Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

LuckyR

Absolutely correct. It is so refreshing to converse with someone of faith... who actually grasps the fact that faith is independent of proof and evidence.

It seems as though I am being misunderstood. My point (in reference to the Christian God) was to highlight the fact that if he were detectable objectively via proof or evidence, the New Testament would be null and void. Meaning that God would not allow himself to be detected because of that. To discuss the particulars of faith as a practice was not my goal.

Hhmmm. While you correctly point out the physical "evidence" differences between the NT and the OT (burning bushes notwithstanding), lots of god mythology through history contains such "evidence".

[Fanman]

Belindi,

I understand Fanman. Although the life of Jesus does not depend on the NT Jesus' interpretation of God is the theme of the NT. The mission of Paul is a sub theme.

I don’t think that is correct. The focal point of the NT is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If not for that, there would be no NT. The Covenant God made with people in the NT is described in John 3:16,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Therefore my point is that if God were to make himself objectively detectable, the Covenant of Christ would be null and void. And with it the whole NT. That is indicative of a Biblical consistency with the reality of how things are.

[Belindi]

Belindi,

I understand Fanman. Although the life of Jesus does not depend on the NT Jesus' interpretation of God is the theme of the NT. The mission of Paul is a sub theme.

I don’t think that is correct. The focal point of the NT is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If not for that, there would be no NT. The Covenant God made with people in the NT is described in John 3:16,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Therefore my point is that if God were to make himself objectively detectable, the Covenant of Christ would be null and void. And with it the whole NT. That is indicative of a Biblical consistency with the reality of how things are.

But the life of Jesus did not depend on Gospel writers and editors. The sacrifice of Jesus is a major part of Jesus' interpretation of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke ,and John were aware of this and wrote it up. The Gospels came after Jesus was dead so could not possibly have been a cause of Jesus'
sacrifice.

[Fanman]

Belindi,

But the life of Jesus did not depend on Gospel writers and editors. The sacrifice of Jesus is a major part of Jesus' interpretation of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke ,and John were aware of this and wrote it up. The Gospels came after Jesus was dead so could not possibly have been a cause of Jesus'
sacrifice.

I am not a theologian, so I cannot tell you what is absolutely right or wrong in terms of scriptural interpretation. But I do know the basics as a former Christian. The New Testament and Covenant are all founded upon the life and sacrifice of Christ. His death was not an ordinary one, it was an atonement for sin. And during his life, he taught people how to have a relationship with God. The gospels are all related to the life and death of Christ, hence why each one of them tells that story.

[ernestm]

Belindi,

But the life of Jesus did not depend on Gospel writers and editors. The sacrifice of Jesus is a major part of Jesus' interpretation of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke ,and John were aware of this and wrote it up. The Gospels came after Jesus was dead so could not possibly have been a cause of Jesus'
sacrifice.

I am not a theologian, so I cannot tell you what is absolutely right or wrong in terms of scriptural interpretation. But I do know the basics as a former Christian. The New Testament and Covenant are all founded upon the life and sacrifice of Christ. His death was not an ordinary one, it was an atonement for sin. And during his life, he taught people how to have a relationship with God. The gospels are all related to the life and death of Christ, hence why each one of them tells that story.

Following, for your edification, is the 'Wiser Designer' argument , an entirely new version of 'intelligent design.' It is hypothetical, rather than a 'proof'. It starts with the observation that evolution creates unsuccessful species and characteristics, and therefore, the intent of the Creator is NOT a 'perfect' design, but to simplify the task of Creation by using evolution as a tool. It then considers the hypothesis, if a Creator exists, then what would be the nature of such a Creator? Rather than trying to force-fit any such Creator's motives into an existing theology, it considers what is likely for a Creator to do based on the universe as we know it.
~
It then observes that physical mechanics are of limited interest to a conscious being. Therefore, an intelligent Creator must be using evolution to enable species development with individuals capable of independent thought. After enabling life, Marx's theory of dialectical materialism states that the evolution of a free society is fairly automatic. Engels added that the evolution of a free culture only requires some herd species with hands connected to a brain.
~
Any 'intelligent 'Creator thus only needs to intend as much as is necessary and sufficient to enable life. Further effort would not be wise. For example, after making a periodic table with the basic elements for life (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), all life needs is some elements to kink organic molecules around. Also, life needs energy input, and some heavy materials to create a place upon which life can evolve. Beyond that, there aren't really requirements on the elements to enable life, and therefore, the rest of the periodic table's design is arbitrary, rather than intended.
~
From that. the Theory of Wiser Design becomes an argument, about whether such a Creator would bother to intercede in the Universe. It may be that life is sufficiently rare that such a Creator would intercede to enable more independent thought and prevent slavery from entirely taking over. On the other hand, by interceding, a Creator would limit fee will. Further, any evidence beyond doubt of any such Creator would effectively make us Slaves to God. Therefore, even if a Creator exists and could intercede, interventions would be rather rare and obscure.

The full argument is at the attached link.
https://yofiel.com/jesus/creation.php

[Belindi]

Belindi,

But the life of Jesus did not depend on Gospel writers and editors. The sacrifice of Jesus is a major part of Jesus' interpretation of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke ,and John were aware of this and wrote it up. The Gospels came after Jesus was dead so could not possibly have been a cause of Jesus'
sacrifice.

I am not a theologian, so I cannot tell you what is absolutely right or wrong in terms of scriptural interpretation. But I do know the basics as a former Christian. The New Testament and Covenant are all founded upon the life and sacrifice of Christ. His death was not an ordinary one, it was an atonement for sin. And during his life, he taught people how to have a relationship with God. The gospels are all related to the life and death of Christ, hence why each one of them tells that story.

Same here. I was a Christian and in sense still am, and am not a trained theologian.
I don't know if the historical Jesus intended to atone for anyone's sins.

The Jesus Christ of faith did intend to atone for sins.

The actions of good people go towards atoning for the cruelties committed by bad people, and God 's grace forgives all.

[Fanman]

Belindi,

Same here. I was a Christian and in sense still am, and am not a trained theologian.

Then we are Christians in spirit

I don't know if the historical Jesus intended to atone for anyone's sins.

The Jesus Christ of faith did intend to atone for sins.

I don't know if the historical Jesus and Jesus Christ are one and the same. But I do hope that one day we find out, so this endless debate can come to a close.

The actions of good people go towards atoning for the cruelties committed by bad people, and God 's grace forgives all.

I couldn't agree more with the first part of what you say, but that God's grace forgives us all will be debated until the end of time.

[Belindi]

Belindi,

Same here. I was a Christian and in sense still am, and am not a trained theologian.

Then we are Christians in spirit

I don't know if the historical Jesus intended to atone for anyone's sins.

The Jesus Christ of faith did intend to atone for sins.

I don't know if the historical Jesus and Jesus Christ are one and the same. But I do hope that one day we find out, so this endless debate can come to a close.

The actions of good people go towards atoning for the cruelties committed by bad people, and God 's grace forgives all.

I couldn't agree more with the first part of what you say, but that God's grace forgives us all will be debated until the end of time.

If God's grace did not forgive all then God would be a partial knower like any of us limited knowers.

[Fanman]

Belindi,

If God's grace did not forgive all then God would be a partial knower like any of us limited knowers.

That’s true. To forgive all things a being must be knowledgeable of all things. Not just for knowledge's sake, but to know that they are forgivable and how to be redeemed from them. Jesus’ (the Christ) sacrifice was an atonement for sin. God placed all sin upon him so that we could be forgiven. Vertically speaking, I think of it like this, Christ was an incarnation of God. His purity made it so he could be sacrificed – so that all of the people’s sins could be placed upon his shoulders. As they did in the OT with the unblemished lambs, which is why he is called “The Lamb of God”. In his life, he showed people how to have a relationship with God. And his death paid the price for sin so that we could actually have a relationship with God, through him. Therefore he lived and died for people. I think that is the generic or perhaps even the core message of the gospels or NT.

My point in relation to Biblical consistency was that none of that would be possible if God were to make himself objectively detectable. Because John 3:16 expressly states that we have to believe in Jesus to inherit eternal life. Therefore, there is no logical reason for God, should he exist and be Yahweh, to reveal himself objectively. He would be acting against his own covenant.

[EricPH]

Forgiveness is a profound subject. Jesus said, forgive your enemies, and love and pray for your enemies. He said we should keep forgiving even 7 x 70 times. It would have been easy for Jesus to go round preaching, if he first had nothing to forgive. But we know that Jesus prayed on the cross forgive them Father for they know not what they do. Jesus taught us how much we should be prepared to forgive, even if someone is responsible for our death.

When we pray the Lord's prayer we tell God what to do. Forgive us in the same way that we forgive others. If we can't forgive someone for an injustice against us, we are telling God to do the same to us. Jesus not only died for me, he died for my enemies too. If

[Sy Borg]

So God doesn't have much agency, then, much less than a human does.

If my dog could not forgive someone for trying to take its attention, does that mean I cannot forgive my dog for being simpler than I am? No, I can be better (in that way) than my dog, yet God is apparently unable to be better than we are.

Logically, the ancients dropped endless hints that God is subjective - essentially our "better selves" - rather than an ontic presence. This is another example, where everything God does hinges on your own attitudes, because God is posited to lack its own will. Theistic rules are equivalent to old maxims and folk wisdom ... 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away', 'A stitch in time saves nine', and so on. They are hints as to how to do things in life, but modern literalism of ancient texts has distorted them out of all recognition, with God and Jesus now akin to superheroes, Captain Marvel (who can do anything) and Superman (who is similar but with a few Earthly limits).

[Belindi]

Belindi,

If God's grace did not forgive all then God would be a partial knower like any of us limited knowers.

That’s true. To forgive all things a being must be knowledgeable of all things. Not just for knowledge's sake, but to know that they are forgivable and how to be redeemed from them. Jesus’ (the Christ) sacrifice was an atonement for sin. God placed all sin upon him so that we could be forgiven. Vertically speaking, I think of it like this, Christ was an incarnation of God. His purity made it so he could be sacrificed – so that all of the people’s sins could be placed upon his shoulders. As they did in the OT with the unblemished lambs, which is why he is called “The Lamb of God”. In his life, he showed people how to have a relationship with God. And his death paid the price for sin so that we could actually have a relationship with God, through him. Therefore he lived and died for people. I think that is the generic or perhaps even the core message of the gospels or NT.

My point in relation to Biblical consistency was that none of that would be possible if God were to make himself objectively detectable. Because John 3:16 expressly states that we have to believe in Jesus to inherit eternal life. Therefore, there is no logical reason for God, should he exist and be Yahweh, to reveal himself objectively. He would be acting against his own covenant.

If I describe the matter of your first paragraph as myth, would you please accept that I don't intend to disparage it? Your first paragraph is the mythic narrative of God after the fact of Jesus, as I understand it, and I see no reason it should ever change.It's a narrative that suits the simple literalist and also the allegorist. I wonder why, when you who are not even a theologian, can narrate the myth so concisely and simply, there is so much lack of understanding.

The matter of your second paragraph seems to be based on an idea of God that's unchangeable. I don't think God is unchangeable. I think God has a history.
The Bible, which is largely a history of God, relates how God evolved over time from the early Israelites to the Roman empire. God was understood in earlier times to be capable of walking and talking with human beings, and proving He existed by making a bush that burned and would not be extinguished. The latter story is clearly one that can enlighten both the literalist and the allegorist which proves my point that God was historical and even local and has evolved through stages from the local to the universal . These stages are detectable in The Bible, aided by historians and anthropologists, to evolve from local/tribal to universal

[Fanman]

Belindi,

If I describe the matter of your first paragraph as myth, would you please accept that I don't intend to disparage it? Your first paragraph is the mythic narrative of God after the fact of Jesus, as I understand it, and I see no reason it should ever change.It's a narrative that suits the simple literalist and also the allegorist. I wonder why, when you who are not even a theologian, can narrate the myth so concisely and simply, there is so much lack of understanding.

Of course, from the perspective of a non-Christian, it is a myth, that is undoubted. But that is the central tenet for a Christian.

The matter of your second paragraph seems to be based on an idea of God that's unchangeable. I don't think God is unchangeable. I think God has a history.
The Bible, which is largely a history of God, relates how God evolved over time from the early Israelites to the Roman empire. God was understood in earlier times to be capable of walking and talking with human beings, and proving He existed by making a bush that burned and would not be extinguished. The latter story is clearly one that can enlighten both the literalist and the allegorist which proves my point that God was historical and even local and has evolved through stages from the local to the universal . These stages are detectable in The Bible, aided by historians and anthropologists, to evolve from local/tribal to universal

My point does not refer to God as being unchangeable, but to the notion that he would not contradict himself.

[Consul]

So God doesn't have much agency, then, much less than a human does.

Since God has no body, divine action is never physical action but always mental action.

This raises the general question as to what mental occurrents are (intentional) actions rather than passions, i.e. ones which are done by their subjects rather than just happening to them. If there are nonconscious mental occurrents, they aren't intentional actions but processes taking place involuntarily without any conscious control; so the question of intentional mental actions concerns only conscious mental occurrents, i.e. experiential ones.
Sensations and emotions are experiential passions; so if there are (intentional) experiential actions, we find them in thought (cogitation, reflection, contemplation) and imagination. For example, reasoning, deciding, choosing, planning, and judging are forms of active thinking. So divine agency consists in nothing more than kinds of active thinking or imagining. There is one special kind of divine mental action consisting in magical thought-acts that have miraculous (mental or physical) effects in the spacetime world. (The supernatural effect of God's first magical thought-acts was the popping into being of the spacetime world itself.)

[Sy Borg]

So God doesn't have much agency, then, much less than a human does.

Since God has no body, divine action is never physical action but always mental action.

This raises the general question as to what mental occurrents are (intentional) actions rather than passions, i.e. ones which are done by their subjects rather than just happening to them. If there are nonconscious mental occurrents, they aren't intentional actions but processes taking place involuntarily without any conscious control; so the question of intentional mental actions concerns only conscious mental occurrents, i.e. experiential ones.
Sensations and emotions are experiential passions; so if there are (intentional) experiential actions, we find them in thought (cogitation, reflection, contemplation) and imagination. For example, reasoning, deciding, choosing, planning, and judging are forms of active thinking. So divine agency consists in nothing more than kinds of active thinking or imagining. There is one special kind of divine mental action consisting in magical thought-acts that have miraculous (mental or physical) effects in the spacetime world. (The supernatural effect of God's first magical thought-acts was the popping into being of the spacetime world itself.)

Not only does God lack a body, it also lacks will, reacting mechanistically to goodness and sin alike. So, if you behave like X, God has no choice but to send you to heaven and if you behave like Y (regardless of extenuating circumstances) then you are thrown into hell. Basically, God is operating like everything else in nature, since God is part of nature (being present in our evolved brain structure), not the other way around.