How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'?

Akrasia

I see these two things as mutually exclusive.

Everything happens by the grace of 'gods will' so what kind of freedom can we have?

Free will implies freedom to choose, but God's will be done, means if there was ever a conflict between my free choice, and Gods will, God would overwhelmingly trump me.

Christians often accuse atheists of being 'materialistic determinists' in that all of our actions are dictated by a causal chain of events and our appearance of autonomy is nothing but an illusion and we're not really responsible for our own actions (the molecules made me do it)

That's an extremely simplistic argument, but one that christians roll out routinely against atheists, but it seems to me that they are ignoring the determinist elephant in the room. If God controls everything, there is no freedom left. The Christian god is a totalitarian entity. It has 100% control over all of the universe. By definition, the existence of totalitarianism means there is no freedom.

Puck

This is an excellent question and is a subject that will probably be debated by much smarter men than you or I (no offence) for many years to come. Anyway, here's my take on it:

It's kind of like a parent who goes out for the night and tells his kids to look after the house and behave while he's gone (or as Jesus put it, a vineyard owner who went away to a distant land, leaving the vineyard in the hands of the workers). The parent is still the boss but he has given responsibility to the kids and he can come back anytime and lay down the law.

In the parent's "perfect will" the children would behave perfectly, not doing any damage, no wild parties, no furniture broken, no fires started, they would live to serve their dad. But these kids aren't perfect (a lot of the time they can be real brats). The dad has allowed them to choose to obey him and in that way grow in character and develop into responsible adults but this means that while Dad is out they can also choose to disobey him.

Say one of the kids fights with his brother and knocks over some furniture. In the parents "permissive will" this child would apologise and make up with his brother and tidy up the mess they made but the dad's "perfect will" would be that none of that messing about happened in the first place.

An interesting thing though is that this child has somehow changed, he has seen that it is wrong to fight and make a mess of his dad's house and he has willfully chosen to do the right thing. He is now slightly less of a brat and slightly more of a responsible adult. I don't think you'd get the same results if this child was somehow restrained so that he never even had a choice.

So in one way God's will is done but in another way we can still disobey Him. Exactly how that tension works itself out I'll have to wait and ask Dad when I see him.

PDN

God's will sometimes does not happen because of our free will.

For example, in 2 Peter 3:9 it says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

So God does not want anyone to perish.

But in the previous chapter the same author writes, "But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." (2 Peter 2:12)

So even though God doesn't want anyone to perish, some people will perish. That is an example of human free will having priority over the will of God.

* There is a subsection of Christianity (Calvinism) that will strongly disagree with me on this.

wolfsbane

Puck wrote: »

This is an excellent question and is a subject that will probably be debated by much smarter men than you or I (no offence) for many years to come. Anyway, here's my take on it:

It's kind of like a parent who goes out for the night and tells his kids to look after the house and behave while he's gone (or as Jesus put it, a vineyard owner who went away to a distant land, leaving the vineyard in the hands of the workers). The parent is still the boss but he has given responsibility to the kids and he can come back anytime and lay down the law.

In the parent's "perfect will" the children would behave perfectly, not doing any damage, no wild parties, no furniture broken, no fires started, they would live to serve their dad. But these kids aren't perfect (a lot of the time they can be real brats). The dad has allowed them to choose to obey him and in that way grow in character and develop into responsible adults but this means that while Dad is out they can also choose to disobey him.

Say one of the kids fights with his brother and knocks over some furniture. In the parents "permissive will" this child would apologise and make up with his brother and tidy up the mess they made but the dad's "perfect will" would be that none of that messing about happened in the first place.

An interesting thing though is that this child has somehow changed, he has seen that it is wrong to fight and make a mess of his dad's house and he has willfully chosen to do the right thing. He is now slightly less of a brat and slightly more of a responsible adult. I don't think you'd get the same results if this child was somehow restrained so that he never even had a choice.

So in one way God's will is done but in another way we can still disobey Him. Exactly how that tension works itself out I'll have to wait and ask Dad when I see him.

Yes, I think that is a good analogy. Let me just add:

God is absolutely sovereign and works all things according to His will. The universe and everything in it will end according to His perfect plan. God permits evil to exist and to prosper for a time - but even the evil only accomplishes the ends God has determined. The murder of Christ is the prime example: the greatest sin/crime ever commited, but the one that accomplished God's greatest purpose - the salvation of the elect.

Even regards man's salvation, our free-will operates within the parameters of God's sovereign will. The elect freely turn to Him in repentance and faith; the non-elect freely reject Him. The difference is that God gives a new heart/nature to the elect, a heart that no longer hates Him but loves and seeks to obey Him.

The unanswered question that arises from God's absolute sovereignty is why He permitted evil. God doesn't say. He expects us to trust Him on this, on the basis of all that we know about Him.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

God's will sometimes does not happen because of our free will.

For example, in 2 Peter 3:9 it says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

So God does not want anyone to perish.

But in the previous chapter the same author writes, "But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." (2 Peter 2:12)

So even though God doesn't want anyone to perish, some people will perish. That is an example of human free will having priority over the will of God.

* There is a subsection of Christianity (Calvinism) that will strongly disagree with me on this.

Calvinist like me would agree that human free will can have priority over the will of God - in the sense of His revealed will. But not in the sense of His secret/absolute will. All that the Father gives Christ will come to Him.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

The unanswered question that arises from God's absolute sovereignty is why He permitted evil. God doesn't say. He expects us to trust Him on this, on the basis of all that we know about Him.

Maybe God doesn't permit evil, maybe we do.
I had a conversation about this with my dad a while ago and came to this conclusion: the problem with "Gods will" interfering with "free will" can only not exist if Gods will is that we have free will while having the potential of being good or evil. The only logical concluson is that God for some unknown reason created everyone and let them have free will (and the creation was the only instance of him enacting his will) while having the potential to be good/evil. People get confused with this, I think, because while it may be Gods "desire" for us to be good, he doesn't enact his will to force us to do anything.
(Note: By "only logical conclusion", I mean a conclusion that cannot be disproved at all, and it can't as the only way to find out is to die and check)

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe God doesn't permit evil, maybe we do.
I had a conversation about this with my dad a while ago and came to this conclusion: the problem with "Gods will" interfering with "free will" can only not exist if Gods will is that we have free will while having the potential of being good or evil. The only logical concluson is that God for some unknown reason created everyone and let them have free will (and the creation was the only instance of him enacting his will) while having the potential to be good/evil. People get confused with this, I think, because while it may be Gods "desire" for us to be good, he doesn't enact his will to force us to do anything.
(Note: By "only logical conclusion", I mean a conclusion that cannot be disproved at all, and it can't as the only way to find out is to die and check)

Hmm. God does not force us to act against our will in the matter of accepting or rejecting His offer of salvation. But he changes our hearts, so that our will freely accepts Him. This is the very nature of the New Covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Or as God say to Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

God appoints to eternal life individuals from among the lost multitude. He predestines them to eternal life, call them in due time, justifies them and then glorifies them:
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Mark Hamill

Wolfsbane: OK, first of all, anything you quote from the bible is largely null and void because at the end of the day, the bible is a poorly written, heavily (and very biasedly) edited book of alegory. At best, any points made based on it are made based on information thats either generations out of date, or fables of moral misinterpretted as fact. Try making points based on logic.

Anyway...

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. God does not force us to act against our will in the matter of accepting or rejecting His offer of salvation. But he changes our hearts, so that our will freely accepts Him.

The problem with claiming that God actively changes peoples hearts is the obvious question of why he doesn't change every ones heart, particularly homicidal psychos, tyrants and rapists. While there might be examples of some who actually have, plenty haven't, and those that have, have happened as a result of human intervention (think of hostage negotiators). The only thing that makes sense is that God gives us the potential to be good and free will to choose. (Pucks analogy actually explans this quite well). He does not interfere as doing so at all would completely remove human freel will and most likely defeat the point of human existense such as it is. If you must believe in God interfering and changing peoples hearts, then it can best be described as completely and utterly random (from our point of view) and is therfore better known as luck.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Wolfsbane: OK, first of all, anything you quote from the bible is largely null and void because at the end of the day, the bible is a poorly written, heavily (and very biasedly) edited book of alegory. At best, any points made based on it are made based on information thats either generations out of date, or fables of moral misinterpretted as fact. Try making points based on logic.

The OP headed this thread with How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'? And you want to exclude what the Bible says??? What logic is that?

I'll not comment on your literary criticism of it, other than to recommend a spell-checker.

The problem with claiming that God actively changes peoples hearts is the obvious question of why he doesn't change every ones heart,

He doesn't say, other than:
Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The only thing that makes sense is that God gives us the potential to be good and free will to choose.

Certainly God does not make us do evil - but it is wrong to think sinful man can do other than his evil heart desires. Our wills are free to choose good or evil, but will only choose according to our natures.

If you must believe in God interfering and changing peoples hearts, then it can best be described as completely and utterly random (from our point of view) and is therfore better known as luck.

The Biblical term is election. But it is not our concern: our responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. If we do so, we then know we are part of God's elect, appointed to salvation before the world was made. It is not our business to pry into God's eternal counsels; but to obey Him.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill said:
The OP headed this thread with How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'? And you want to exclude what the Bible says??? What logic is that?

My logic is based on my literary criticisms (bad spelling aside:)) I don't see the bible as being anyway reliable because of how it was edited (4 gospels based on Irenaeus believing that Gods throne had four animal heads on it?). IMO, looking at any aspect of religion and spirituality should be done using your own intelligence based on logic and observation, because at best, the bible is someones elses interpretations of history.

wolfsbane wrote:

Certainly God does not make us do evil - but it is wrong to think sinful man can do other than his evil heart desires.

Is it wrong then to think that a sinful man can repent and become good? If it is then Jesus is wrong (and any priest who offers forgiveness) for offering forgiveness to sinner.

wolfsbane wrote:

The Biblical term in election. But it is not our concern: our responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. If we do so, we then know we are part of God's elect, appointed to salvation before the world was made.

So to become Gods elect (those whose hearts God changes for the better) you have to repent and believe? But there are those who repent and believe and bad things still happen to them, not to mention people who repent and believe and then do bad things based on those beliefs, like religious fanatics or religion-motivated serial killers.

Puck

Mark Hamill wrote: »

the bible is a poorly written, heavily (and very biasedly) edited book of alegory.

How much of the Bible did you read before reaching this conclusion? Just curious.

Mark Hamill

Puck wrote: »

How much of the Bible did you read before reaching this conclusion? Just curious.

Not back to back, if thats what you mean. I've read bits and pieces through it, although it was a few years back.
I see it as a book of allegory because of the stories work only as allegory. There is too much historical inaccuracy and arbitrary editing to take them as fact: the number of gospels was chosen because one guy successfully argued that because gods throne had four animal heads on it. Here is a case one man deciding what denotes religious docterine based on what another man wrote about 700 years before him ,in a time before accurate records where kept (in a time before most people where literate).
I think its badly written because of how hard it is to read and because of how easy it is for people to misinterpret it.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not back to back, if thats what you mean. I've read bits and pieces through it, although it was a few years back.
I see it as a book of allegory because of the stories work only as allegory. There is too much historical inaccuracy and arbitrary editing to take them as fact: the number of gospels was chosen because one guy successfully argued that because gods throne had four animal heads on it. Here is a case one man deciding what denotes religious docterine based on what another man wrote about 700 years before him ,in a time before accurate records where kept (in a time before most people where literate).
I think its badly written because of how hard it is to read and because of how easy it is for people to misinterpret it.

The early Christians were already treating the four Gospels as authoritative on account of the fact that each of them was judged to be either the genuine work of an apostle or of an author commissioned by an apostle. Irenaeus, who loved allegory and symbolism, tried to use various examples to show, after the fact, why God had allowed four Gospels to gain prominence over other books.

Among the examples he used were:
1. There were four zones in the world.
2. There were four winds.
3. The cherubim in Ezekiel had four faces.

Irenaeus' allegories are amusing, but they are not the reason why we have Four Gospels in the Bible.

Puck

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not back to back, if thats what you mean. I've read bits and pieces through it, although it was a few years back.
I see it as a book of allegory because of the stories work only as allegory. There is too much historical inaccuracy and arbitrary editing to take them as fact: the number of gospels was chosen because one guy successfully argued that because gods throne had four animal heads on it. Here is a case one man deciding what denotes religious docterine based on what another man wrote about 700 years before him ,in a time before accurate records where kept (in a time before most people where literate).
I think its badly written because of how hard it is to read and because of how easy it is for people to misinterpret it.

Sorry, I don't think my earlier question was clear enough. What I was looking for was how much of the Bible you had read when you reached your current opinion of it. You say you have read "bits and pieces" but some of these bits and pieces could have been after you reached your conclusion. What I'm looking for (and again this is just to satisfy my curiosity, so tell me to mind my own business if you like) is how much of the Bible you had read when you reached your conclusion. Can you be more specific than "bits and pieces" please? The New Testament? The Old Testament? 30 books? 20? 10?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity so far.

gramlab

Puck wrote: »

:

It's kind of like a parent who goes out for the night and tells his kids to look after the house and behave while he's gone (or as Jesus put it, a vineyard owner who went away to a distant land, leaving the vineyard in the hands of the workers). The parent is still the boss but he has given responsibility to the kids and he can come back anytime and lay down the law.

But in this case the parent(God) was never in the house, the child has never seen the parent, he hears 2nd hand about the rules, there is no sign of the parents coming back and the child is told that he/she will have to die before finding out if all of this has any truth to it.

Difficult to obey/believe when everything is based on speculation.

gramlab

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wolfsbane: OK, first of all, anything you quote from the bible is largely null and void because at the end of the day, the bible is a poorly written, heavily (and very biasedly) edited book of alegory. At best, any points made based on it are made based on information thats either generations out of date, or fables of moral misinterpretted as fact. Try making points based on logic.

I think that the writers fully believed what they wrote but the editing and selection of texts that went into the bible have to be treated with skepticism. A biased starting stance cannot lead to a book/document that is hat can be treated as fact. Looking at various posts on this site even devoted Christians have varied takes on passages from the bible. Would it not therefore apply that different witnesses that contributed to the final texts would have different testimonies on what they witnessed, and the writer would choose the one that best suited his purpose. We have probably all done similar ourselves when trying to understand something which we have only heard about.

Mark Hamill

Puck wrote: »

Sorry, I don't think my earlier question was clear enough. What I was looking for was how much of the Bible you had read when you reached your current opinion of it. You say you have read "bits and pieces" but some of these bits and pieces could have been after you reached your conclusion. What I'm looking for (and again this is just to satisfy my curiosity, so tell me to mind my own business if you like) is how much of the Bible you had read when you reached your conclusion. Can you be more specific than "bits and pieces" please? The New Testament? The Old Testament? 30 books? 20? 10?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity so far.

I first read, when I was very young, a childrens version of the bible. It was a big gold book with a few illustrations and went through the parts of the biblke like they where stories, and at the time I have to say I enjoyed it. Who ever made it, made it well, it read like a book of myths and legends and was very interesting. This led me onto trying the bible for real (much in the same way, I suppose, that some people will read the Hobbit first and then go onto Lord of the Rings). However I found it very hard going. I jumped around it, looking for the same stories that the kids version had (obviously the kids version is not the complete version) but found them written in such a way that even the reading voice in my head had a dull monotone to it when i tried to read a book. I thought why isn't it in plain English, it can hardly lose more meaning than what its lost from being translated from the language it started off in (and those it went through to become English).
I don't know how many books I read in total (not very many, anyway) but I did come to my conclusion after trying to read it, and I haven't actually tried to read it since coming to my conclusion. In fact any instances of coming into contact with pieces from the bible have been in situations like this, ie forums or discusions where someone quotes them at me.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

The early Christians were already treating the four Gospels as authoritative on account of the fact that each of them was judged to be either the genuine work of an apostle or of an author commissioned by an apostle. Irenaeus, who loved allegory and symbolism, tried to use various examples to show, after the fact, why God had allowed four Gospels to gain prominence over other books.

Among the examples he used were:
1. There were four zones in the world.
2. There were four winds.
3. The cherubim in Ezekiel had four faces.

Irenaeus' allegories are amusing, but they are not the reason why we have Four Gospels in the Bible.

Actually Iranaeus wrote:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. ... For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

as an arguement against Christians groups who belived in different numbers/versions of the gospels (such as Marcionism, the Ebionites and the Valentinians).
ie: Iranaeus argued that only four gospels should be taken as canon as the fact (not after the fact)

Puck

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I first read, when I was very young, a childrens version of the bible. It was a big gold book with a few illustrations and went through the parts of the biblke like they where stories, and at the time I have to say I enjoyed it. Who ever made it, made it well, it read like a book of myths and legends and was very interesting. This led me onto trying the bible for real (much in the same way, I suppose, that some people will read the Hobbit first and then go onto Lord of the Rings). However I found it very hard going. I jumped around it, looking for the same stories that the kids version had (obviously the kids version is not the complete version) but found them written in such a way that even the reading voice in my head had a dull monotone to it when i tried to read a book. I thought why isn't it in plain English, it can hardly lose more meaning than what its lost from being translated from the language it started off in (and those it went through to become English).
I don't know how many books I read in total (not very many, anyway) but I did come to my conclusion after trying to read it, and I haven't actually tried to read it since coming to my conclusion. In fact any instances of coming into contact with pieces from the bible have been in situations like this, ie forums or discusions where someone quotes them at me.

Thanks for indulging me. Needless to say, as a devout Christian, I disagree with your conclusions but, and I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me, I've been in your shoes so I know what you mean.

Some parts of the Bible are quite hard to understand but I wouldn't put this down to poor writing ability. Shakespeare can be hard to understand (for me anyway) and that was written in English and not even 500 years ago at that. The Bible was written in different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) thousands of years ago and in cultures quite alien to you and I. It's only natural that a literal translation of these ancient texts from ancient cultures should be a bit confusing at times. It also needs to be taken into account that the Bible is written in not one but multiple genres of literature and it would be unwise to apply methods of interpretation best used for one genre on another genre that those methods are unsuited to. For instance the Gospels are written as historical records and should be read as such (whether you believe them true or not does not change their genre), but the Psalms are written as poetic prayer. Different methods for different styles of literature.

Another (but far more easily overcome) hurdle is the antiquated English that some translations use. I can't blame anyone for feeling a bit lost if they went from a children's Bible to the Douay-Rheims or King James Versions. Thankfully scholarly translations of the Bible are still ongoing today and you can pick up some great translations in modern English. The TNIV and NIV translations are quite common, for an even more accessible version try the NLT (New Living Translation) which is a paraphrase or The Message (which is a bit too loose in it's paraphrases at times and some of the manhandling of the poetry of the Psalms makes me cringe but it's still a very accessible effort and has helped a lot of people "get" the meaning of the text). My favourite version for study is the ESV (English Standard Version) but I still dip into the NLT from time to time since it was my first Bible and I still have a fondness for it. There's a quick flyby of the maze that is modern Bible translations, hope I didn't bore you.

Something else to bear in mind is that if you take the Bible as one big book it can be quite intimidating. It really is a whopper and it took me over two years to read. The Bible is actually a collection of books and I would not recommend reading it from cover to cover as if it were one whole book. Try to see it more as a library.

That's all just information for you to use if you like, you're free to discard it of course. Thanks again for humouring me, apologies to the OP and the other posters for taking the thread off on a tangent. If you do decide to dip into the Bible again then fantastic, feel free to PM me or post on the Christianity board with any queries, it's no bother. It's kind of our job as Christians to be nice to those with honest and polite enquiries regarding our faith.

Mark Hamill

Puck wrote: »

Thanks for indulging me. Needless to say, as a devout Christian, I disagree with your conclusions but, and I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me, I've been in your shoes so I know what you mean.

No problem, thanks for the interest.
I didn't mean to side track this discussion with what I said about the bible, but its a bit of a pet peeve with me when people start quoting the bible when having discussions about God or spirituality. What you think about God and spirituality may be based on what you read on the bible, but backed up by your own thoughts, not vice-versa. People shouldn't take the bible as being infallible, as it was written by the hand of men, and the hand of men is very, very fallible.
Er, I keep falling into rants like this (even when I try to apologize for falling into rants like this:o), so back to topic at hand which I last wrote something on in post 10 of this thread (woops)

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly God does not make us do evil - but it is wrong to think sinful man can do other than his evil heart desires. Our wills are free to choose good or evil, but will only choose according to our natures.


The Biblical term in election. But it is not our concern: our responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. If we do so, we then know we are part of God's elect, appointed to salvation before the world was made. It is not our business to pry into God's eternal counsels; but to obey Him.

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting you here, but that seems like an extremely controversial position.

Sinful man can not do other than follow evil desires... but if we repent and believe in god, then we're going to get into heaven???

That's the kind of logic that could encourage serial killers and rapists. 'I can't help my evil ways, It is in my nature to rape and murder, but I'm truly sorry, and I beg jesus for forgiveness'
Does that guy get into heaven?

wolfsbane

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting you here, but that seems like an extremely controversial position.

Sinful man can not do other than follow evil desires... but if we repent and believe in god, then we're going to get into heaven???

That's the kind of logic that could encourage serial killers and rapists. 'I can't help my evil ways, It is in my nature to rape and murder, but I'm truly sorry, and I beg jesus for forgiveness'
Does that guy get into heaven?

First of all, being evil is not an excuse for doing evil. So the sinner can't offer it as such, "I can't help my evil ways". He is responsible for his actions.

Next, all sorts of sins will be forgiven to the repentant sinner - murder, rape, theft, adultery, homosexuality, pride, etc. In fact, it is only (repentant) sinners who go to heaven - no 'righteous' people. Those who consider themselves to be morally superior to the sinners will never enter heaven.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

My logic is based on my literary criticisms (bad spelling aside) I don't see the bible as being anyway reliable because of how it was edited (4 gospels based on Irenaeus believing that Gods throne had four animal heads on it?). IMO, looking at any aspect of religion and spirituality should be done using your own intelligence based on logic and observation, because at best, the bible is someones elses interpretations of history.

Puck and PDN covered it well. Let me add: if the Bible were someones elses interpretations of history, i.e., just another opinion, then I would not bother with it. But God has convinced me that it is as it claims to be - the infallible word of God.

Also, if it is merely men's opinions, why should we bother asking does 'God's will' affect 'free will'? What data would we have to reach a logical conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly God does not make us do evil - but it is wrong to think sinful man can do other than his evil heart desires.

Is it wrong then to think that a sinful man can repent and become good? If it is then Jesus is wrong (and any priest who offers forgiveness) for offering forgiveness to sinner.

The sinful man who is given a new heart/nature will repent and believe. He cannot do it of himself. He cannot do it with his old nature. He is utterly opposed to it in his old nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Biblical term in election. But it is not our concern: our responsibility is to obey God's command to repent and believe. If we do so, we then know we are part of God's elect, appointed to salvation before the world was made.

So to become Gods elect (those whose hearts God changes for the better) you have to repent and believe?

No. Those who are God's elect will be given new hearts and will then repent and believe.

But there are those who repent and believe and bad things still happen to them,

Yes, becoming a Christian does not remove us from the consequences of living in a fallen world. Indeed, the Christian becomes an object of ridicule and persecution. But it does remove us from the eternal consequences of sin - hell, and gives us the joy of peace with God now and our home with Him eternally.

not to mention people who repent and believe and then do bad things based on those beliefs, like religious fanatics or religion-motivated serial killers.

Religion is usually not true faith. Serial killers who believe God told them to murder may have religion, but not God's religion.

However, it is true that all true Christians remain imperfect and sin in many ways - but sin does not characterise their lives. They do not live happily with sin as they did before conversion, nor do they habitually practice it. Sins are like lost battles in a victorious war - not characteristic, and not final.

wolfsbane

gramlab wrote: »

I think that the writers fully believed what they wrote but the editing and selection of texts that went into the bible have to be treated with skepticism. A biased starting stance cannot lead to a book/document that is hat can be treated as fact. Looking at various posts on this site even devoted Christians have varied takes on passages from the bible. Would it not therefore apply that different witnesses that contributed to the final texts would have different testimonies on what they witnessed, and the writer would choose the one that best suited his purpose. We have probably all done similar ourselves when trying to understand something which we have only heard about.

The issue is whether the Bible is as it claims to be, the infallible word of God, delivered through various men in various times - or is it just the work of these men, men deluded in thinking God was speaking through them?

The God-breathed scenario covers the perservation of that word down the ages, so that we have whatever God intented us to have. For instance, we do not have all the letters Paul wrote, nor all the prophecies of the OT prophets - just those God wanted handed down to us.

Christians today differ on the interpretation of this sacred word, but we are not writing it. The word remains infallible even if our interpretation of it may err.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

First of all, being evil is not an excuse for doing evil. So the sinner can't offer it as such, "I can't help my evil ways". He is responsible for his actions.

I still don't get it. You already said

God permits evil to exist and to prosper for a time - but even the evil only accomplishes the ends God has determined

So god allows evil (causes it?) to suit his own ends, and he requires people to do evil acts (to accomplish gods own ends). So he creates people that have an 'evil nature' for the specific purpose of doing evil acts and then he washes his hands of the blame?


That's very very very unsatisfactory.

next, all sorts of sins will be forgiven to the repentant sinner - murder, rape, theft, adultery, homosexuality, pride, etc. In fact, it is only (repentant) sinners who go to heaven - no 'righteous' people. Those who consider themselves to be morally superior to the sinners will never enter heaven.

Religious people claim that god is the source of morality (I can't say that is what you personally believe because all religious people have their own individual definition of what god actually is)

Can you honestly say that western morality is based on the concept that you can do absolutely anything you like as long as you apologise for it later?

Does that make any sense to you?

According to what you have said, everything is permissable as long as someone eventually believes in jesus and eventually asks for forgiveness.


That is not a moral code and it comes nowhere near justice.

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians today differ on the interpretation of this sacred word, but we are not writing it. The word remains infallible even if our interpretation of it may err.

How do you deal with details which are completely unreconcilable in the Gospel? Also if God went to the bother of making he original stories infallible then why not make their copies equally infallible? There are parts of the New Tetament where we don't actually know what the original author intended to say, it doesn't sound like the products of the infallible word of God to me.

Where is the point of infallibility if the meaning is ambiguous and sometimes the original infallible message no longer even existant?

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians today differ on the interpretation of this sacred word, but we are not writing it. The word remains infallible even if our interpretation of it may err.

But we did write it. The christians of the past are no different to us, why would what they say be infallible, but the christians of today be fallible?

wolfsbane wrote:

Also, if it is merely men's opinions, why should we bother asking does 'God's will' affect 'free will'? What data would we have to reach a logical conclusion?

Discarding it is my choice, not everyone need discard it if it makes any kind of sense to them, but they should not fool themselves about its infallibity. It was written (in part) by the hand of men at least 1700 years ago (the rest even older) and the hand of men is far from infallible

You said:

God permits evil to exist and to prosper for a time - but even the evil only accomplishes the ends God has determined

but you also said

So the sinner can't offer it as such, "I can't help my evil ways". He is responsible for his actions.

So while he cannot say "I can't help my evil ways", he can say these are the will of God and because you first earlier:

It is not our business to pry into God's eternal counsels; but to obey Him.

apparently we can't even question it.

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How do you deal with details which are completely unreconcilable in the Gospel? Also if God went to the bother of making he original stories infallible then why not make their copies equally infallible? There are parts of the New Tetament where we don't actually know what the original author intended to say, it doesn't sound like the products of the infallible word of God to me.

Where is the point of infallibility if the meaning is ambiguous and sometimes the original infallible message no longer even existant?

Good questions.

We say apparant differences are down to us having insufficient information to fully reconcile the accounts. It happens in normal life.

Yes, the copies vary. We say God gave us whatever we needed to know - even if we can't always be sure of the exact wording. Some obscure meanings will be resolved by study and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit; others by the events themselves. We have whatever God intended us to get - and that's enough.

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

So god allows evil (causes it?) to suit his own ends, and he requires people to do evil acts (to accomplish gods own ends). So he creates people that have an 'evil nature' for the specific purpose of doing evil acts and then he washes his hands of the blame?

No, He created man good originally. Adam sinned, mankind fell. All since are born sinful. God does not make people do evil - He just let's them act according to their natures. He directs and restrains their actions so that they are not allowed to foil His good purposes. It is their evil hearts at work.

Quote:
next, all sorts of sins will be forgiven to the repentant sinner - murder, rape, theft, adultery, homosexuality, pride, etc. In fact, it is only (repentant) sinners who go to heaven - no 'righteous' people. Those who consider themselves to be morally superior to the sinners will never enter heaven.

Religious people claim that god is the source of morality (I can't say that is what you personally believe because all religious people have their own individual definition of what god actually is)

Yes, I believe that.

Can you honestly say that western morality is based on the concept that you can do absolutely anything you like as long as you apologise for it later?

Well, western morality is not Christian, only partially so. But to take your idea, no, that is not the Christian view. Only true repentance and faith in God to save you from your sins. Apologies are not enough.

Does that make any sense to you?

According to what you have said, everything is permissable as long as someone eventually believes in jesus and eventually asks for forgiveness.

Forgivable, not permissable. Christ had to bear the hell-fire of God's wrath for every sin of His people. No cheap grace.

That is not a moral code and it comes nowhere near justice.

I've outlined how sinners can be forgiven - at the cost of the cross for Christ. They are then called to live holy lives, totally different from their sinful past. That's a moral code.

Those who are unforgiven pay in hell for their sins - every sin. That's justice.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christians today differ on the interpretation of this sacred word, but we are not writing it. The word remains infallible even if our interpretation of it may err.

But we did write it. The christians of the past are no different to us, why would what they say be infallible, but the christians of today be fallible?

Not all Christians have the same gifts. Some were called by God to be prophets and apostles, given the gift of bringing God's message to us, without error.

Discarding it is my choice, not everyone need discard it if it makes any kind of sense to them, but they should not fool themselves about its infallibity. It was written (in part) by the hand of men at least 1700 years ago (the rest even older) and the hand of men is far from infallible

Their's was directed by God, and therefore infallible.

You said:

Quote:
God permits evil to exist and to prosper for a time - but even the evil only accomplishes the ends God has determined

but you also said

Quote:
So the sinner can't offer it as such, "I can't help my evil ways". He is responsible for his actions.

So while he cannot say "I can't help my evil ways", he can say these are the will of God and because you first earlier:

Quote:
It is not our business to pry into God's eternal counsels; but to obey Him.

apparently we can't even question it.

Correct. The apostle Paul speaks of it:
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote:

Not all Christians have the same gifts. Some were called by God to be prophets and apostles, given the gift of bringing God's message to us, without error.

Their's was directed by God, and therefore infallible.

Well heres the problem with that. Theres no maigical big sign above their heads that says these people are writing for God, they say it themselves. So if someone came along and said they where directed by God in what they do, how can you contradict them.
Your logic for believing the bible infallible is circular and essentially improvable: you believe the bible is infallible because the people who wrote say it is, but you believe them because the bible says to.

wolfsbane wrote:

Correct. The apostle Paul speaks of it:

So, if, as part of the bible, Pauls quote is infallible, then any and all legal systems are anti-christian because all acts of evil are part of Gods will and we're not allowed question them? Thats crazy.

Akrasia

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well heres the problem with that. Theres no maigical big sign above their heads that says these people are writing for God

Yes there is, the halo.

Christians should only believe people who have shiny rings floating above their heads. (like yer one from touched by an angel)

Mark Hamill

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes there is, the halo.

Christians should only believe people who have shiny rings floating above their heads. (like yer one from touched by an angel)

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes there is, the halo.

...which wasn't a christian invention either. It seems to derive from earlier sun-cults, in which the high priest was always depicted with the sun behind his head, hence the 'ring of gold'. Constantine was a leader of one of these cults and presumably he simply saw a good thing and recycled it.

Akrasia wrote: »

Christians should only believe people who have shiny rings floating above their heads.

Weirdest religious headdress I saw was in a cathedral in Kiev -- one the sloping internal ceilings of the side-aisles, there were angelic, haloed faces painted, each one with a wavey line a few feet long, sticking out of each ear. A loitering babushka blessed me, then told me that it was to remind me that the angels could hear everything that was said. Which must have had generated unhappily ironic resonances during soviet times.

Pompey Magnus

robindch wrote: »

...which wasn't a christian invention either. It seems to derive from earlier sun-cults, in which the high priest was always depicted with the sun behind his head, hence the 'ring of gold'. Constantine was a leader of one of these cults and presumably he simply saw a good thing and recycled it.

I believe the circle that is part of a celtic cross also represents a celtic sun god.

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I believe the circle that is part of a celtic cross also represents a celtic sun god.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does. Robin is correct too about the halo. It and a host of other heathen things were brought into an increasingly corrupt Church - Christmas, priesthood, mother goddess (veneration of Mary), etc.

For authentic Christian belief and practice, check the New Testament.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Their's was directed by God, and therefore infallible.

Well heres the problem with that. Theres no maigical big sign above their heads that says these people are writing for God, they say it themselves. So if someone came along and said they where directed by God in what they do, how can you contradict them.
Your logic for believing the bible infallible is circular and essentially improvable: you believe the bible is infallible because the people who wrote say it is, but you believe them because the bible says to.

An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man:
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct. The apostle Paul speaks of it:

So, if, as part of the bible, Pauls quote is infallible, then any and all legal systems are anti-christian because all acts of evil are part of Gods will and we're not allowed question them? Thats crazy.

Yes, that would indeed be crazy. The real way of it is this: it is God's will to permit various evils to happen, even though they are opposed to His law (His revealed will for us). Those who do these evil things will be punished for them, if they do not repent. We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man

The "Witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart"? Can you describe this? Can you explian why most other people don't seem to get this.

wolfsbanef wrote:

We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.

But if we cant question the motivation behind a crime, then how can we justify punishing one?

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man

The "Witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart"? Can you describe this? Can you explian why most other people don't seem to get this.

Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.

Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.

It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbanef
We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.

But if we cant question the motivation behind a crime, then how can we justify punishing one?

The motivation behind the crime is the wicked desire of the sinner. The overuling plan that permits the crime, forcing it to accomplish ultimate good, is the sovereign and infinite wisdom of God.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.

Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.

It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.

I don't think most people get this feeling at all. If people got this feeling then there would be no need to question the bible, no need for this forum, no need even for priests or the church becuase they would just know that its true.

I had a theoulogical/philosphical meeting last week with my work group and a priest, where he would go through matters of theology and philosophy. Just in the material he was covering himself, he went over how the bible is not meant to be taken 100% true (he said its not supposed to be a history book), and that faith without reason is what causes the problems in most religions today (eg. fundamentalism, creationists, etc)

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.

Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.

It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.

I don't think most people get this feeling at all. If people got this feeling then there would be no need to question the bible, no need for this forum, no need even for priests or the church becuase they would just know that its true.

That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.

I had a theoulogical/philosphical meeting last week with my work group and a priest, where he would go through matters of theology and philosophy. Just in the material he was covering himself, he went over how the bible is not meant to be taken 100% true (he said its not supposed to be a history book), and that faith without reason is what causes the problems in most religions today (eg. fundamentalism, creationists, etc)

Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations. Did he believe in the virgin conception of Christ, His miracles or His resurrection? How did He view belief in them - fundamentalism?

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.

How can you claim that? How can you possibly claim to even know what people feel. You're essentially that anyone who questions the bible is just in self denial about it (this includes those of other religions too)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations.

What, you mean sensible people who realise that much in the same way that people in ancient times where wrong in their reasons for believing in the pantheon of greek gods (or roman gods, or egyptian gods etc), they could be wrong in the things they reported in experiencing when setting up the christian religion. Faith without reason is madness. Look throughout your own posts where you rather successfully argued that God is the source of all evil (he may not be the direct motivation, but he does arrange all of the opportunity) and that, because we can't question why he does this, we can't punish the crime.
He discussed the nature of the Trinity and Jesus as God and Man, which he believed in. His point was not that all miracles in the bible are necessarily misinterpretations of natural events, but that reason should be applied to them (and everything in the bible) so that you don't get anything wrong.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.

How can you claim that? How can you possibly claim to even know what people feel. You're essentially that anyone who questions the bible is just in self denial about it (this includes those of other religions too)

I have 3 reasons to know what people feel:
1. I am one of them - I too was an unbeliever. I know how deep is the well of the human heart from which our conscious thoughts are expressed.
2. I have the witness of countless others to the same effect.
3. I have God's word revealing the motivations of our hearts.

Self-denial expresses it well. Not that it is all of self:
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations.
What, you mean sensible people who realise that much in the same way that people in ancient times where wrong in their reasons for believing in the pantheon of greek gods (or roman gods, or egyptian gods etc), they could be wrong in the things they reported in experiencing when setting up the christian religion.

Yes, if he is such a sensible person and realises the Bible is in error, he should have the honesty to stop promoting the religion that is based on it and justified by it. Let him be an honest unbeliever rather than a dishonest religionist.

Faith without reason is madness. Look throughout your own posts where you rather successfully argued that God is the source of all evil (he may not be the direct motivation, but he does arrange all of the opportunity) and that, because we can't question why he does this, we can't punish the crime.

It is not madness to say that God is permitted to allow evil to exist. How can we say we know better? He is the One who made all things - we can hardly make a breakfast without burning the toast! If you cannot comprehend the wisdom of God, you assume He is the one lacking wit. Might it not be that you are lacking in data and reasoning power?

He discussed the nature of the Trinity and Jesus as God and Man, which he believed in. His point was not that all miracles in the bible are necessarily misinterpretations of natural events, but that reason should be applied to them (and everything in the bible) so that you don't get anything wrong.

Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, if he is such a sensible person and realises the Bible is in error, he should have the honesty to stop promoting the religion that is based on it and justified by it. Let him be an honest unbeliever rather than a dishonest religionist.

That would be like someone discarding a tool because its manual is in error. Why do you think the bible is neccessary for religion?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not madness to say that God is permitted to allow evil to exist. How can we say we know better? He is the One who made all things - we can hardly make a breakfast without burning the toast! If you cannot comprehend the wisdom of God, you assume He is the one lacking wit. Might it not be that you are lacking in data and reasoning power?

I never said anything about Gods "wit", I meant it was madness for for someone (like you) to have faith without applying any reason to it. Its people like you that get sucked into fundamntalism because of your need to have something run your life for you. You don't have the intelligence to make your own decisions on morality and spirituality, you need someone to make them for you, and its your fear of having to make your own choices by yourself that stops you from even entertaining the notion that the bible is as fallible as the people that wrote.

As for Gods wit, how intelligent is someone who, while being omnipowerful and omniscient, created a follower who turned against him and now tries to turn all of humanity from him?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.

You only accept what you're comfortable with, it just so happens you're comfortable with believing all the miracles happened as described, and they weren't just misinterpreted natural events, or wild exaggerations spread by the disciples (remember they did things like deny him, try to make people leave Jesus alone when he was preaching to people, and one gave hime up to the romans to be crucified, so I wouldn't put it past them)

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

That would be like someone discarding a tool because its manual is in error. Why do you think the bible is neccessary for religion?

I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity. Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.

I never said anything about Gods "wit", I meant it was madness for for someone (like you) to have faith without applying any reason to it. Its people like you that get sucked into fundamntalism because of your need to have something run your life for you. You don't have the intelligence to make your own decisions on morality and spirituality, you need someone to make them for you, and its your fear of having to make your own choices by yourself that stops you from even entertaining the notion that the bible is as fallible as the people that wrote.

The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.

But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on? Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy? To call oneself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and in reality hold only bits that we have chosen is to be a hypocrite. The honest label would be an Eclecticist.

As for Gods wit, how intelligent is someone who, while being omnipowerful and omniscient, created a follower who turned against him and now tries to turn all of humanity from him?

Yes, it seems odd to us - but what do we know? I think the idea of an almighty, all-wise, infinitely holy God doing things that we don't understand is totally credible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.
You only accept what you're comfortable with, it just so happens you're comfortable with believing all the miracles happened as described, and they weren't just misinterpreted natural events, or wild exaggerations spread by the disciples (remember they did things like deny him, try to make people leave Jesus alone when he was preaching to people, and one gave hime up to the romans to be crucified, so I wouldn't put it past them)

Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.?

What does it claim for itself? To be the Word of God. That is what every (true) Christian recognises in his heart, as the Holy Spirit reveals it to us at the time of our conversion.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity.

Why? If all the bibles in the world suddenly popped out of existense, would everyone cease being Christian? Surely, if anything, the bible is dependent on Christianity, not the other way around.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.

Why? can you not be your own Christian? Can you not live you own life according to your own belifs and ideals?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.

If God runs your life, whats the point in living it? If an omnipowerful entity controls your life and directs all your interactions then whats the point in doing anything?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on?

Have you ever read a secondary school text book on chemistry or physics? Half of them are dumbed down so that kids can understand the basic points in them (there are some things which are plain wrong, but the reality is too complicated). All you can do is try to understand what you've got and be willing to adapt to any new information you recieve.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy?

I don't know, but how about this: Why not go with whatever ideas one can reason through, ideas that can be backed up with logic and observation?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.?

Why would anyone need to? If someone came up with definitive proof that none of the miracles ever happened, would you stop believing in God? I don't see why some people need miracles to believe in God.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity.
Why? If all the bibles in the world suddenly popped out of existense, would everyone cease being Christian? Surely, if anything, the bible is dependent on Christianity, not the other way around.

Where do you think the Church originally got its teachings from? The Old Testament, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. The New Testament is simply the written record of the teaching of the Lord and His apostles and their authenticated history. Just as the OT was of the prophets back then.

Members, even leaders, of the Church are not allowed to add to it or subtract from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.
Why? can you not be your own Christian? Can you not live you own life according to your own belifs and ideals?

No, you can't be your own Christian - or Socialist, Nazi, Mormon, etc. You either accept the basic teachings of these ideologies or you invent your own. It is dishonest to continue to use the term and no longer believe the doctrine. Tony Blair can honestly describe himself as New Labour, but can hew describe himself as Socialist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.
If God runs your life, whats the point in living it? If an omnipowerful entity controls your life and directs all your interactions then whats the point in doing anything?

Because those things are good and I am glad to please Him. It is not a human-robot relationship but a Father-son/daughter one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on?
Have you ever read a secondary school text book on chemistry or physics? Half of them are dumbed down so that kids can understand the basic points in them (there are some things which are plain wrong, but the reality is too complicated). All you can do is try to understand what you've got and be willing to adapt to any new information you recieve.

So all the basic points have to be correct? Just the explanations can skip a lot of the detail, or give approximations? I've no problem with that. But if you are saying a science book can knowingly teach basic error, then I wonder how you know which bits are truth and which error?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy?

I don't know, but how about this: Why not go with whatever ideas one can reason through, ideas that can be backed up with logic and observation?

What does logic and observation tell you about Jesus Christ, more than Wikipedia? Why base one's life on so little? That's what I mean - if the Bible is just a book like any other, why not just make up your own story? Why persist in describing oneself as a Christian?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.? Why would anyone need to? If someone came up with definitive proof that none of the miracles ever happened, would you stop believing in God? I don't see why some people need miracles to believe in God.

But what sort of god? Not the one revealed in the Bible, seeing it had been proved unreliable. Where would one find out about the god one should beleive in?

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Members, even leaders, of the Church are not allowed to add to it or subtract from it.

Um, the early christian church compiled the new testament bible in the first place centuries after the 'death' of Christ. They consciously added bits in and ommitted bits according to their own human interpretation.

How come there are only 4 gospels? How do you know that the early church made the right decisions?

Why didn't jesus write down his own words? That would have provided a concrete and irrefutable (or at least a lot less refutable then the record of exactly what he wanted his followers to believe and how to live their lives.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Um, the early christian church compiled the new testament bible in the first place centuries after the 'death' of Christ. They consciously added bits in and ommitted bits according to their own human interpretation.

The early church did not see themselves as adding to, or removing from, the Bible. They simply tried to discern what was already Scripture and what was not. This process, rather than happening 'centuries after Christ' was happening during the first few decades of the Church. So, for example, 2 Peter 3:16 refers to Paul's epistles as 'Scripture' yet appears to speak of Paul as still being alive.

How come there are only 4 gospels? How do you know that the early church made the right decisions?

There were four Gospels that came to be generally accepted by groups of Christians as meeting the criteria of Scripture. The Councils that ratified formal canons of Scripture simply put their superfluous stamp of approval on what was already a consensus among believers.

Having read some of the Gnostic gospels it is pretty clear that the early church made the right choice. The non-Canonical Gospels are of inferior character, contain doctrines incompatible with the New testament, and usually were written much later than the New Testament books.

Why didn't jesus write down his own words? That would have provided a concrete and irrefutable (or at least a lot less refutable then the record of exactly what he wanted his followers to believe and how to live their lives.

I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had written His own words then you and others would be very quick to argue that they were forgeries and were really written by someone else.

I have heard it said that Jewish law and custom required anyone making an extraordinary claim to produce third parties as witnesses - their own witness to themselves would be invalid. Therefore the witness of the twelve, and other eye witnesses, would be much more persuasive than anything Jesus might have written Himself.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had written His own words then you and others would be very quick to argue that they were forgeries and were really written by someone else.

Not necessarily, I don't claim hat any of the existing gospels are forgeries do I? I would probably still be skeptical about the truth of his claims, but never mind atheists, if Jesus had written his own gospel it would have made things much clearer for believers, There probably wouldn't have been so many competing sects then through the centuries.

I have heard it said that Jewish law and custom required anyone making an extraordinary claim to produce third parties as witnesses - their own witness to themselves would be invalid. Therefore the witness of the twelve, and other eye witnesses, would be much more persuasive than anything Jesus might have written Himself.

He could have easily had witnesses to his extraordinary claims (miracles) and still have written down his own gospel.

How can anyone argue that hearsay is more persuasive than direct testimony? Luke writing down what Paul said Jesus said? How is that a better source than jesus writing down his own perfect, divine gospel?

He didn't even write any letters. Was he illiterate?

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you can't be your own Christian - or Socialist, Nazi, Mormon, etc. You either accept the basic teachings of these ideologies or you invent your own.

You're a Calvinist and you're questioning how you can be your own Christian? Its all about interpretation, and seeing as how bad the bible is in terms of interpretation (as shown by how many different types of Christian), I base my beliefs on my experiences and feelings.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because those things are good and I am glad to please Him. It is not a human-robot relationship but a Father-son/daughter one.

I don't know about you, but my father never ran my life. He raised me, tried to instil his morals into me, and for a while, when I was younger he did directly influence my life, but now as an adult, I run my own life. if God runs your own life till the day you day, then whats the point? Does he let you run it after you die?

wolfsbane wrote: »

So all the basic points have to be correct? Just the explanations can skip a lot of the detail, or give approximations? I've no problem with that. But if you are saying a science book can knowingly teach basic error, then I wonder how you know which bits are truth and which error?

Its sometimes easier to understand a lie than the truth. If you progress more into a particular field of science then you can learn the truth (or at least a lie closer to the truth) NB: nothing is stopping people from learning the actual "truth" when they start, its just that it can be very hard to understand when you start out.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What does logic and observation tell you about Jesus Christ, more than Wikipedia? Why base one's life on so little? That's what I mean - if the Bible is just a book like any other, why not just make up your own story? Why persist in describing oneself as a Christian?

Maybe the bible is more than the miracles it describes, maybe its the ideals it aspires to (ie: the commandments) thats really important. And maybe we shouldn't need a book with miracles, the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell to aspire to those ideals. the bible is the guidebook, but there should come a time when you no longer need it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But what sort of god? Not the one revealed in the Bible, seeing it had been proved unreliable. Where would one find out about the god one should beleive in?

If the Holy spirit can be reveiled to you when reading the bible, then surely you would have a similar feeling about God, when thinking about them.