9-11

Roel, it related to your answer to this:

I was highlighting the fact that when you create something, the tendancy is to love it. Yes, you will want obediance from your child, no question there, but there is an underlying base of love, mercy & grace.
As Christians, we no longer need to go perform sacrifices, or beat our chests til they bleed, or anything else in order to be forgiven. Jesus took that upon himself, and God had his only son killed to make it so. If that isn't love, I don't know what is!

 

Okay, fair enough. But you owe your creator obedience not because he is your creator, but because if he doesn't have authority in your eyes then no one has. This is the major flaw in most people's upbringing: the lack of respect for parents ultimately evolves into lack of respect for any authority (teachers, policemen, whatever). Your creator is simply the first person who needs to have this authority; if he/she fails it's lost.

However, this way of raising someone doesn't make love impossible, that's ridiculous. It simply doesn't ahev anything to do with love, that works on a whole different level. Don't confuse them or think one can't exist alongside the other.

 

No, I don't.
God expects obediance from us humans.
My parents expect obediance from me.

I'm just saying that there is more there than obedience, otherwise God is just a big Dictator in the sky.

I rather think we are both saying that obedience and love can exist together. My original point (way back when) was that the Muslim chap I was chatting to found it hard to wrap his head around the fact that God's primary motivation to us (& ours to God) is that of love, not obedience.

 

Indeed. That is the point a lot of Muslims have trouble understanding.

Of course, there are some Christians who have the same problem...

 

Here's the little atheist brat kicking in again, but how would you know what God's primary motivation is? Isn't he, according to the Christain faith, a being too complicated for Man to understand?

 

I don't worship God.



I blame him.





:lol:

 

Roel,
I don't think any of the Christians I have seen posting on this forum would think of you as a " little athiest brat". An athiest perhaps by your own admission, but not showing any bratish tendancies.
But to get to the point you raised, which is a good one, I think Gods love for mankind is wriiten all through the Bible, especially in the words of Jesus Christ, but then I would , wouldn't I, as a Christian!!
If you know anything of Christ's time on this earth, as recorded in the Bible and (importantly here for an athiest) believe it. I think you too will see that love poured out.
I agree with you up to a point about God being too complicated for man to understand FULLY (my emphasis). As a pot can not understand the potter. But we are not pots!! (potty perhaps!) and as created beings have a measure of understanding of our Creator. The measure of that understanding is governed by two things, firstly, how much of Himself God choses (chose) to reveal. Secondly what measures we take to discover that revelation & believe it (O.K that is three things) (sounds like the "Spanish Inquisition sketch again!!!).
Hope that lot makes sense.

All the best Dave.

 

Yay! Thanks, David. I thought with all my criticism I would be starting to annoy all Christians by now.

Well, here's a difference between a Christian and a history student: as the latter I don't consider the Bible a source at all. It is common knowledge among the History branch of my university that, as written literally in a chapter of Old History, "We know virtually nothing about the life of Jesus of Nazareth." The bible can't really be trusted on it as it was written a long time after the events by people who utterly worshipped the man and therefore certainly had motive, means and opportunity to make him look holy. He certainly wouldn't have proclaimed to be the son of God, so that part would have been added later.

Yes, with the part about God creating man in his image we should to some extent understand his being. Provided there is a God. Okay, let's leave that out of the discussion at hand. Speaking as if I believed there was a god out there, I would have much trouble finding the things that God has revealed of himself, and if he is a being we don't fully understand then like all things we don't fully understand we could be interpreting his revelations wrongly all the time, or be misguided by them. What if he was telling lies of convenience all the time, and had a whole second agenda? We'd never know. We don't understand him.

 

Hi Roel,
Thank you for your comments. Two things suprise me.
1. That contemporary historians claim to know next to nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. When I was younger and an Athiest I thought it was generally accepted that the evidence supporting the life of Jesus as reported by the Bible all checked out.
2.What makes you think that Jesus did not openly proclaim himself as the Son of God, and that this was written in afterwards so to speak.


I commend you for your empathy when you say "speaking as if I believed there was a God" Would that people older than yourself displayed this level of maturity when arguing. (arguing is too strong a word to use to describe our current discussion, but I'm sure you know what I mean)
Back to the point you raised about wrong interpretation & misguidedness, this is the part that is most difficult for me to explain to you, because I remember what it was like before I became a Christian, and how my wife's (A life long Christian) explanations to me, never seemed to make sense. But I will go with it anyway, because you may well be able to empathise with me, even if you don't understand or agree.
As Christians, God has given us his Holy Spirit. The Spirit guides us into all truth, and if we listen carefully to Him, the chances of misinterpretation & misguidiedness are much reduced, especially when used in conjunction with the Word of God (Bible). I know this WILL make sense to other Christians, but probably not to you. So bear with me! please.
I must say firmly however, that I believe that God would (could) never tell lies of convenience, or any type of lie, and that Satan is a liar and the "father of lies". You are of course at liberty to disagree with this!!
Thanks for bearing with me in this rather long post.

Take care, all the best Dave.

 

You're welcome. Here's where I got this notion:

Naerenbout & Singor, De Oudheid (The Ancient Age), Amsterdam 2004, p.402:
"Little is known for certain about the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. In all likelihood he was convinced that God had given him a decisive task in the establishment of the Messianistic "Kingdom of God" on earth. (...) His death was considered by his closest followers to be a sacrifice, in the spirit of martyrs, who, in their death, averted the punishment of God from others. Jesus was from then on seen as the real Messiah, who by his death had cleared the way for the founding of God's Kingdom, a kingdom not viewed in earthly terms but as a new world at the end of days, populated by the just or the chosen, that is: by all those who believed in Jesus' liberating sacrifice. From this belief soon ermerged stories which made Jesus into a divine being, the Son of God (...)."

Now I do not claim to understand beings higher than me (if any), but wouldn't it just be the best possible smoke screen for a being with a second agenda to make people believe that he couldn't tell a lie? He even provided his followers with a projection of his opposite, evil, the Devil. Nothing about him except his good would ever be emphasized. But who knows, maybe this is not the real God. It could be though, just as likely; I'm just suggesting that if we don't understand him we don't know his motives even if we think we do.

Just for illustration, here's the view a friend of mine (who is very much an atheist indeed and intends to study theology some day) on the Christian God. He sees this being as the evil, and Satan as the good; God in his view has enslaved the people who believe in him, sheep to his shepherd Jesus, and he makes them do things they don't want to do and binds them to strict moral values. The fact behind this is that in a secularizing civilization more and more of these values are ignored or discarded as 'imprisoning'. Satan, in this picture, tries to avert people from th slave-like following of God's word and his voices on earth, by offering them things they really want instead of things they should want according to God.

I do not support this view but I believe in this discussion it might be interesting; it shows how God (if any! ) could have an entirely different purpose than what he shows us.

 

Does it? No, I don't think so. Any fool can come up with nonsense that sounds good to the gullible. I prefer to put my trust in the Word of the living God, who I know is incapable of lying. Satan is the father of all lies; he has obviously managed to ensnare your friend and the authors you quoted.

 

Okay, do you have any arguments in favour of my quote being a lie? I can tell you that I tend to be more easily persuaded by 28 pages of bibliography than by arguments only valuable to people who share your belief. I don't disrespect you for being a Christian, but the only arguments you bring to bear are those that can only acknowledge your faith, which means they mean nothing to those who don't already believe or want to.

 

Christianity - or any other religion - demands the acceptance of one absolute and unassailable set of beliefs. There are no substantive pieces of scientific evidence to support these beliefs. Its up to the human himself to convince himself that god exists, that the values preached in religion are scientific and hence cannot be disputed. These arguments are, from a secular point of view, groundless. We do not accept that Satan exists, nor do we accept that Satan can cloud one's perception of the outside world. Neither side can possibly win this argument - since really its not even one in the first place.

 

Roel, if those 28 pages of bibliography you speak of are flawed and contain erroneous information, what good are they? As for my arguments meaning nothing to those who don't share my beliefs, I disagree. It is by hearing about God and Jesus that Christianity spreads, and you'd be amazed at how many Christians were at one time atheists, agnostics, or even worse. That includes me, BTW.

 

This is a good point, however my argument was aimed against Corp's calling the authors I quoted and my friend all liars. Even in the face of their words about the Christian faith, they are not liars; they merely have other views. In the case of the authors this is a scientific view instead of an erroneous one. On your last post, Corp, I would like to emphasize my words: these arguments don't matter to those who don't want to believe.

However, like david mentioned this is not really an argument but much more a sharing of ideas and interpretations. I try to keep my posts down on the argumentative part (and admittedly fail sometimes), and try to just share my view and my ideas with you. From david, though a religious man, I get praise for the way I do it and I'm glad for it. However, you refuse to accept other views for what they are; you insist on calling them liars and weak since persuaded by the devil.

 

Roel,
I don't think Corp' was calling the author, or your friend(s) liars, I have read his post several times and don't think that was how he meant it.
But there has obviously been room for misinterpretation, as both you & I have come to different conclusions having read exactly the same words.

Over to you Corp' for clarification


Best wishes to one & all.

 

Hey - I'm both!
Admittedly you do not find many Christian Historians - the study of history is a crash-course in scepticism.
One little point - there is more historical evidence (primary & secondary)for the life & works of Jesus than there are for Julius Caesar. But nobody ever doubts his actions...

Tsk tsk...
All things are sources, even if just an insight into how later cultures percieved events...
One of my big 'problems' is a tendancy to get side-tracked when reading my bible, and pick up on interesting historical details.
Besides, it is true, all the main events recorded in the Bible are historically accurate, proven via other sources (including archaeology, and rarely by a Christian historian!).

Regarding the possibility of God's 'secret agenda' - if this is the case (which I do not believe) he has played a remarkably good game, never, ever, slipping up. As far as we can tell...

 

My, how things have developed on this one since my last visit.

Don't know who said it, but if you do not consider the Bible a source, you are dead wrong. If nothing else, it is a great history source.

Now comes the issue of whether or not we are dealing with the Old Testament or the new testament.

 

Well, of course it is a source in the sense that a historian can use it. It is not, however, a source of historical facts. Anything written in it may be a guideline but never a decisive factor to a historian (tsk tsk to you Ricky. ) It gives only information which serves to strenghten a theological point of view.

David: how, if not the accusation of telling lies, would you interpret these words: "Satan is the father of all lies; he has obviously managed to ensnare your friend and the authors you quoted." This is what Corp wrote. If meant so or not, I take them as an accusation on the adress of my friend and the authors I quoted.

 

The Old Testament is a mixture of Secondary and Primary sources, which has been largely proved 'true' in general scope (and much of the fine detail) by other evidence.
The New Testament is a Primary source, which has been largely proved 'true' in general scope (and much of the fine detail) by other evidence.

Yes, no historian would ultimately swear that every last little fact recorded in the Bible was exactly true and how it was, but then no historian would say that about any source, ever!

Both Testaments also contain much theology, which is irrelevant to this discussion!


(Primary source is written at or around the time of the event, by a witness, Secondary is written well after, and / or by somebody who was not there).

For example, the Old Testament chronacles the enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians. It also mentions the overthrow of the Assyrians (or was it the Persians?) by Darius the Mede, and so on.
It also contains many clues about day to day life, warfare, etc.

The New Testament (NT) contains many insights as well - there is much detail on the Roman occupation to be gleaned, for example (like their justice system!). Also much information about the various towns in the letters sent (the letter-writers used analogies they would understand, for example a town specialising in eye-medicine would get a letter about the benefits of spiritual vision over human vision, and the healing of the spirit over the healing of the mind). Plus the usual stuff on everyday life. Remember that the NT focusses largely on 'common' people - very unusual in a document of that age.