Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/ 3/03 1:42pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "jumping in" on 09/ 2/03 3:42pm
>>This applies more to Biblical literalist creationist
>>(which I am not among) but even if I were a total
>>evolutionist I would not inflict this “deceiver”
>>charge anyway. Are we to presume that our theories
>>are so good that, if they are incorrect, God (if he
>>exists) is responsible for our mistakes? Example: at
>>one point in time we thought the world was flat. We
>>were wrong. Is God at fault? At one point we thought
>>it was impossible to run the 4-minute mile. We were
>>wrong. Is God at fault? I think the answer is, no,
>>of course not; we made the mistake, it’s our fault,
>>now we know better. I think we need to take
>>responsibility for our own mistakes and recognize our
>>fallibility. Many scientific theories have been
>>discarded as wrong. If the age of the earth/universe
>>be among them sometime in the future (which I don’t
>>claim to know), we are to blame, not God.
>
>This, to me, puts the question back a notch. Who made
>our brains the way they are such that they would make
>categorical mistakes? God. Do we want our theories to
>be wrong? Of course not. It's just a consequence of
>how we think. Who wired us?
I can see this point of view, but I still think you’re underestimating human responsibility here. Often scientists ignore the limitations of their discipline or those knowledgeable have failed to adequately inform the rest of us, or perhaps we have not tried hard enough to listen, etc.
>>
>>…Jesus came and died on a cross so that people
>>wouldn’t have to go to hell, yet people keep going?
>>Swing, and a miss!
>>
>>This is perhaps the easiest to rebut. Yes, the story
>>goes “Jesus died so that no one would have to go to
>>hell” but the catch: “by the rules of free will, his
>>sacrifice must be accepted by the individual in mortal
>>life.” So, not everybody goes to hell. It’s not a
>>miss at all (at least not for everybody). But how
>>much it does miss is dependent upon humanity, not God,
>>and in humanity is where the responsibility lies (so
>>the story goes).
>
>Again, this sets the question back one. Who wired our
>brains such that we find evidence either compelling or
>uncompelling?
Again, human responsibility…
>>…God wrote a perfect book containing all that we need
>>for our lives, yet no one can agree on what that book
>>really says? (even on crucial hell-determining factors
>>like salvation!)
>>
>>Let me put it this way. The U.S. Constitution is
>>written in English a few centuries ago and fervently
>>read, yet the document is infamous for having many
>>different interpretations of it (confer the Roe vs.
>>Wade controversy). The Bible was written thousands of
>>years ago in a different language from an even more
>>divergent culture and long extinct time period with
>>even more people more greatly fervently reading it.
>>And we shouldn’t expect differing views on how to
>>interpret it?
>
>The Constitution was written by men ostensibly without
>divine intervention or anything else supernaturally
>perfect. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to
>expect a common interpretation from a book claiming to
>be from something higher up than men as it supposedly
>is discerned through the same holy interpreter as with
>which it was written.
Ah, you’re forgetting something. God may be perfect, but the people who wrote the Bible are fallible humans like you and me. More importantly, the people reading the Bible are fallible.
Also, read below:
>>Even so, the situation is not as bad as it seems.
>>Most passages are agreed upon by most
>>knowledgeable Christians. And even so, we shouldn’t
>>underestimate human fallibility.
>
>This is just a matter of semantics. Define most.
Greater than 50%.
>Define knowledgeable.
Having or exhibiting knowledge or intelligence.
Okay, so that above one was vague. Generally I mean those sufficiently knowledgeable of what the Bible says and relevant opinions of its interpretation. Then again you might ask what sufficient means. I don’t have a rigorous logical procedure to measure it out for you, so I guess you’re on your own there.
>>I can certainly see this point of view. If God was
>>all-good, he wouldn’t want anyone to go to hell. I
>>agree. If God was all-powerful, he’d do something
>>about it. I agree. If God existed, all he’d have to
>>do is snap his fingers and nobody would be in hell.
>>
>>Ever think that reality might be more complicated than
>>that?
>
>Not for a God, unless he is bound by the rules of some
>higher reality.
Eh, sort of. On one view (which I hold) God is the personification of ethics, rules of justice, etc. He is burdened by them, and burdened by who he is. So he is the higher reality, and somewhat limited because of it. It may be complicated, but I believe that is the way reality operates.
>>Here’s how the story goes. You don’t have to believe
>>it, but here it is: God doesn’t want anyone to go to
>>hell, so he sends his only Son to suffer and die for
>>humanity. The catch: from the rules of free will, the
>>sacrifice has to be accepted in mortal life. If a
>>human accepts this sacrifice, they’re saved. If, for
>>whatever reason, they are told of the sacrifice and
>>reject it, they’re still at risk for the perdition
>>zone.
>
>Why would God make a system like this when he knows
>all of our brains are wired in a certain way so as to
>codemn us to hell or promote us to heaven? Why not
>just simply "make" people who are heaven bound and
>hell bound, since that's what he'd be doing anyway.
Again, human responsibility and free will. Once we’re given free will, it’s up to us to choose our own destiny. We choose, God cannot, else it wouldn’t really be free will by definition. (God cannot do the logically impossible.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 