Suffering for the Sins of the World

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

Ed:I want you to answer this part if nothing more to this response.  So, when I say, "we don't comprehend everything", even backed up in the Standard I use, the Bible, this is illegal somehow.  But when science does it, i.e., we are constantly updating our knowledge and certainty, that your use of "we don't comprehend everything" is somehow more valid?  

 

Prof:Because science updates it's comprehension using evidence, Ed.  The bible, your standard, does not.

 

......

 

What if evidence leads to a wrong conclusion? For many years? 

 

I don't think evidence can lead to wrong conclusions. In science it is the wrong interpretation of evidence that can lead to wrong conclusions for many decades, from my experience. For religion there is little to talk about concerning evidence IMO.

[Edgarcito]

57 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Elaborate, please.

I would think the appropriate response given my limits understanding non-believer types would be soft agnosticism.  The Prof is antitheist from what I can tell.  And with regard to Christianity, his beliefs, if he gets it wrong, is bad bongos for him and could lead to the same for people he has mislead....a preacher but for hell if you will.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Let me replace the revered term "scientific theory" with scientific knowledge instead. Or scientific understanding. I like that term as well.  

 

So these ideas do get modified at times. 

Of course they do.  As new information and evidence becomes available, as technology improves and allows for more enhanced testing procedures, naturally our knowledge and understanding is going to grow and change. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I would think the appropriate response given my limits understanding non-believer types would be soft agnosticism.  The Prof is antitheist from what I can tell.  And with regard to Christianity, his beliefs, if he gets it wrong, is bad bongos for him and could lead to the same for people he has mislead....a preacher but for hell if you will.

Damn it.  I had to go and mention Pascal; and now we've got to deal with his raggedy-ass Wager.  I knew I should have said George MacDonald instead.

[walterpthefirst]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I would think the appropriate response given my limits understanding non-believer types would be soft agnosticism.  The Prof is antitheist from what I can tell.  And with regard to Christianity, his beliefs, if he gets it wrong, is bad bongos for him and could lead to the same for people he has mislead....a preacher but for hell if you will.

 

According to the bible soft agnosticism will lead you to hell just as surely antitheism.

 

According to scripture only the blood of Jesus saves people from hell.

 

So, if you lived and died before Christian missionaries preached the Word to you...

 

Romans 10 : 14

 

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 

 

...then its bad bongos for you too.

 

You don't have to be an antitheist to end up in hell.

 

You just have to be deselected for heaven by god before you were born.

[walterpthefirst]

Care to argue for the free will choices of those god selected for hell before they were born, Ed?

 

Where do they figure in your 'test'?

 

God loved Jacob and hated Esau.   Why?   Because of the choices Esau made?   No.

 

Romans 9 : 15 & 16

 

15 For he [god] says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

 

A test where people's choices make no difference to the final outcome is no kind of test.

 

Care to argue that?

[☆ Merlingoth ☆]

48 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As new information and evidence becomes available, as technology improves and allows for more enhanced testing procedures, naturally our knowledge and understanding is going to grow and change. 

This is a valuable truth, and is, in many ways, respectfully, not easily afforded to Christians.
 

As previously discussed, a Christian must integrate new information into an admittedly constrained and subjective understanding derived primarily from the Bible: the new information must align with or, at least, not contradict what is stated in the Bible—integrating some new information in this way is not always easy! Scientists, conversely, are not bound by these same constrains as Christians are, and, as such, are capable of interpreting new information more objectively (assuming they have no bias) since, by definition, they are not expected to fit new information into a prescribed framework (and let alone an ancient text).
 

Of note, it’s worth pointing out that, unlike nearly every other agreement human beings enter into in life, the commitment to become a Christian is almost always entered into by people before they fully read and understand the Bible—Christians are then contractually obligated to make sense of their Holy Book having already committed to agreeing that it is, in fact, the truth. This is noteworthy because it’s not at all the way agreements are entered into, for instance, when buying a home or a car. As a result of this tethering to the Scripture prior to knowing what it says and means, Christians must make accommodations and explanations for information with which they might not otherwise agree.

Objectivity is the key difference. Unlike scientists, the resignation for a Christian to accept a “God of the Gaps” stance when new “unknowns” are uncovered, over time, yields them less and less “unknown” terrain of which they can point to say “See that part we don’t understand? God is in that part that isn't known!” Each day, this amount of "unknown" is in jeopardy of growing smaller and smaller. A scientist, by contrast, does not need to label, explain, and define an “unknown” in this manner—there is no "losing ground" that they need to defend: there is only further clarity about that which we we're trying to understand.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

And with regard to Christianity, his beliefs, if he gets it wrong, is bad bongos for him

Oh woe is me, I say.  But what if you're wrong about Islam, Ed?  What if you die and get to heaven and there are 72 virgins waiting to tell you there ain't no god but Allah and Mohammed's his prophet?  You'll just wind up in the same hell as me and my bongos.

 

You see, Ed, you have not sufficently supported your claim that a god of any kind exists at all, let alone that your god exists. And the Mohammedan has as much evidence for his god as you have for yours.  So, if you're going to bet on god, just to be safe, how do you know which god to bet on?  How are you any safer than me if we're both wrong about Allah?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Merlingoth said:

“See that part we don’t understand? God is in that part that isn't known!” Each day, this amount of "unknown" is in jeopardy of growing smaller and smaller.

How small can those gaps get, and still contain an omnipresent god?

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh woe is me, I say. 

It's the repeated trampling upon that comes to mind.  And the subsequent silence in Heaven prior to Jesus and the feminists busting through the clouds....lol.  But you do you brother.......eh, disbelieving brother.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh woe is me, I say.  But what if you're wrong about Islam, Ed?  What if you die and get to heaven and there are 72 virgins waiting to tell you there ain't no god but Allah and Mohammed's his prophet?  You'll just wind up in the same hell as me and my bongos.

 

You see, Ed, you have not sufficently supported your claim that a god of any kind exists at all, let alone that your god exists. And the Mohammedan has as much evidence for his god as you have for yours.  So, if you're going to bet on god, just to be safe, how do you know which god to bet on?  How are you any safer than me if we're both wrong about Allah?

This goes along with a question on my mind.  You are treating the Bible as absolute truth.  But.  The writings in the Bible were written by humans, and humans decided which writings should go into the Bible, so what made it magically into the word of God?  Any more than the Torah being the word of God?  It is all based on myth.  And much of that myth was metaphorical to begin with, and likely modified through the ages, so how did it become the concrete, inerrant word of God?? 

[☆ Merlingoth ☆]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

The writings in the Bible were written by humans, and humans decided which writings should go into the Bible, so what made it magically into the word of God?

The New Testament does seem to lose some magic when you realize that you’re reading Paul’s mail.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

This goes along with a question on my mind.  You are treating the Bible as absolute truth.  But.  The writings in the Bible were written by humans, and humans decided which writings should go into the Bible, so what made it magically into the word of God?  Any more than the Torah being the word of God?  It is all based on myth.  And much of that myth was metaphorical to begin with, and likely modified through the ages, so how did it become the concrete, inerrant word of God?? 

 

Faith.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Faith.

 

This presents @Edgarcito with several problems, though, doesn't it?

 

As you have pointed out, Walt, faith can only be obtained through hearing the gospel.  According to Romans 10:17, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.  This means, as you have correctly surmised, that anyone who has not heard the word of god cannot have faith in god.  This includes everyone who lived before jesus came to earth; and it also includes everyone after jesus came who never had a missionary or evangelist preach the gospel to them.  In setting up such an unfair and unjust system, god has again exhibited malice aforethought with depraved indifference to human life.  This is a problem for Ed, if he is going to continue to claim that god is loving and fair.

 

But faith presents Ed with yet another problem; and one he doesn't seem to have thought through very well.  According to Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Do you see the problem?  Ed has put forth the claim that there is more evidence out there somewhere, that god will reveal more evidence in that Great and Glorious "Someday".  But the scripture says that faith is the evidence.  In all these thousands of years, with all these billions of people, nobody has found any more evidence because faith is the evidence.  So, once a person accepts faith, that's all the evidence that person is going to get. There simply isn't any other evidence to be found beyond that. 

 

This presents Ed with two further problems.  The first and most obvious is that his idea that more evidence will be forthcoming is simply wrong, according to the standard he uses--the bible.  No further evidence will be given, because faith is the only evidence there is.

 

But there's another problem.  According to Romans 12:3, For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.  So, according to the bible, god gives us whatever measure of faith we have.  Since faith is directly tied to the evidence (in fact, faith is the evidence), this demonstrates that god does deliberately withhold evidence by regulating how much faith he gives to a person.  A person to whom god gives a lot of faith will also receive a lot of evidence; but a person god does not give much faith to... well...  Notice, too, that we do not have any choice, or any say, in how much faith we get.  As you've pointed out before, god just gives to whom he gives and doesn't give to those he doesn't give to.

 

So, to tie all of this together: the evidence can only be seen by those whom god has chosen to hear the word and to whom god gives sufficient faith.  The rest of us are just shit out of luck, I reckon.  This is ultimately why the "free will" argument is bollocks.  Because god is in control of the entire test/lesson/game; and he has already decided who is going to pass and who is going to fail. 

 

In the final analysis, the faith that Ed believes is the final answer to every question and the final solution to every problem, just presents even more problems and raises even more questions.

 

god is evil.

[alreadyGone]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

....

So, to tie all of this together: the evidence can only be seen by those whom god has chosen to hear the word and to whom god gives sufficient faith.  The rest of us are just shit out of luck, I reckon.  This is ultimately why the "free will" argument is bollocks.  Because god is in control of the entire test/lesson/game; and he has already decided who is going to pass and who is going to fail. 

.....

 

 

Calvinism?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Calvinism?

Apparently so... but only if you cherry pick around all the other verses in the bible that contradict predestination.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But there's another problem.  According to Romans 12:3, For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.  So, according to the bible, god gives us whatever measure of faith we have.  Since faith is directly tied to the evidence (in fact, faith is the evidence), this demonstrates that god does deliberately withhold evidence by regulating how much faith he gives to a person.  A person to whom god gives a lot of faith will also receive a lot of evidence; but a person god does not give much faith to... well...  Notice, too, that we do not have any choice, or any say, in how much faith we get.  As you've pointed out before, god just gives to whom he gives and doesn't give to those he doesn't give to.

This raises another question going back to Adam and Eve in the Garden.  Was their disobedience due to a lack of faith as apologists sometimes claim?  If so, why did they not have more faith?  After all, they had walked with god and heard him speak (Adam had, at least).  So why didn't Adam have enough faith to believe god and obey him?  Could it be that, as another way of ensuring that Sin and Suffering would be unleashed upon the earth, god simply did not give Adam a measure of faith sufficient for belief and obedience?

 

Damn...

[pantheory]

On 9/20/2022 at 1:33 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Damn it.  I had to go and mention Pascal; and now we've got to deal with his raggedy-ass Wager.  I knew I should have said George MacDonald instead.

 

I love Pascal's wager. I think it fits in well with any religious discussion -- not that I have had that many in this century. Pascal was a very cool dude. Biaise Pascal was a Frenchman, a mathematician, a scientist and philosopher of his time.  He was born 20 years before Newton, and like Newton he was a genius and one of the first true scientists.  He invented and built one of the first mechanical calculators, and performed unique calculations concerning the probability of events, today known as probability theory. Besides French, he also wrote in Latin, English, Spanish and other languages. He was a contemporary of Rene De carte. Like Newton he also wrote ideas concerning religion, hence Pascal's Wager. He was criticized in his own time for his "Wager" because his writings considered the possibility that there was no God. And like Newton, his writings kept the church off his back believing he was no threat to their beliefs. Unfortunately Pascal died when he was just 39 years old and never knew of Newton, since he died before Newton's writings were well-known or famous.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

 

For me, Pancal's wager boils down to this::

 

Would you rather know the truth of your own existence, of reality, and of the existence of humanity and all other life? Or believe in the existence of an invisible God, invisible worlds, and the possibility of believing in a total falsehood and sacrifice a good part of your own life, in hopes of the possibility of an afterlife in a possibly nonexistent heaven or hell.

 

Details of heaven and hell are never described in the old testament. The detailed descriptions of them in the New Testament are only found in one of its obviously most ridiculous  books, Revelation. If you can believe in Revelation, then maybe you should also believe in Casper the Friendly Ghost because he is more positive,  and certainly more apt to turn the other cheek if he were human .

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This raises another question going back to Adam and Eve in the Garden.  Was their disobedience due to a lack of faith as apologists sometimes claim?  If so, why did they not have more faith?  After all, they had walked with god and heard him speak (Adam had, at least).  So why didn't Adam have enough faith to believe god and obey him?  Could it be that, as another way of ensuring that Sin and Suffering would be unleashed upon the earth, god simply did not give Adam a measure of faith sufficient for belief and obedience?

 

Damn...

So when God said you are free to eat, he really meant he applied a bias to their taste buds?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

So when God said you are free to eat, he really meant he applied a bias to their taste buds?

 

No.

 

What god meant was that at the time he warned Adam (but not Eve) he was free to choose to obey.

 

What god didn't tell Adam was that later on god himself would change the conditions of Adam's test.

 

God changed them by allowing Satan to enter Eden and deceive Eve, which caused her to sin.

 

Then she in turn caused Adam to sin.

 

So, what happened in Eden was not a true test of either Adam's or Eve's uninfluenced free will.

 

Nor was it a test of Adam and Eve's obedience according to god's initial conditions.

 

 

[alreadyGone]

"allowing Satan to enter Eden and deceive Eve"..

knowing as a certainty that Satan would do so.

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This raises another question going back to Adam and Eve in the Garden.  Was their disobedience due to a lack of faith as apologists sometimes claim?  If so, why did they not have more faith?  After all, they had walked with god and heard him speak (Adam had, at least).  So why didn't Adam have enough faith to believe god and obey him?  Could it be that, as another way of ensuring that Sin and Suffering would be unleashed upon the earth, god simply did not give Adam a measure of faith sufficient for belief and obedience?

 

Damn...

 

That doesn't quite work, Prof.

 

Hebrews 11 is the best description in the bible of what faith is and how it works.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  God warned Adam that on the day he ate the fruit of the forbidden tree he would die.  Clearly Adam had never seen death, didn't know what it was and there was no evidence of it in Eden. 

 

But surely death was not something that Adam was hoping for?

 

Therefore, if faith is the substance of things hoped for, what was Adam hoping for?  

 

Any thoughts?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Ed, you avoided my question.  How did the writings of humans become the word of God??   
 

Hey, guys and gals, i want Eds answer. Not yours. help me keep him on track until he gives an answer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

35 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That doesn't quite work, Prof.

 

Hebrews 11 is the best description in the bible of what faith is and how it works.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  God warned Adam that on the day he ate the fruit of the forbidden tree he would die.  Clearly Adam had never seen death, didn't know what it was and there was no evidence of it in Eden. 

 

But surely death was not something that Adam was hoping for?

 

Therefore, if faith is the substance of things hoped for, what was Adam hoping for?  

 

Any thoughts?

I think you might be taking this in a different direction than I was going in, Walt.  I was looking at Roman's 12:3 which states that god has given everyone the measure of faith; and using that to question if god had simply not given Adam a measure of faith sufficient belief and obedience concerning the fruit.  However, if we tie these two verses together (god gives the measure of faith and faith is the evidence) then in not giving Adam any evidence beyond a concept with which he was unfamiliar (death), then god rather clearly did not give Adam a measure of faith sufficient for belief and obedience. 

 

I'm not sure what Adam could have hoped for.  If he was truly naïve, there's no reason to believe he would understand what hooe was; and certainly not in light of despair or any other antonym.