More Incoherence in Christian Theology
- Sooner28posted 11 years ago
0Anytime a Christian is asked a tough question, such as why there are natural disasters or genetic mutations that kill millions of people, they reply that God's ways are "higher" than our ways, and therefore we cannot even come close to understanding what sort of "justification" God would have for allowing such occurences. If we grant that God is perfectly good, then it is the feebility (is that a word) of the human mind that leads us astray, and not an imperfect world.
This, initially, sounds like the beginning of an answer to the question of what has been termed "natural evil." Yet, upon further inspection, the logic completely falls apart, and here's why.
God is the one who makes the rules of the game. He created our minds the way they are, with all of their inefficiencies and blunders. He also made the decision that human beings minds should not be able to understand "his ways" while we are on earth (remember, this is conservative christian theology). Yet, we are told that once we get to heaven, everything will "make sense," i.e. God will explain the mysteries of the universe and himself to us. But, this means that God must "upgrade" our consciousness, so to speak, since currently we are unable to understand.
Why does God have to wait before we go to heaven before we can fully understand? Why are our brains made too inept to understand now? God can and could have made it otherwise, but for some reason did not. God also sends people to hell for infinite torture. If God would have made our brains more advanced, so they were at least theoretically able to understand the mind of God, then that would drastically reduce the number of people going to hell, while still preserving free will. What an absurd situation the christian God has created! - brotheryochananposted 11 years ago0
Since you still believe in infinite torture I can see how you would stumble at the questions you want answered.
God is in control but you have placed him as a 'ubiquitous problem solver' (inspite of what people choose to do with their bodies, ie, drugs, alcohol etc). What exactly is needed for God to be in control. Control of what? whether little johnny gets a boo boo or not? Car accidents end lives quickly but many have been salvaged, although damaged and many claim a miracle is what saved me. God is in control of the universe He created.
Scientists have shown us that vibrations occur from everything. Everything oscillation which vibrate and has a frequency. So does voice. Voice is completely vibration and frequency, the very essence of its nature. Like the air. voice. I find it interesting that Moses would have known such a thing to write, And God Said... also, It was convenient the way Shoemaker-Levy crashed into jupiter in 94. So God is in control of what else? Earth? Sure, God created earth but he did set up a very very efficient biological habitat, as fine tuned as it is, fits together and works together like a machine. Until man invented bulldozers. We can choose what we want and this is how it should be. We should be able to determine between things and choose some thing; of our own accord, by our own choice(s) good or calamitous and God has to work with that. Bible says that God loves to be invited! He loves to have permission to work in every christians life! But He needs to be asked, persuaded possibly and allowed to work in the life. So we know that God works in the christian population to the extent that they allow Him.
So what must God do for the UNsaved as to show He is in control. Well, since he likes to be invited and they are not inviting Him, God is doing nothing in that percentage. A few peoples lives, they claim, were miraculous. If we hear of Natural occurrances and Man-made disasters and those that do escape alive do we thank God that those survived and blame God that those other did not? Is that fair? Physics explains our planet; how it works, there's a name for what keeps us on the ground - gravity etc. In order for us to relate to our world we need constants. We need to know that we will hit the ground if we fall. Is God, like supposed to monitor the exact place of everyones feet, both saved and unsaved.
Ill just leave it there. @Sooner28 - According to the Bible we can understand God. Eating of the tree of knowledge made us as God mentally. I would stop listening to what Christians Theology states, because well, it's theology, which means it's nothing but theory, not truth. I'm not saying the Bible is fact either, but it's where their theology is suppose to start.
Interesting claim, and one I haven't heard before. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "made us God mentally?"
In the creation myth from the bible Eve eats from the tree of knowledge. Now if you drop all the Dogma from the story, so you don't have the connotation that the Serpent is automatically Satan and there for evil, then you have find that you have this creature telling Eve, right before she eats of the tree, that if she were to do so then she would possess the same knowledge as God.
Imagine yourself being 6 years old and in 1st grade. How could you enjoy learning to read and count, how could you enjoy playing in the playground, flirting with that other 1st grader of the oposit sex if you already had the mindset of a college graduate.
We came here to this physical realm to experience experiences!!! How can we do this if we already knew everything before the experiences began?
Life wouldn't be much fun if we weren’t in the process of becoming.
When it is all over we will then see the simplicity.Well, if my being required to believe something about that experience were necessary to avoid eternal torture, it might be wise to give me a better understanding of it once I reach my full maturity as a human being.
"Well, "IF" my being required ..." .... sometimes we can find our answers within our own questions when we look hard enough.
Well, if you don't believe in hell, the force of my point is drastically reduced, and my respect for your position has drastically increased, at least from where it was before.
If God isn't going to burn me to death, then there is the problem of evil tied in with the inherent limits of the human mind. The general defense of theism (without resorting to any Christian doctrine) on this question is that free will is more valuable than automatons. But, what about the slow death of old age, as our cognitive faculties go, and even our ability to control our bowels? Or, Lou Gehrig's diease, or Alzheimers, all of which could POTENTIALLY be cured if human beings had the capacity to fully understand the physical universe.
I am in agreement with you that puzzle solving is fun, like in the mario video games, trying to capture the stars and defeat bowser. It's a great time to me! So is thinking, and deciding where I stand on various issues. Unfortunately, my discovery of the stars and defeating bowser does not rest on people dying while I am looking for these discoveries. Presumably, if God exists, he created us with a natural curiosity, but he could have created us otherwise and avoid all of this incredible suffering most people will eventually face.
And, if you believe in some form of heaven, once we get there, there will be no more discoveries at all. We will simply exist in the presence of God. If that is bliss to you, why not achieve it sooner rather than later?
Why do people possessing complete certainty about a subject post questions about that for which they already have all the answers?
Could it be for the same reason I posted the above question and for the same reason this statement has a question mark at the end of it?I'm not claiming to possess certainty. The Christian is the one who does so, and gives me all of these strange justifications when certain questions are asked. I am posing a question about the coherence of the defense that the human mind is too "finite" to fully understand the ways of God, and looking for a theistic response to the issue.
If you are offering an answer or something to the discussion, I'm happy to read it. If not, I don't see what your purpose of posting even is.It is interesting that you have complete certainty that my post was directed at you.
Perhaps because no one else posed a series of questions in their replies?
Actually there are other questions, I looked carefully before posting.
Just to keep it ambiguous huh
. What do you think though? Are you a Christian, and what is your position on the limits of human knowledge?I am going to ask that you trust that when I ask the question I am about to ask, that I am asking sincerely and not to be snarky.
Are you asking because you really want dialogue, or are you asking because you want to prove to me that my thoughts and beliefs--whatever they may or may not be are stupid and incorrect?Lol. It's a good question and a fair one. I am not always consistent in my responses. Some people I just feel more charitable towards than others, and I can't really explain why.
Anyway, I'm asking just because I am curious. I promise you I'm not going to attack you or tell you that you are wrong. If I violate that promise, it will be on this message for the hub pages community to see, and my reputation will be tarnished accordingly.Fair enough. And since you have shamed me with your honesty, I will confess to my deceptiveness. Obviously, my original post was directed at you and obviously, I wrote what I did because I was already "certain" of the answer, and I obviously posted what I did to be irritating. I apologize--not for the original post, because I meant what I posted--I get really irritated when I feel I'm being bated. I love having discussions--actual dialogue, but I hate "discussions" that are actually Trojan horse diatribe.
Last question first, I don't have any answer on the extent of human knowledge as an absolute. I only know the limits to my own knowledge which is limited to my interpretation of my life experiences. Everything else falls into the category of belief.
Before I answer the Christian question, I will answer a question you did not ask. Yes, Virginia, I do believe there is a God.
Now for the Christian question. I suppose the answer to that depends upon how you are defining "Christian." If you are referring to people who seem to believe that slapping a bumper sticker on a car or voting in a certain manner or who claim to have seen the Hell Club guest list, then the answer is no.Haha. I admire your cleverness in trying to escape that the post was directed at me. I have no issues with a little bit of rhetorical play. It's part of what makes debating interesting.
I think the human experience answer is a good one, and it is really loaded. The human experience of someone before Galileo would commonsensically tell us that the world is flat. I don't think it was an unjustified belief at all based on the knowledge of the time. Unless you are an undercover astronaut, I would venture to say that our experiences of the natural world in the broad sense (not specific experiences like experiencing the death of a loved one or a pet) are close to the same. We both see the same sky, that some people are good and others bad, and that a lot of the structure of our society was in place before we were even born. I think we both recognize that there is also a very mysterious component of the cosmos. An atheist that doesn't admit this is being intellectually dishonest. I do openly admit this, though I am a former believer so that might influence my judgments on the issue.
I really don't know how to define the christian question at all. In order for a word to mean something, it must have a clear connotation attached to it. What attributes are necessary to make one a christian? I suppose I am referring to the traditional sense of Jesus being God (or the son of God), and dying for the sins of the world. There are some more groups within this, like universalists who say all are going to heaven, or calvinists who claim only God's chosen are, and he predetermined it before the creation of the universe. I guess it would depend on your particular view of the Bible and the role of Jesus.The human experience is loaded. Even my "knowledge" of my own experiences is subjective, based upon all my interpretations of what occurred at the time. Now that I think about it, I suppose the only thing I can say that I "know" to be 100 percent correct and absolute about my own experiences is that I know what I felt. I know what effect whatever event I was engaged in had on me. And herein lies a personal paradox involving myself and my beliefs.
Now, before I go any further, I want to state from the outset that everything I am discussing is limited to me. I am not going to try to "save" God, or "prove" God, or deliver the world from evil--although if I could have a super power that would be my choice :-)
I have an extremely analytical mind, but I think it is a weird kind of analysis that goes on in my head. I read, I study, I ponder things, I talk to people, I take in other cultures, beliefs, etc.--but I only do so for the purpose of finding out if those things are "right." What is right? It is right when I know it is. When you speak of hell, my mind may be its locale. Can you imagine how difficult it is for a person who needs as much hard evidence as can be found, who will question people about things until they tear out their hair, who likes to believe she's semi-intelligent to ultimately decide what her own truth is based upon her "feeling" that something is correct? Don't try unless you want to end up like Captain Kirk screaming, "The pain! The pain!"
What's worse is that once I have decided upon the truth (the truth in my world wherein I am the sovereign ruler) that is the end of it. It's true and I'm done. No more discussion, no more searching. I'm just finished. Ironically, I'm far less irritating once I "know" something than when I'm on a quest. Once I know something, I have achieved my objective, so I quit yammering on about it.
You are very astute in not defining Christianity. Yes, I do consider myself a Christian, but at the same time I use the word as a slur just like many atheists do because I simply cannot comprehend where many Christians get their information from, what on earth they are basing their theology on, or how they reconcile their actions with MY Christianity (which, of course, is the CORRECT Christianity. :-)I mostly agree with your approach to determining what is true and what is false. Ultimately, we all have to be our own arbiter when it comes to deciding what position to take on any given issue. That's the only intellectually honest way to decide. Just because the Supreme Court or Stephen Hawking declares something to be so, it doesn't follow that I should agree WITHOUT inquiring as to the basis of the said opinions. Otherwise, I would be guilty of outsourcing my thinking.
On the other hand, I'm a little uncomfortable believing that when, once I decide a belief, I no longer question it or hold it tentatively. Take the example of God. I don't believe in God. I'm an agnostic that leans towards being an atheist; however, I am not closed to the idea of God, and if my perspective were to change, or I were to hear something new, I may change my mind. I don't want to close myself off to most opinions, except maybe in cases where rape is wrong. I think I'll continue to believe that until I die.
As for Christianity, I'm afraid the word has become so ambiguous it is beginning to dribble in the vague. Though, this could be a sign of the changing times, and since conservative christianity isn't what it once was, maybe there is a new paradigm forming that will redefine christianity based upon modern findings in science and changing social attitudes, like evolution and the big bang, or the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage respectively.I don't know, I think that much like the ambiguity with defining Christianity, there is one with defining belief. I mean, I say that I believe something and I hold it to be true, but I, like you, always try to keep myself open. I guess the difference is that once I adopt a belief and find myself comfortable enough with that belief to actually call myself an adherent, I don't really actively seek out new information about that belief or rather, I don't actively seek out information opposed to that belief or that challenges that belief. That is because before I adopt a belief system--or rather before I adopt a belief that is critical to the core manner in which I view the world or when I'm contemplating those things which are personally important, I have already read as much as I can that is opposed to what I am considering. Or at least I used to. I've pretty much done as much of that as I feel I need or want and am pretty OK with where I am, with a couple of exceptions.
This does not mean that I put my fingers in my ears and go "la, la, la, la, la", I'm not listening when I hear something that challenges my belief system. Nor does it mean that if I come across something I did not know but that I felt somehow revealed to me that a belief I had was just completely insane that I would just ignore it or refuse to acknowledge it. When that happens, one is dealing with issues of cognitive dissonance, which I actually live in fear and terror of, and one's mind actually is closed.
A personal example, of not having cognitive dissonance, is my personal political ideology. I used to be terribly involved in politics and held passionate views on the subject. Now, I am politically apathetic and disaffected. I have become completely disillusioned with our system and have been for years now. It isn't that I've stopped being socially active and I still vote. It's just when I concern myself with the things I care about such as human and civil rights, social issues, the environment, etc., I look to personal action, those social groups, etc., as my main sources of focus rather than believing that the government is going to do anything constructive with those issues.
I hope that there is a change forming in how Christianity is being defined because quite frankly, as a Christian, I am tired of using the word as a slur. In fact, I've actually started referred to those folks who seem to love hate more than love as "fans of Jesus" rather than followers of Christ.
To me, Christianity ought to be a thought of by Christians as a system where in the learning goes on to the post-doctoral level. One can begin with a kindergarten style comprehension and keep on learning until one dies. And perhaps it is--my apologies to those who believe that statement is offensive since any belief in God is kindergarten style thinking--but the kindergartens have seized control of the Chancellor's office and are holding it hostage. And their bullhorns they are using to promote their Sally, Dick, and Jane variety of belief are really, really loud.
And by the way, I'm only just now entering any kind of comfort level with my own Christianity. I was raised fundamentalist, was ripped out of it via sexual abuse, tried finding another Christian sect I could believe in, did, suffered more personal (non-sexual abuse, non-clergy or religion related) trauma, left church, read a lot, was a secular humanist for about a decade, then devoted myself to Jungian psychology, went back to church to see if I got anything out of it, didn't, carried on with Jung, got another degree, then, for reasons that are still a mystery to me, I came across the branch of Christianity to which I am now in the process of adhering and had an experience I could not account for, began studying it, and am in the process of still testing it out--but am feeling quite comfortable. The reason I am so tentative is that I keep feeling like I'm going to end up a living expression of that Who song line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
But none of that actually answers your question.
The only answer I can provide from a Christian POV is not all denominations believe in the concept of hell as currently promulgated, some denominations believe in universal salvation, and some denominations believe that the concept of "substitution" or "satisfaction" atonement to be downright blasphemous and dangerous. In fact, it wasn't even a part of Christian thought at all for the first thousand years of Christianity's inception. It comes primarily from the work of Anselm of Canterbury, not the bible.
As I get older is gets harder to find an answer to a question that I do not see the oposit of that answer having some validity.
Is there a hell? I don't think so! But if there is a hell? the fires of hell are contained within the spirit of man for the evil which mankind inflicts upon mankind can not properly be calculated.
Is hell simply a figmant of mankinds imagination OR is hell a product created by the evil which mankind inflicts upon others.
A every single word coming out of our mouths continue on long after we have spoken them.
Words of love to a child continues on long after the child has forgotten them.
Words of hate likewise have a power of their own once spoken.
If there is a hell ... it is because we won't stop shoveling coal into it.I can agree with that broad conception of hell for sure. War is hell; the internal workings of a psychopath are hell for the individual in question. We can also create a society that is hell for many living within it.
I also completely agree that our words can have a very lingering influence on people long after we are gone. The child will remember the harsh and kind words of the parent; the spouse will remember the fights; and, the friends will remember the quarrels. Certain words are simply not erasable. They forever change how we view the person who uttered them, rather it be in a positive or negative way.
I can agree with that broad conception of hell for sure. War is hell; the internal workings of a psychopath are hell for the individual in question. We can also create a society that is hell for many living within it.
I also completely agree that our words can have a very lingering influence on people long after we are gone. The child will remember the harsh and kind words of the parent; the spouse will remember the fights; and, the friends will remember the quarrels. Certain words are simply not erasable. They forever change how we view the person who uttered them, rather it be in a positive or negative way.
I really wasn't trying to disagreeable with you at all. I'm just more of a direct person when it comes to asking questions. I don't think you are irrational for believing in God, because there are rational arguments for the existence of God. I just happen to disagree with them. I may part with my fellow atheists on this point, but there is a certain mystery to the universe that seems to defy human comprehension. It seem as though as soon as one question is answered, one hundred more pop up in its place.
What I find reprehensible is the very simple minded Christians who tell me if I don't say a 30 second prayer at some point before I physically die, I will roast without dying forever. I don't think all religion is a bad thing at all; I am sometimes happy when someone holds a different viewpoint than me, because I agree with John Stuart Mill, when he said of a silenced opinion(by government coercion) in On Liberty, "if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."
Along with being of great rhetorical value, the point is strong. When we engage in an actual debate with a person of an opposing viewpoint, they force us to be clear about our positions, our defenses of those positions, and our definitions of terms used. I like to think opposition enhances our ability to critically think, rather than hindering it. The honest religious, the ones who engage in the hard questions of evil, such as John Lennox, a theist mathematician, who I have great respect for, are very helpful in helping to bring greater understanding to the overall issue in question, and keeping the atheist on his/her toes when it comes to formulating objections and engaging with theistic answers to those objections.
Sooner28
I've not been commenting in here much for quite some time because ..? Well I guess I live in a Yea .. But world; I see both sides of the arguements and don't know how to explain why I think one side of the arguement is right in many ways while also being wrong in many other ways.
This also applies to the other side.
I do believe in "GOD" though I can not agree with the religious interpretations of "exactly" who,and what God is. And Atheists ??? Well ... because we theists can not accurately describe God , they profess that "IT" isn't.
Kinda like .... (but not) Imagine that we are in the dark woods (on the other side of no where) I hear a noise! You ask "what did it sound like? did you see it; what did it look like?
And I describe the noise ... like a horse walking and stepping on a small limb. breaking it!
You rush out and catch a rabbit, and show me that it wasn't a horse, proving that I didn't hear anything! ... ??????Defining God is terribly tricky because there is a chicken and an egg problem to the whole issue. In order to know what God's attributes are, I need to have some external, objective source to find out. Yet, how can I know which source is true and which is false without first presupposing that it's true?
Related Discussions
- 1695
Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?
by Richard VanIngram 14 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals would have difficulty with the very notion of believing in any God? Again,...
- 230
Thou hast clothed me, warmed and fed me...
by Dave McClure 14 years ago
When very young, about 4 years old, I was taught to say the prayer 'Jesus tender Shepherd hear me' every night before sleeping. In the Summer I was to say it before getting into bed. In the Winter, with no heating in the attic bedroom and ice forming on the windows, it was OK to get into bed first,...
- 1116
Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive
by Ron Hooft 12 years ago
If the Christian god is omnipotent then why would it need to order the murder of it's son so that it can forgive? No Christian can answer this because it is utter nonsense. But I challenge any christian to give it a try.
- 32
Would you rather have degree in theology or understanding of God word through th
by graceinus 10 years ago
Would you rather have degree in theology or understanding of God word through the Holy Spirit?For myself I have no need nor desire for a degree in theology that is obtained from some university. Understanding and learning the word of God through personal study with the guidence of the Holy Spirit...
- 32
In Christianity, do non believers go to hell?
by cblack 8 years ago
In Christianity, do non believers go to hell?What happens to the people that believe in another religion and another God. If the Christian God is the only true God, then are those people damned?
- 950
Why Does Religion NEED To Exist?
by Link10103 9 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it was.My question is this: why does religion NEED to exist? If you say "So...