Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> the problem is that there have been so many interpretations throughout history

Not really. An honest study of denominational differences yields very few variant interpretations through history. We all agree on the large majority bulk of what we believe.

> many causing wars

Yeah, we regret the violence of previous eras. There was no cause for it and no excuse for it, either. Just misguided people.

> that I am left confused as to what is the true revelation, especially considering other religions.

It's the same as we do with anything else. There are standards of truth that we consider. Does it cohere with reality? Does it speak authentically of the human condition? Is it consistent with itself? Is it consistent with everything else we know to be true (truth in one field shouldn't contradict truth in another)? Is it consistent with logic?

We apply the same questions and standards to religion that we place elsewhere as we compare the claims and teachings of the various religions. I, obviously, find Christianity to be the only one that holds water.

> Doesn't forgiveness require something to forgive in the first place? Wouldn't this cancel out the virtue of the goal?

Yes, it does. We all need to be forgiven for our sins that we do. The sin that is our nature was can't help; that doesn't need to be forgiven, it needs to be transformed. The sins that we *do* need to be forgiven. I don't see what this would cancel out the goal of having a love relationship with God; instead, it's what makes it possible.

> This makes the matter unfalsifiable

Technically it is, yes. I don't put it out there as a scientific thing, but instead as what the Bible says and that many people have experienced.

> The claim allows the theist to make accusations however they want in order to fit the biblical narrative.

Let's hope not. I always hate making unfounded accusations, though I'm aware that others do.

> Does this mean he exists simply because they were dedicated?

I'm trying to understand this question. if I'm reading it right, no, I'm not saying at all that God exists because people were dedicated to Him. What I meant by the reference is that Christianity is not a call to the easy and happy life. It's a call to salvation and relationship. What this life is like for us, circumstantially and emotionally, has no particular connection to what Christianity is all about: forgiveness from sin and a relationship with God. Whether I'm rich or poor, healthy or infirmed, powerful or oppressed, smart or illiterate doesn't matter (Phil. 4.11-12; 1 Cor. 12.13; Col. 3.11; Gal. 3.28).

[Book Mitten]

> What I meant by the reference is that Christianity is not a call to the easy and happy life. It's a call to salvation and relationship.

It depends what kind of happiness you're talking about. Some forms of Christianity require difficulty or discipline in certain domains, but I would also argue that Christianity can be a source of immense comfort to many people in their hope for an afterlife with everlasting joy. The agnostic position makes no guarantees on that. It prepares to face up to a difficult and chaotic metaphysical condition. Not all of this condition is bad, but in many respects it isn't easy.

> Let's hope not. I always hate making unfounded accusations, though I'm aware that others do.

I'm saying that if you are trying to argue in favour of Christianity through the claim that "If you seek God with all your heart, you will find him", any case to the contrary of someone not being able to do so might be dismissed by God's advocate as "not searching hard enough". You might not accuse people of not searching hard enough yourself, but if you don't, how do you explain those that cannot recognise or reach God? The Bible might not be clear to them, they might misunderstand it, or they not have heard altogether.

Regarding interpretation, first you say this:

We all agree on the large majority bulk of what we believe.

Then this:

we regret the violence of previous eras. There was no cause for it and no excuse for it, either. Just misguided people.

Isn't this a sign of contradiction? How can people be that misguided when they have a vast amount of agreement?

[jimwalton]

> Some forms of Christianity require difficulty or discipline in certain domains, but I would also argue that Christianity can be a source of immense comfort to many people in their hope for an afterlife with everlasting joy.

Agreed.

> Regarding interpretation, first you say this:
>> We all agree on the large majority bulk of what we believe.
> Then this:
>> we regret the violence of previous eras. There was no cause for it and no excuse for it, either. Just misguided people.
> Isn't this a sign of contradiction?

No. The agreement I was talking about was theology. Christians agree widely on the foundational propositions of Christianity.

• God exists.
• God is holy. God’s holiness is not a separate attribute but the result of the sum total of all of his attributes—including but not limited to his sovereignty, omniscience, love, and righteousness.
• Jesus is God (Jn. 10.30).
• Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried and rose again, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15.3-4).
• There is salvation only in Jesus Christ (Acts 4.12).
• We have one objective: salvation (both for ourselves and others).
• A core of objective moral principles based on the nature and character of God.
• The powerful example of Christ that can change human behavior for the better.
• The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself.
• Baptism (of some kind, according to various traditions). Heb. 6.2.
• The laying on of hands (Heb. 6.2).
• The future physical resurrection of the dead (Heb. 6.2).
• Eternal judgment (of some kind, according to various interpretations of Scripture). Heb. 6.2.

As far as regretting the violence of previous eras, you've heard of Groupthink, right? Sometimes a group of people just get caught up in misguided thinking and make terrible decisions. Regrettably, there are examples of this in Christian history. It's not theology, but stupidity.

[Book Mitten]

> Some punishment is preventative, but some of it is just justice. Justice demands punishment of crimes even if such punishment is not rehabilitative. Otherwise we desecrate the victim's suffering.

I would say that letting the victim be oppressed in the first place is more desecrating. All the act of "Justice" does is bring more unnecessary suffering that could have been prevented.

> it depends. When a typhoon kills thousands of people, or a volcano, or tornado, is that "evil"? I say no. An impersonal force cannot perpetrate evil. It's just there. But people suffer and die. Yes, but impersonal natural cataclysms can't perpetrate evil.

I would say that it's a bad occurrence. The tornado doesn't have intent in the same humans do, perhaps (though some philosophers would say that all matter has some extent of life within it, to varying degrees). This doesn't mean the event of the harm caused isn't bad. Also, can it be considered a personal force if God created the conditions in which it occured?

[jimwalton]

> I would say that letting the victim be oppressed in the first place is more desecrating. All the act of "Justice" does is bring more unnecessary suffering that could have been prevented.

It would be better if evil could be prevented. I think it's a noble goal, but will never happen. What I can't agree with is if it can be determined that a criminal is not able to be rehabilitated we should just let him go. Justice is not just for preventing crimes or for rehabilitating perpetrators. Sometimes the person just needs to pay for what they have done.

> Also, can it be considered a personal force if God created the conditions in which it occured?

No it cannot. God created nature to act in cause-and-effect processes, and he created a dynamic world to act in ebb and flow. God does not cause every volcano, hurricane, tornado, or tidal wave.

Suppose you build a house. Let's assume you do it well and right, not skimping on design or materials. The house stands for 80 years with no problem. But then a tornado comes along and blows the thing to bits, killing a resident inside. The resident was killed by a flying piece of wood—your work. You created the conditions in which it occurred: the wood was there because you put it there. Are you to blame? I say no. The occurrence had nothing to do with you as the creator of the house; it was totally unrelated to your causation of the domicile.

[Book Mitten]

> It would be better if evil could be prevented. I think it's a noble goal, but will never happen.

Why is that? Didn't we agree that God in his omnipotence could prevent the worst atrocities?

[jimwalton]

No, actually I said the opposite. I said there are reasons God doesn't prevent suffering. There are reasons God allows the world to run on the cause-and-effect that He designed in. There are reasons the world is dynamic rather than static. There are reasons He doesn't prevent the world atrocities. It's very possible that God in his omnipotence can't prevent the worst atrocities because of the effect that might/could have on many elements in this very complex system.

God's omnipotence doesn't mean He can (or should) do everything. Omnipotence has never been adequately defined. It certainly doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means instead that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power, which the prevention of the worst atrocities may not be. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills. He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm. But we can't necessarily assume that He could just wave a magic wand and prevent the worst atrocities. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination, or what we, in our limited thinking, may think He could or should do.

• He can't do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
• He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
• He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
• He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
• He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.

Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a "result" theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, "for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way." Ross formulated it as "Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world."

As I mentioned many posts ago when I elaborated about evil in the world, God's restraint from preventing atrocities may have a reason. Possibly He is not able to do so without interfering in ways detrimental to the whole picture. Certainly He doesn't interfere with human free will. Possibly God is not able to do so without stealing away what makes us human and what makes the world work.

[Book Mitten]

> Are you to blame? I say no. The occurrence had nothing to do with you as the creator of the house; it was totally unrelated to your causation of the domicile.

I would say this applies less to certain situations, such as when evil is foreseeable.

[jimwalton]

By "foreseeable" I presume you imply "preventable," which I have already said is a tricky business. Knowledge is not causative. Just because God can see something doesn't mean God has determined it or caused it. If God is not bound by time, and He is able to always stand at the side of the "present" and watch it happen, He has full knowledge, but has not necessarily caused.

There are certain things that the Bible talks about God having a plan for, and direct causation. Those things pertain to God's plan of salvation: the calling of Abraham, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the kingship of David, the incarnation of Jesus, his death and resurrection—those kinds of things. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't teach that God causes everything to happen. Even though He, being timeless, can see it, foreseeing is different from determining.

For God, the whole shooting match is "foreseen"—all of history. He's omniscient. And now we're back to: but should He prevent it? Logic and the Bible tell us that in many cases the answer is no. Can He prevent it? Logic and the Bible would again tell us that in some cases the answer is no. That's not what omnipotence means and how God employs it. There are reasons, in His wisdom, that He lets the world flow as it does.

[Book Mitten]

> Knowledge is not causative. Just because God can see something doesn't mean God has determined it or caused it.

As I mentioned earlier, it's the combination of the fact that he creates as well as having knowledge of what he creates that implies that he has at least some cause.

> certain things that the Bible talks about God having a plan for, and direct causation. Those things pertain to God's plan of salvation: the calling of Abraham, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the kingship of David, the incarnation of Jesus

Doesn't the incarnation of Jesus entail the atonement? Or is it initially more metaphysically vague than that? If it is not, the atonement, and consequently crimes to atone for, seem built into creation to begin with, by necessity.