Cyclical authority of holy books

Talon1977

Talon1977 wrote:

Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

Everybody loves the underdog
the more persecuted it is, the more special it must be

Talon1977

Schuhart wrote: »

Surely all of that, except for the penned by many authors bit, goes for the Quran too. And instead of the penned by many authors bit, Im sure some similarly circumstantial point could be made for it. For example, many Muslims claim the Quran anticipates scientific knowledge that could not have been known to Mohammed.

So what makes your holy book more "unique" than theirs.

As I said, it would be best for you to read the books I suggested, where the topic is dealt with more clearly and more in-depth than I possibly could here.

But from what I know, the Bible is much more unique than the Quran or any other book for that matter. And the Quran doesn't claim to be the Word of God, to my knowledge. It is supposedly the words of the prophet Mohammed collected and compiled years later. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.

It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

As I said, it would be best for you to read the books I suggested, where the topic is dealt with more clearly and more in-depth than I possibly could here.

I'm totally happy to just explore your statement a little, which doesn't seem to take much technical knowledge. I've recently (in the past few months) read a very brief book about the Bible and a history of Christianity, which hopefully means I'll have some clue of what you are talking about.

Talon1977 wrote: »

But from what I know, the Bible is much more unique than the Quran or any other book for that matter. And the Quran doesn't claim to be the Word of God, to my knowledge. It is supposedly the words of the prophet Mohammed collected and compiled years later. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.

As I understand it, Muslims maintain that the Bible has become corrupt as a result of passing through so many hands and versions - and that, in any event, it is simply an amalgam of different texts never intended to form one book. So God sent the Angel Gabriel to recite the Quran into Mohammed's ears and give us the definitive account, once and for all. Hence, the words Mohammed spoke they believe to be the exact word of God. They set great store in the accuracy of the written Quran, and stress the care that went in to recording and collating the verses, which included Mohammed personally validating the text. As Mohammed's visions were delivered in Arabic, only the Arabic version is regarded as the exact word of God.

Muslims would contrast this with the haphazard manner in which the Bible texts were preserved - as we know, the first Gospels were written at least decades after the events they describe.

So your 'unique' book really isn't so unique, is it?

Talon1977 wrote: »

It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Surely exactly the same statement applies to the Quran.

From left field, on another thread here there was mention of Alanis Morrisette's 'Ironic' not actually being ironic.

However, if you come to the Atheism forum as a Christian and leave it as a Muslim, would that be ironic? Or simply weird?

Talon1977

Both!

As I understand it, Muslims maintain that the Bible has become corrupt as a result of passing through so many hands and versions - and that, in any event, it is simply an amalgam of different texts never intended to form one book. So God sent the Angel Gabriel to recite the Quran into Mohammed's ears and give us the definitive account, once and for all. Hence, the words Mohammed spoke they believe to be the exact word of God. They set great store in the accuracy of the written Quran, and stress the care that went in to recording and collating the verses, which included Mohammed personally validating the text. As Mohammed's visions were delivered in Arabic, only the Arabic version is regarded as the exact word of God.

I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on Islam, but I'm fairly sure Mohammed was dead by the time the Quran was assembled.

Also, it is one of the 5 tenets of the Muslim faith that there are 4 inspired writings 3 of which are contained in the Bible - the other one being the Quran itself. And the fact that the Quran contradicts all three of those writings in the Bible (Moses's writings, the Psalms, and the gospels of the New Testament) doesn't lend much to its credibility.

...as we know, the first Gospels were written at least decades after the events they describe.

Yes, they were written decades after, but by eyewitnesses to the events in question (with the exception of Luke's gospel, and he was an historian who drew on the other sources as well as interviews with eyewitnesses).

So yes, I'd say it IS quite unique, if for no other reason but its extraordinary cohesiveness and non-contradictory nature, despite being written over a period of thousands of years and by very numerous authors in various stations of life (from kings to slaves and prisoners) under various conditions (during times of war and times of peace, times of wealth and times of poverty). And the message is uncannily the same throughout - the "Paradise Lost" of Genesis (the 1st book of the Bible) becomes "Paradise Regained" in Revelation (the last book).

Originally Posted by Talon1977
It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Surely exactly the same statement applies to the Quran.

Surely it does! I agree. I think we SHOULD at least examine seriously the claims of these books. "Let the Truth compete in the free market of ideas."

And thanks for the honest discussion Schuhart. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Obo

Talon1977 wrote: »

And the message is uncannily the same throughout - the "Paradise Lost" of Genesis (the 1st book of the Bible) becomes "Paradise Regained" in Revelation (the last book).

Talon, have you ever read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces"? It looks at the common themes among myths from around the world.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with other mythologies, but I'd be curious to see how you think your perception of the biblical account stands up in comparison to others.

Now I'm sure a theist might conjure up the argument that the reason they are all similar is because they are all recounting the same actual events, but just from different perspectives, and the one they follow happens to be the really real version.

Talon1977

Obo wrote: »

Talon, have you ever read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces"? It looks at the common themes among myths from around the world.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with other mythologies, but I'd be curious to see how you think your perception of the biblical account stands up in comparison to others.

Now I'm sure a theist might conjure up the argument that the reason they are all similar is because they are all recounting the same actual events, but just from different perspectives, and the one they follow happens to be the really real version.

Quite right. This is where the archeological evidence comes into play. The fact that we have all these stories that are similar leads credence to the idea that one version (or at least a version that is a combination of all or most of them) is a real event that occurred. So leaning on archeology, we see time and time again that the timeline and the events of the Bible are validated.

The disputed Genesis claims of Creation are impossible to validate (as well as the claims of evolution). So for the sake of avoiding a huge argument, lets not even discuss that, and take the rest of it as a whole. The histories of nations and kings is incredible. The archeological evidence for the things claimed in the Bible are overwhelming. - Take the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt and all the things surrounding that, for just one example.

Here is a list of books written on the subject. I haven't read them all, so I can't testify to their worth, but it would be some educational reading anyway. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/books/archaeology.htm

robindch

Talon wrote:

I said it was unique in the above ways, not true because of them. And I said because of it's uniqueness, combined with several other characteristics, it makes it impossible for me in my own mind to accept it to be "just a book" like any other book.

Agreed then, its uniqueness has nothing to do with any truth value it might have. But what other characteristics make it worthy of consideration? There are plenty of other books from around the same time which are thought to be historically accurate -- what's special about the bible?

Talon wrote:

I'm not disputing the less than admirable history of the church and how they've confronted things they fear. But my point was that no other book in history has faced AND SURVIVED so many attempts at stamping it out and for such a prolonged period of time, making it unique. The main emphasis of the point was that despite this, it has flourished. Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

I think your main error here is in thinking that the bible was ever seriously persecuted. On the contrary, the bible's promoters, certainly from the fourth century onwards and no doubt before that too, made continuous and strenuous efforts to stamp out all beliefs except their own.

And even when things did survive in monastic libraries, they were frequently treated to the point of being destroyed -- the Archimedes Palimpsest being one of many examples of christians recycling ancient parchments for their own sacred texts.

Talon wrote:

The disputed Genesis claims of Creation are impossible to validate (as well as the claims of evolution).

Unless you look down a microscope at evolving bacteria, of course. Though the topic of creationism is probably best left to the ongoing creationism thread.

Hivemind187

5uspect wrote: »

Hivemind might reopen his one for you

I'm still waiting for be "forgiven" apparently.

Wicknight: you were banned for asking this question? Dude, there was an argument over my comments but something like this earning a ban is nuts!

/rant over and returns to the enforced corner of penitence

Regarding the op, isnt the argument that all prophecy is self fullfilling and therefore indicative of justification for cyclical references in theism part of the answer you usually get?

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote:

I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on Islam, but I'm fairly sure Mohammed was dead by the time the Quran was assembled.

Indeed, I understand that the Quran is meant to have been assembled after his death both from written records made during his life and portions of his revelations that others had committed to memory (I recall reading that part of the tradition is that the memorisers had their verses checked and confirmed by Mohammed each year). Hence, it is presented as being an accurate account of Mohammed’s revelations with as much claim to be what it claims as the Bible.

Talon1977 wrote:

And the fact that the Quran contradicts all three of those writings in the Bible (Moses's writings, the Psalms, and the gospels of the New Testament) doesn't lend much to its credibility.

You would not expect it to agree with what went before as the Quran is meant to be correcting the errors in the Bible texts.

Talon1977 wrote:

no other reason but its extraordinary cohesiveness and non-contradictory nature, despite being written over a period of thousands of years and by very numerous authors in various stations of life

But hold on, those authors would have been aware of the work of previous authors. Hence, for the sake of argument, its no surprise that Gospel writers depict Jesus in terms that are meant to fulfil the Biblical prophecy. Also, is it not true to say that there are some strange inconsistencies in the Bible – including one of the proofs of Jesus’ divinity being that his birth was predicted by astrologers.

Talon1977 wrote:

I agree. I think we SHOULD at least examine seriously the claims of these books. "Let the Truth compete in the free market of ideas."

There we both agree.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for be "forgiven" apparently.

Wicknight: you were banned for asking this question? Dude, there was an argument over my comments but something like this earning a ban is nuts!

To be fair, though, Asiaprod immediately overturned the ban, and Brian both retracted it, and set up a thread specifically to apologise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

Wicknight wrote: »

How can a holy book be justification for its own authority?

This is a genuine question.

If someone actually knows a logical answer to this, even if it requires belief in the supernatural, that's fine. My understand (because I was told this by theists) used to be that God confirms to theists, through some kind of spiritual communication, that the Bible/Qur'an is in actual fact, his book, thus giving it authority.

Naturally I don't believe God speaks to people in their own head, but that did at least make sense as an argument, in the same way that Mick Jagger saying "This biography of me is al'ight" would give authority to a biography of Mick Jagger, even if someone believes Mick Jagger is actually a robot.

Because of that understanding of divine communication I thought we were all well passed the argument that faith in the Bible is cyclical, and based on this (apparently false) understand I had I used to defend theists against charges that their faith in the Bible was cyclical, a charge that I saw as the result of lack of understanding of atheists. Oh how foolish I feel now

So anyone, believers or not believers, explain this?

There seems to be a lot of arguement here about nothing.

People believe whatever it is they want to believe. The reasons they do this vary greatly but ultimately boil down to the human ego and human survival.

What method they use (which is your question) to rationalise and therefore justify their belief is irrelevant because that is the nature of belief and challenging its rationalisation from an external source is unlikely in the extreme to yield any results.

Talon1977

challenging its rationalisation from an external source is unlikely in the extreme to yield any results.

I could not disagree more. I've had 3 major shifts in my beliefs in my life over the last 15 years (and this is all well after becoming a Christian). One of which was political, one was theological and one was ecclesiastical in nature. All resulted from someone taking the time and effort to share their own rational and logical arguments that shook the foundations of what I had believed prior. What I thought had been a solid foundation turned out to be pre-conceived notions that when I honestly considered the evidence I was presented with, were painfully laid aside.

You would not expect it to agree with what went before as the Quran is meant to be correcting the errors in the Bible texts.

We're not talking about nitpicky differences and typos, we're talking about major theological understanding... things you can't call errors, but major mega-themes. Which leads me to reply to this:

But what other characteristics make it worthy of consideration? There are plenty of other books from around the same time which are thought to be historically accurate -- what's special about the bible?

There are plenty of other "holy books" that contain some sort of description of the character of God (or whatever deity that book proclaims), and describes the state of man. But the MAJOR difference between the Bible and all other books lies in the concept of Redemption, or how man accomplishes his end or purpose or some sort of unity with the deity/afterlife in question.

With all other books and religions that I'm aware of, it lies in the hands of the individual to accomplish his end. Whether it is following a certain amount of tenets, saying a certain amount of Hail Marys and Our Fathers, or taking some long pilgrimage to some great shrine, or whatever you might have. The point is, it's always a set of do's and don'ts of some kind or another. And if we do the right things in the right way then there's hope of redemption in the end.

Now take the Bible. The over-arching Mega theme of the whole thing is that there is absolutely nothing we can do as individuals to earn the favor of God. Nothing, nada, zip. Forget about it. It doesn't matter one bit how good of a person you are, or how many times you go to Church.

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

That's the big difference between the Bible and all other books or religions.

And one other reason I think it's worthwhile to examine, is because to me at least, it's most compelling, simply BECAUSE of the reason above (God did all the work for man).

Does that make sense? If not, I might try to explain it a bit better. But it does seem to me to be very unique in that aspect. If there's another book or religion out there that you think is the same in this way, I'd be interested.

Lastly...

Also, is it not true to say that there are some strange inconsistencies in the Bible – including one of the proofs of Jesus’ divinity being that his birth was predicted by astrologers.

I'm not following you how that is inconsistent.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

We're not talking about nitpicky differences and typos, we're talking about major theological understanding... things you can't call errors, but major mega-themes.

Indeed, but is the point not that we could turn that argument right the way around and say this proves the Bible is corrupt and the Quran is right.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

Probably not, because that sounds to me like saying Christianity is a great religion if we're lazy and don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'm not following you how that is inconsistent.

Because, as I understand it, Christianity doesn't preach that astrology is valid.

Hence, its more than a little strange for Matthew's Gospel to say that Zoroastrian astrologers verified that Jesus' birth was heralded by the stars.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, though, Asiaprod immediately overturned the ban, and Brian both retracted it, and set up a thread specifically to apologise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

no comment.

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

What method they use (which is your question) to rationalise and therefore justify their belief is irrelevant

Irrelevant to whom?

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

That's the big difference between the Bible and all other books or religions.

I suppose this is a whole other thread, but seriously how does something think that makes sense?

Its like a magic trick, one of those Escher pictures where if you look at the bottom you see the one stick and if you look at the top you see two different sticks.

Jesus was God. Having just come from the Christianity forum discussing Jesus with BC and the Mormon belief of the Godhead, Christians believe Jesus was not even a separate being, he was totally God.

So what exactly did God do? God paid himself, with himself, to himself, for a debt we owed.

That doesn't make sense. If God simply forgave us, that would make sense (well it wouldn't actually, since why go through the whole thing in the first place if he was just going to forgive us), but it would make more sense than this.

The only reason there exists a debt at all is because God says there is a debt, since everything comes from God. So why exactly does God need to turn himself into a man and have himself executed?

Getting back the Escher picture, the issue as far as I can see it is two conflicting ideas that Christians seem to keep well apart from each other as to not cause their heads to explode

On the one hand Jesus paid the debt for society. Fair enough, that would be like the famous priest in the Holocaust who begged the Nazi shoulder to take him instead of a child. A debt must be paid to God for our sins, and Jesus decide that he would take the debt of the whole world and have that paid in his suffering and execution.

Then on the bottom of the page you have the small issue that Jesus is in fact God, the person that the debt has to be paid too in the first place.

Its when you join the two up you get, well, nonsense.

It would be like the Nazi guard saying " Well someone has to be executed" and then shooting himself in the head instead of either the priest of the Jew. Would we all be going "Wow, that was such an amazing thing he did?" Doubtful.

The only reason anyone had to be executed in the first place is because the Nazi guard wanted to execute someone. Him executing himself is pointless. He could just not execute anyone.

Or another example, a man catches two kids breaking into his house and stealing stuff. He goes to get his belt and says "Right lads I'm going to whip the crap out of you with my belt"

The first boy valiantly steps up and says "No sir, it was all my idea. I made him do it, he didn't want to. You should beat me and let him go"

There, an example of someone taking the debt on himself. Fair play to him.

But would it make any sense if this happened?

The man goes "I am so moved by that boy that I'm going to let the both of you go. I hope you learnt your lesson. But in the interests of justice, someone has to be whipped with my belt. So if you will excuse me I will just pop into the sitting room and beat the sh*t out of myself"

I would imagine if anyone heard of someone doing that they would laugh at the absurdity of it.

But for some reason we are supposed to think that God doing just that was some amazing act that we should all be amazed at.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be like the Nazi guard saying " Well someone has to be executed" and then shooting himself in the head instead of either the priest of the Jew. Would we all be going "Wow, that was such an amazing thing he did?" Doubtful.

Remember that Jesus didn't stay dead, he only was 'dead' for 3 days, but whether part of God died for 3 days or all of God is not clear.

Also you've got to ask yourself, given that heaven is a wonderful place where God/Jesus lives, how exactly are a few days dead any form of sacrifice at all? Especially since even after being brought back to life Jesus then headed off to heaven anyway (which wasn't a sacrifice). Yea I know he was flayed and the whole cross thing isn't that pleasant but as far as I can figure out that's the sum total of this massive 'sacrifice' he made.

So in your analogy it's more akin to the nazi guard slapping himself a couple of times and then carrying on as before

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Nearly all religions and religious holy books put forward explanations as to why wickedness and evil exists in the world. If you think the Bible is unique in this regard you simply have not been exposed to other religions.

For example, Hesoid described the Ancient Greek belief that evil exists in the world because of the curiosity of Pandora, the first woman.

Prometheus, a Titan, stole fire (commonly understood to mean knowledge or technology) from the gods and gave it to the race of men (humans).

In a rage, Zeus decided to give men another "gift", the gift of woman. Pandora was created and bless by the gods with beauty and music. In an act of curiosity Pandora opened a jar of the gods (a common interpretation of the jar is the female womb) that she was told not to open. Out of the jar came all evil, and it rushed over the land. Pandora closed the jar just in time to trap hope (Elpis). The meaning of translation of elpis is still debated today, whether that is a good or bad thing that it is in the jar.

That to me makes as much sense as a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake in a garden told her to.

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

pH

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

Evil coming into the world refers to the world of man (ie us mortals) - Prometheus after all was a Titan/God. Also 'stole' maybe is the wrong word, after all I can take a flame from a fire without anyone losing anything - and while many call it the 'theft' of fire, another interpretation is the 'gift' of fire to man.

As conventionally reconstructed, this trilogy reimagines the myths of Prometheus found in Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days. In the first play, Prometheus Bound, the Titan is chained to a rock and tortured for giving fire to humankind, as well as teaching them other arts of civilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_the_Fire-Bringer

Splendour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I realise this,but given he put Sam Harris in the same box as religion, I don't find his statement making sense. What I read was thus, 'there is no one who can explain the evils of the world'.Yet, I know from you guys that you put emphasis on Sam Harris and his ilk, so by putting him in the same genre as religion, Schuhart's statement just isn't plausible to me.

Splendour

Schuhart wrote: »

For my own part, I suspect religion persists for practical social reasons. (I should explain that the question of religion’s persistence is of great interest to me, but it’s a question I have not reached a final position on).

My feeling (as distinct from Sam Harris’) is people are attracted to religion as it fulfils needs such as a sense of identity and validation of what is a good life. For example, I read a book a while back on the psychology of religion which (inter alia) quoted research that suggested American women converts to Islam were at least partly attracted by an ideology that values the homemaker role. I think that’s how religion works in general – people accept the unlikely stuff as a consequence of the good stuff that attracts them in.

I’ve said this a few times on posts, and even recently on another thread here, that I think discussion of religion between believers and unbelievers can be skewed as we talk about different things. Atheists can tend to concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, where believers probably see belief in God as a consequence of deciding to pursue a faith, rather than as a cause of faith. Put another way, I expect people like yourself don’t pursue religion because you think God is a compellingly believable concept.

Agreed, there are many people who are attracted to religion for social reasons.(There are a few in my church). However in my own situation, I 'converted' from Catholicism to Christianity. Socially not much difference.Same Christian God. I was not pursuing faith, as I already had it.
So why did I bother?

Schuhart

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

I’m not clear on how this scenario is essentially different from the Garden of Eden story. Details and the exact situation might be different, but surely the position is much the same?

Splendour wrote: »

What I read was thus, 'there is no one who can explain the evils of the world'.Yet, I know from you guys that you put emphasis on Sam Harris and his ilk, so by putting him in the same genre as religion, Schuhart's statement just isn't plausible to me.

I’ve a feeling the gap between us on this may lie elsewhere in some difference in perception that we haven’t identified yet (and I don’t know what that difference is yet). As far as I was concerned, you were putting forward two illustrative questions that you felt are answered by the Bible and cannot be satisfactorily answered elsewhere. In response, I gave three other explanations for those illustrative questions all of which to me seem to be plausible from the perspective of those belief systems. I’m just taking Sam Harris to be a representative of atheism – we all understand, I assume, that there’s no ‘Church of Harrisdom’.

So, indeed, from my perspective the kind of question you put forward can be answered both by other religions and without religion. But there seems to be some gap in the communication between us as I’m honestly puzzled by your subsequent statements. This is why I suggested that perhaps you need to expand on what you envisage as being an ‘explanation’ as I have a dim feeling that we are misunderstanding each other and, hence, each failing to communicate our views to the other.

Splendour wrote: »

Agreed, there are many people who are attracted to religion for social reasons.(There are a few in my church). However in my own situation, I 'converted' from Catholicism to Christianity. Socially not much difference.Same Christian God. I was not pursuing faith, as I already had it.
So why did I bother?

Clearly I don’t know what moved you from one branch of a faith to another. Perhaps Catholicism had too much of a mass produced McReligion feel to it and you wanted a more convincing experience. However, you’ll understand that what’s on my mind is more why religion as a phenomenon persists. In fact, one of the thoughts that I wonder about is how in the face of increasing knowledge, some people seem to be attracted to more fundamentalist positions.

It’s almost as if our growing awareness of our true nature and place in the universe is a truth so awful that the response is to deny it totally. I find the explanation advanced by Ken Miller for why some responsible scientists support creationism persuasive in this space. Summarising, if someone thinks more knowledge means less religion and less religion means an inhuman society then you’ll advocate ignorance even if you know it to be false.

Now, that’s a general society argument for why religion persists and not an explanation for individual motivations. But I don’t expect there is only one motivation for practicing religion. You’ve identified yourself that some people do it for social reasons. So certainly, people pursue religions for reasons other than a chain of logic commencing with certainty that God created the world and gave us this or that holy book.

Bear in mind, an amount of my view on this is fuelled by seeing the way discussions here between atheists and theists can frequently misconnect, as atheists assume that religion must collapse once we pull the God rug from under it. However, that is (IMHO) just not the entry point for theism. I think the recent post by PDN in this thread makes a not dissimilar point from a theist perspective.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

Well how can Adam and Eve have been without sin when the first thing they did was disobey a pretty straightforward commandment from God not to eat from a fruit tree he placed smack bang in the middle of Eden? And why did he put the fruit tree there in the first place when he knew they would eat from it? And since when do snakes talk?

Splendour there is no point going Well that doesn't make much sense to someone else's creation myth.

I agree with you, its nonsense. But its just as much nonsense as your creation myth which you take very seriously. In fact the Greek creation myth makes far more sense than the Judeo/Christian one.

Talon1977

So what exactly did God do? God paid himself, with himself, to himself, for a debt we owed.

That doesn't make sense. If God simply forgave us, that would make sense (well it wouldn't actually, since why go through the whole thing in the first place if he was just going to forgive us), but it would make more sense than this.

To me, it makes perfect sense. If you consider that the whole point of it all is for God to communicate who he is to his creation, the whole thing is masterfully and perfectly designed.

If we're to know who God is, and what he's all about and intimately know his character, just telling us won't quite get it. It's the whole "actions speak louder than words" thing. If he just forgave us, then there would be no communication of his Holiness (The part of God that is perfect and cannot even be in the presence of imperfection). And so if there were no expression of a penalty for sin, we would miss that characteristic completely.

The part you miss with the Nazi illustration, is that the Nazi was carrying out an UNJUST action, in wanting to kill the boy. God's judgment on mankind for our sin is completely just (if one believes that God created man for His own purposes, that is).

The other side is, if the thing never happened at all, we would miss out on knowing how deep God's love for his creation is. Knowing that we can never fulfill the penalty that is owed because of our imperfection to begin with, God gives himself (which is perfect) on our behalf. With the Nazi story, again the Justice principle is missing. But because of what true justice is, there was ACTUALLY a true penalty to be paid.

I say that in this sense... It all hinges on what one believes about creation, so I don't expect you to believe this, but only to understand why Christians say it all makes sense to them. Here it is: IF we believe that God created us for HIS purpose (in contrast to a purpose of whatever we want life to be about), and for HIS glory, then our decision to "do our own thing" and purposely forget God is even there, is a crime of the highest order. So God would be completely JUST in his judgment and anger against us - the death penalty.

The whole thing presented a "problem" for God (if God could ever have a problem), because God loves his creation so deeply. He does not want to punish us with the death penalty, but a death penalty must be paid, due to God's characteristic of being Just. If he were to simply let it go and forgive us out of hand, God would no longer be Just, but Unjust, which He refuses to be.

And so He pays the penalty himself, upholding the penalty of death, remaining Just. Yet displaying his mercy and love as well.

There are other characteristics we see in the whole display and the longer you look at it, the more you see and the more you know who God really is. That's the whole point for us, you see.

I don't know if this clears anything up for you, or just makes it more confusing. But at any rate, it's my attempt to at least explain to you why it doesn't seem illogical or irrational at all. In fact, quite the opposite. To me, it's a beautiful and perfect display of rationality and logic, remembering the point is for us, God's creation, to know and enjoy the character of the Creator.

I'm certainly not trying to convince you I'm right in all this, but hopefully you can at least see that starting from my premise (that God did indeed create us), the rest makes perfect sense.

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

To me, it makes perfect sense. If you consider that the whole point of it all is for God to communicate who he is to his creation, the whole thing is masterfully and perfectly designed.

I can think of a million better ways to communicate this to us.

An example often used on this forum is to simply re-arrange all the stars to spell "Hi, I'm God and I exist" in the sky.

The idea that creating a mortal version of oneself and sending it to Earth to be killed by Romans seems like a ridiculous way to communicate anything to anyone.

For a start its looks exactly as if God doesn't exist Jesus was pretty ordinary. We have vague descriptions of him doing miracles from his followers, none of which are recorded independently, and all of which could simply be a result of over eager fanatics.

Instead of appearing to all the leaders of the world and performing a series of testable miracles, Jesus/God instead decide to appear as one of a hundred cult leaders in a back water town. He acted like a cult leader, sounded like a cult leader, and died like a cult leader.

Its hard not to see this as simply the most plausible explanation, Jesus (or who ever he was based on) was a small time cult leader who was executed by the authorities, as so many were, and his followers panicked over the little problem of how can the son of God be executed. So they come up with the rather weak explanation that he in fact always wanted to be executed, and it was in fact part of his plan.

Talon1977 wrote: »

If we're to know who God is, and what he's all about and intimately know his character, just telling us won't quite get it.

But having himself executed like a mortal man will?

Talon1977 wrote: »

If he just forgave us, then there would be no communication of his Holiness (The part of God that is perfect and cannot even be in the presence of imperfection). And so if there were no expression of a penalty for sin, we would miss that characteristic completely.

But that is the point, God can't pay his own penalty to himself. That is ridiculous. Its the man who's house has just been broken into beating himself up because someone has to pay for his house being broken into.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The part you miss with the Nazi illustration, is that the Nazi was carrying out an UNJUST action, in wanting to kill the boy.

That is irrelevant. Replace Nazi guard with a judge in the courts sending himself to prison instead of a criminal because "some has to pay" to maintain justice.

The point isn't whether or not the action is just. The point is that the person who the penalty is owed to cannot pay his own penalty. That is pointless and ridiculous. He can forgive the penalty certain, but it makes no sense for him to inflict suffering on himself at the same time.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The other side is, if the thing never happened at all, we would miss out on knowing how deep God's love for his creation is.

Why would we miss out on knowing this? How does Jesus demonstrate how deep God's love is for his creation?

Firstly the idea that God experienced pain and suffering while Jesus is nonsense. God is omniscient. He knows everything. God already knows exactly what being executed on a cross feels like. He doesn't need to send Jesus down to do it.

Secondly God is, well, a god. The idea in the first place that he would suffer at the hands of humans is equally nonsensical.

Talon1977 wrote: »

Knowing that we can never fulfill the penalty that is owed because of our imperfection to begin with, God gives himself (which is perfect) on our behalf.

But the penalty is owed to him

The only reason we exist in our "imperfect" state to begin with is because he put us in this state as punishment for something Adam and Eve did. He punished all of humanity (not just Adam and Eve, which is a whole other thread), placing humanity in a fallen state.

So what is God doing by giving himself on our behalf? Giving himself to whom?

Talon1977 wrote: »

Here it is: IF we believe that God created us for HIS purpose (in contrast to a purpose of whatever we want life to be about), and for HIS glory, then our decision to "do our own thing" and purposely forget God is even there, is a crime of the highest order.

Well firstly God knew exactly what we would do when he created us. It makes little sense that he was some how shocked or upset or surprised when we did our own thing, since he knew we were going to do our own thing before he made us. He put the tree in Eden, he put the snake in Eden, knowing what would happen. And he cast Adam and Eve (and all humans that didn't yet exist) out, despite all this.

Secondly, it is a "crime" against God. God cannot pay a penalty to God. Again that makes no sense.

If someone robbed you then you might forgive the robber. But would you send yourself to jail to "pay" for the robbers crime? No, of course you wouldn't. Why would you? The crime is done to you. What purpose would you going to jail actually serve. Someone only has to pay because you have been put out. You going to jail can't make you any less put out, in fact it makes you far more put out.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The whole thing presented a "problem" for God (if God could ever have a problem), because God loves his creation so deeply.

So deeply that he put a tree in Eden knowing Adam would eat from it, and a snake in Eden knowing that it would talk to Eve.

So deeply that he decided to condemn all humanity as punishment for what Adam and Eve did.

Imagine locking up a robbers son because the robber was already dead. And then locking up the son's son (the robbers grandson). Would any society on Earth do that? Now imagine locking up all descendent of the robber until the end of time, as punishment of what the robber did.

Yes, "love" is the best way to describe that.

Talon1977 wrote: »

And so He pays the penalty himself, upholding the penalty of death, remaining Just.

He pays the penalty himself to himself

That is the exact opposite of "just"

It is the man who has been robbed locking himself up in prison in the name of "justice" while saying that he is paying the penalty himself.

I mean it is a perversion of the whole concept of "just"

If you truly believe that God is just and just is God then the whole idea of the death of Jesus is blasphemy since it is the exact opposite of just.

It is the worst example of "justice" I can thing of.

Talon1977 wrote: »

But at any rate, it's my attempt to at least explain to you why it doesn't seem illogical or irrational at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

Well no offence Talon but judging by your post you don't seem to understand it any more than I do, you are just repeating back the doctrine of the religion.

Anyone can say something is "justice", but that doesn't make it so. If something clearly isn't just, simply saying it is is pointless.

Even if one accepts that humanity owes God something because of our wicked sinful nature (which he created), the idea that God can pay a penalty to himself and retain a concept of justice is utter nonsense. I'm not talking about whether someone believes that happened or not, I'm simply talking about if it makes sense. It doesn't. It is simply an unjust think happening with the religion saying "this is just" in the same way they might say "up is down" or "the sky is yellow"

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that creating a mortal version of oneself and sending it to Earth to be killed by Romans seems like a ridiculous way to communicate anything to anyone.

lol
Good post

Talon1977

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Talon1977

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Whichever had more good reasoning behind it?
Powerful doesn't mean right

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Well you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.

God hasn't defined anything. The stories in the New Testament, claiming to explain Jesus' life, defined this as a form of "justice"

If this is nonsense even by our limited human standards of justice, its probably complete nonsense by God's perfect standard, assuming he exists.

He is probably looking down at Christians shaking his head going "Man, you guys will believe anything"

One has to ask oneself which is more plausible?

That this is actually how a super being would define justice (to me this isn't how a 5 year old would define justice)

Or this is a rushed explanation of an unexpected event invented by a group of cult followers panicked by the fact that their leader, who is supposed to be a super powerful, son of God, "messiah", has just been executed by Romans like a common criminal?

This actually happens all the time in religions, particularly cults. The cult leader declares himself as having supernatural powers as a mark of authority, and then something happens to him (he is shot, he gets cancer, he gets arrested, he gets hit by a bus) and rather than the cult followers going Oh, well obviously he wasn't actually a supernatural being they instead try to come up with some way to explain what has just happened and still hold on to the religious beliefs of the cult, because those are obviously very important to them otherwise they wouldn't be in the cult in the first place.

Schuhart

bluewolf wrote: »

Whichever had more good reasoning behind it?
Powerful doesn't mean right

I find this kind of discussion reminds me of the scene in Blade Runner where the replicant Roy finally confronts the man who designed him and asks him for more life. It does raise all those issues of whether a creator can claim total ownership of his creations, and how a creation might feel about that.

And, indeed, wouldn't it be a frightening thought if we are collectively the creation of a superbeing who sees us as toys to be used for amusement.

That said, I'm more inclined to believe we are simply here.