on the factor of mercy: James 2:13 - "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." Therefore the only person who can ultimately be damned is the person who rejects mercy (as a result of pride).
Do you know what the major heresy in the Early Church was? It was gnosticism, which was a spiritual version of the philosophy of neo-Platonism. According to this view, salvation is attained through 'knowledge'. If you didn't have the required knowledge then you were in trouble. It seems to me that some forms of reformed evangelical theology are based on gnosticism. Salvation is attained through the acquisition of the knowledge of certain doctrines, and the human race is judged on the basis of adherence to those doctrines.
Far be it from me to say that knowledge does not matter. It does matter what we believe. But God also knows the heart, and the atoning work of Christ cannot be reduced to a simple set of doctrinal beliefs. Let me explain this with reference to one of Christ's parables - the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The Samaritan clearly represents the kind of person Jesus Christ wants us to be, and therefore he is, in fact, a kind of Christ figure. The wounded man is lying by the side of the road, and along comes the Samaritan. The Samaritan wants to save him, but there's a problem. The wounded man does not believe in the Samaritan, because he is unconscious. Does the Samaritan try to rouse him from his coma and extract from him a "confession of faith" before he can help him? How ridiculous! The Samaritan helps the man, quite irrespective of what the victim feels or believes, or whether he is even conscious at all. The Samaritan takes the initiative and performs the work of salvation.
Now I am aware that some people may understand this in a predestinarian way, but the whole point of the parable about "loving one's neighbour" rules out any kind of discriminatory thinking which is a characteristic of predestinarian theology (the reason I hate the double decree doctrine as it justifies a discriminatory view of humanity). Salvation is based on God's character of love and mercy, and he has the right to apply the saving work of Christ to anyone, irrespective of their muddled state of mind or the deception that they have been subjected to.
If you think that God can only work through correct doctrinal belief, then you are a gnostic.
I could write so much more, and tie so many biblical passages together, but I will leave it there for now. If you still feel the need to ask me to "please explain what you believe", then you are just having a joke with me, I'm afraid, and playing mind games, which I don't really appreciate.
And if you think that I don't believe in the reality of evil or God's judgment, then you have made no effort whatsoever to even read what I have written.
I don't think I can be much clearer than I have been.
All the best, Al.
Complain about this comment
Al
I'm sorry to have missed the point you made in a previous post.
It seems to me that the more we actually tease out what we mean and believe, the less difference there is.
Part of the reason I have missed what you were explaining before is because you spent so much time parodying my views and making colourful comments about me! I think you also said somewhere else that you did not want to put your beliefs all on show so you could not be pigeonholed. True?
Also, I just dont have the time to read everything on this blog, even all your other comments to other people.
-----------------------
I am very comfortable with the points you make in the last post.
Have you had experience with people of unsound mind? You make some good points which seem entirely consistent with God's character to me.
Ref gnosticism, it oftem seems to me that this blog is a gnostic club of sorts, because it appears that you must have read certain books and/or be able to name drop certain "scholars" and/or hold certain beliefs and/or theories in order to be accepted.
You will note I dont think God has a doctrinal checklist to decide whether he accepts people.
Romans makes it clear we benefit from Calvary via FAITH, not intellecutual assent/theoretical knowledge.
IMO this faith is the means we get a clean slate from God; the means to keep it clean and reclean it from time to time as needed, as well as the means to enter into relationship with Christ.
God discriminated between Cain and Abel because of their difference in "doctrine" on sacrifices, if youwill; Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to Father except by me" ie through his sacrifice; he said spiritual rebirth was key, no question.
In other words I agree God does not have a doctrinal checklist, but I also suggest that if you don't believe, in some way, that man-God Christ paid for our sin on the cross and rose again after death, you are not believing in the same Christ as in the NT. What God does with you after that is most certainly his business.
CS Lewis makes a very similar point to you about people who cannot understand the gospel, saying he trusts God's skill and mercy to deal fairly with them; he also slams anyone who asks if they can live a good life without Christ, suggesting they are more rabbit than man if they dont want to enter into invited communion with...Almighty God.
Romans, Galations and Ephesians make it clear merit does not count at Calvary. Christ said spiritual rebirth was centre stage.
I don't reject your dispensation for people of unsound mind, not at all. Makes sense.
But I do suggest the main show in town IS the crucification, resurrection and living Christ, that that is the good news and that the exceptions to the rule are just that.
This has always been the traditional, mainstream good news, I think you agree.
BTW I repeat for the record, every belief you have attacked and rejected in this thread I have never owned nor advocated, so far as I can see.
Still not sure why you feel you need to refute me on so many points I never advanced?
Glad to have made some progress in understanding and thanks for the chat.
OT
Complain about this comment
Bad things happen in life as the whole cosmic system is governed by inscrutable laws of Karma... as we sow so shall we reap... nothing less or more! If they were only happiness in life... all would become monotonous... meaningless! Only when we suffer... we understood true value of happiness... never otherwise!
Complain about this comment
#265 - Vijay Kumar -
"...the whole cosmic system is governed by inscrutable laws of Karma... Only when we suffer... we understood true value of happiness... never otherwise!"
I've heard of another "law" that trumps the "laws of Karma" in the great poker game of life. This "law" is called "the grace of God" (it's a wonderful thing this "grace of God", but not much good for human pride, I'm afraid).
But I suppose it must, in a way, be a great relief for some people to believe in karma. All those poor souls who suffer and perish must have committed terrible sins. Phew, what a relief that I don't need to feel any compassion for the "sad losers"! I'll just assure myself that "it's all their own fault, and so therefore I don't have to help them or even feel sorry for them." What a nice, cute - and even exotic - way to relieve one's moral conscience!
Of course, you could always try the other alternative (which is a bit more boring): natural selection. Now that really is fatalism, if ever you needed it....
Complain about this comment
Hi LSV
Good to seen you back.
I was just thinking this week that in the final analysis I could see no significant difference in the different beliefs which we debated on this thread.
I apologise if my attitude and manner complicated this discussion.
Blessings
OT
Complain about this comment
#267 - OT -
Thanks for your comment, and I admit that I also have rather overreacted to some of your comments at times, for which I apologise.
I think the main problem I have had is with the idea of original sin - or rather the idea of judgment of original sin. I think there are many misunderstandings about this idea, and there is a sense in which I do actually believe in a kind of original sin. I certainly believe that all righteousness comes from God and that man possesses no natural righteousness of his own - which is true whether the fall occurred or not. (In fact, I suggest that "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in Genesis 3 refers to an attempt to derive morality from nature - although I believe that this is more than merely symbolic).
The idea that man can make himself "good" by natural means is completely contrary to my understanding of the Christian faith. This is why I repudiate the idea that morality can be justified with reference to a naturalistic philosophy, and also the idea of karma in #265 implies that we can morally improve ourselves by our own efforts - an idea I also reject.
I am sure our agreements far outweigh our disagreements.
I wish you well.
All the best, Al
Complain about this comment
so glad to reconnect Al - shalom.
I think what I have been missing in my view is the enourmous dignity and reflection of God we all have, even the most evil of us, because we have been made in the image of God.
No matter how marred we are, we are all potential immortals, imo, waiting to be redeemed by our creator, I think.
That brings dignity and eternal value to each and every person and yet allows for the fall of man and the need for redemption.
OT
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS