I'm a (fairly) devout Christian, but I recognize that: 1. Modern Christianity could look much, much different if different theological decisions had been made along the way. What if Constantine's mother had been influenced by the gnostics? The Nicene Creed might look a lot different. (I'm not a fan of the gnostics at all, although I am fascinated by the Coptic christians- suspecting that their church form is more like the early church). 2. The Bible is a wonderful book, but it is not a internally consistent document, like a government's constitution would be. There are the two unique creation stories in Genesis that so few Christians (and none of the creationists) seem to be aware of. Some of these inconsistencies add to the beauty, describing the real relationship between God and man. For example- the OT is full of warnings to not mingle with the foreign women, yet the Book of Ruth is the story of a foreign woman taken as a wife by a good, devout man, and how she became the grandmother of David, the greatest king. Certainly, the Bible's earliest compilers were aware of the irony in the story. Maybe the lesson is that what's in our hearts when we do something is more important than adherence to the rules- a message consistent with much of Jesus' teachings. As to the initial question of Satan- what a mess. Satan is the enemy who is able to walk up to God and barter in Job. He's the sly, hidden tempter who tries to corrupt Jesus. In Psalms, he's the personification of evil in Proverbs (which brings up another mess- the Greeks' influence on the Levant made the post-exile rabbis adopt a bunch of Hellenic deities as personifications in their writings of that period - like Lady Wisdom, Satan, and Lady Folly- in an attempt to be sophisticated and screwed up the theology ever since), and he takes the place of ancient foreign idols in attempts to reconcile shared legends. The reality of Satan depends upon the reality of evil and the reality of ideas. Are there evil acts committed? Yes, every day. Are these acts committed by evil people? Sometimes, but not always. Often, evil is committed by weak people (interesting thought- do we agree that good acts are always committed by strong people? I think so). How real is Satan? I don't know that it matters. His existence or non-existence has no impact on the risk of any of us committing evil, which is the key issue.
Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste I've been around for long, long years Stole many man's soul and faith And I was 'round when Jesus Christ Had his moment of doubt and pain Made damn sure that Pilate Washed his hands and sealed his fate Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the Czar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain I rode a tank Held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged And the bodies stank Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name, oh yeah Ah, what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah (woo woo, woo woo) I watched with glee While your kings and queens Fought for ten decades For the gods they made (woo woo, woo woo) I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedys?" When after all It was you and me (who who, who who) Let me please introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste And I laid traps for troubadours Who get killed before they reached Bombay (woo woo, who who) Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah (who who) But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby (who who, who who) Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah But what's confusing you Is just the nature of my game (woo woo, who who) Just as every cop is a criminal And all the sinners saints As heads is tails Just call me Lucifer 'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (who who, who who) So if you meet me Have some courtesy Have some sympathy, and some taste (woo woo) Use all your well-learned politesse Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah (woo woo, woo woo) Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, um yeah (who who) But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down (woo woo, woo woo) Woo, who Oh yeah, get on down Oh yeah Oh yeah! (woo woo) Tell me baby, what's my name Tell me honey, can ya guess my name Tell me baby, what's my name I tell you one time, you're to blame Oh, who woo, woo Woo, who Woo, woo Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Oh, yeah What's my name Tell me, baby, what's my name Tell me, sweetie, what's my name Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Woo, who, who Oh, yeah Woo woo Woo woo
Okay, I'll jump back in this one. It took me some time to organize my thoughts, and then I wasn't sure I wanted to share. Going back to the last question asked to me, yes, the idea that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of humankind is dogma. It's a principle based on interpretations of the Bible developed over time. That is not to say that your dogma or any dogma cannot be right, but if you're right then others are wrong. Some Christians believe Jesus was a good man whose life story and moral teachings can give us direction in life. He was no son of God and the resurrection should be understood as a metaphor for the potential resurrection of mankind. Other Christians believe that Jesus lived and died, that the story went roughly how it is presented in the bible, but believe that the purpose of his life was to present the incarnation of the Word to humanity, which would be fulfilled through the evolution of consciousness over time. And yes, some believe, like Coelcanth, that Jesus was Christ, the messiah, the only begotten son of God given as a sacrifice to humanity. So that all who believe in him shall not perish but be given everlasting life. The difference between this view and the previous two is that it is exclusive. It rules out other valid and meaningful interpretations of the life of Jesus and the Bible -- not to mention the 70% of the world which is non-christian -- for the sake of one belief. It is exclusion based on dogma, and I think people should be very thoughtful about such beliefs. I do not think faith can exist without dogma. Even nonbelief should be considered as dogma based on our definition here. But the key for anyone that holds a faith is admission that all faith is ultimately based on a dogma, and that had history gone differently or you had been born in a different part of the world, that you would believe entirely differently than you do now. That does not diminish the power of Christ, but it allows humility in your faith and interfaith dialogue. It also allows admiration of other religions without sacrificing your own convictions.
My logic was a bit flawed, so I'll try to clarify and expand. It gets much broader, long and personal, so bare with me. Those descriptions I gave of Christians were of actual people whose faith and reason I strongly admire. The criteria I used in labeling them as Christian was how they self-identify. The first was that of a religion professor and Archaeologist. He self-identifies as Christian and takes his religion very seriously. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus or Salvation through Christ. The second was of a somewhat obscure philosopher and writer named Owen Barfield,The Link C.S. Lewis considered Barfield a great friend and the "wisest and best of [his] unofficial teachers. " They may not fit your definition of a Christian, but I think their Christianity is much different from your Buddhism. To your second point of how are they any less exclusive than you, I will have a harder time defending my words since both are very adamant in their professed beliefs. Their two belief systems are possibly mutually exclusive of each other, so I can't even get that consistent. From my perspective -- and I guess this is what I meant by my grouping and use of the word exclusive -- their respective belief systems are built upon more solid foundations than...yours. History and Archaelogy in the case of the Professor, and philosophy and metaphysics in the case of Barfield. To be contrasted with the Bible and dogma. Is this a fair assessment? Probably not, but oh well.
Just a comment about the biblical description of Satan. Ezekiel 28 is one of the OT accounts which gives some information regarding Satan. The description is surrounded by the word of God against the king of Tyre. There are things which are clearly about the human king. There are others which are definitely not about a human king. In fact verses 11-19, there is little that could be applied to a human. When looking at the passages which describe Satan, this one agrees with them and includes additional information. I think the best interpretation is to understand this as an account of Satan, and in fact his origin. Also, the apostle John identifies the serpent as Satan in Revelation 20:2. There is enough information about him in the canonical books to construct a view which does not need to borrow from other mythology and noncanonical books as some of you state.
HornCyclist: I’m going to let the first half of your post stand without comment for now. There’s plenty there to break down, for sure. But the second part of your post seems far more important to me.
Can something be true without our recognition of it? Certainly whatever 'is' is regardless of whether we see it, acknowledge it, or recognize it. But 'truth' seems to point more to the accuracy of our perceptions rather than to the various objects of existence to which our attentions might or might not be turned. I have reason to believe that there are aspects of the real that I can more or less accurately assess. I have every reason to believe that, after 40 years of 'intimate' 'connection,' my right hand is a hand that is on my right. I don't believe that this is simply a matter of faith. There may be an objective truth but there are no objective eyes, though there may be moments where the subjective eye sees things as they are. The question is 'what reasons do I have to doubt what I sense or to believe?'
Wow... I thought this post got lost in the ether when I posted it (kinda creepy). I've got some reading to do.
I can tell I’m out of my league on this board. My prose is just not up to par, but I’ll try. I’ve heard (and actually tried to convince myself) of Coels’ point about “knowing the law written on our hearts” from Romans to explain the problem of Christian salvation. Unfortunately, every preacher who has dedicated his life to Christian study has told me there is only ONE way through HIM to gain salvation. I say that’s not fair. They reply “God is not fair and never promised to be” or "It's beyond us to understand." Perhaps God is God no matter what we choose to call him? Although different cultures describe and honor it differently, is agua and water not the very same thing? I find myself frightened of loosing connection with my family. I want to believe in the Bible, but the more I look, the more faith I lose. I find my spirituality is drifting to the same understanding LHG has already found. I’ve been told by my parents faith is a gift (they also believe in pre-determination, something Paul preached). I believed the pre-destination verses to be misinterpretation, but now I wonder if I’m just not going to have the faith my family members have because of a choice beyond my control. I’ve read the starter apologetics like Lewis, and even some better books (Strobel’s are a joke), but I just can’t get there. I read some old Isaac Newton views that mirror a new book I’d like to read (Jesus, Interrupted), and they make compelling arguments.
I think the most important thing is to look at how the bible describes God. Omniscience is a word we have used to describe what has been observed in the bible. However, to truly understand what that means we must look at the passages ourselves and not speculate about what the word, omniscient, can mean. Honestly from what I have read so far it looks like omniscent is something that describes God absolutely. Again I haven't read every passage and pondered how it relates to God's knowledge of future events. CrazyFoo, what exactly are the issues in the bible that cause you to "lose" faith? Part of faith for me is accepting who God is and what He does as right. Sometimes that is easily seen from a human perspective. Sometimes it takes some thought and time. There are many issues I have found in the bible where my first reaction was to think that God would not or could not do that or to wonder how can that be the correct attitude or action. Honestly, asking questions is part of the process and I think God uses it to reveal His true nature to you. At some point though He reveals the answer and the real question is are you going to accept it or keep questioning even when a reasonable, understandable explanation has been given. I do agree with your family that faith is a gift. Read Genesis 12:15 (I think), where God is described giving to Abraham faith while at the same time clearly stating that Abraham believed. It is not something that I will understand 100% but there are 2 sides of the coin. I hope that does not continue to hinder faith in you. It makes me sit back in awe of God. It shows just how above mankind He really is.
Coel - I'm referring to when I said: --why ask “Who killed Abel”, or ask where are Adam and Eve and why they hid themselves [wouldn't it be obvious to most of us what happened?], or know Satan was right with Job because Job faltered until God came down using fear and said “Who are you to question me?”. -- If it is unclear, I can try to re-explain. I didn’t write that very well. Mona, The above situations are one example. One of the main ones is Jesus crying out “Father, Father – why have you forsaken me?” on the cross. I’ve heard the explanation of God needed to leave Christ because he is holy and cannot be around the world’s sin that was placed on him at the time. I’ve also heard the better explanation that Jesus was purposely quoting a verse (I can’t recall the one), but after reading the actual context of what Jesus supposedly is quoting and dissenting opinion on the matter, both explanations of the statement seem contrived. It would appear to me Jesus claims (alludes) to be separate from God many more times that he claims to be God (I can only find 2-3 possible claims of being a/the God, and they are result from interpretation – not literal “I am God” quotes -- I AM). I think Jesus had a rightful claim to be king (and is what he claimed), and that is what upset the status quo. They didn’t crown him with “God of Jews” but “King of Jews”. Much like today, pacifists who claim to be God are not taken seriously. Also, to my original point. Satan and the angels are very troubling to me. What are we even here for? Angels seem like a better version of us who get to be superhero immortals. Our rebellion is punished just as much as an angel’s rebellion, but their rebellion is in the face of God knowing the truth of Him. Since, by any reason I can see, angels are better than us, what motivates Satan to destroy us? Is it because God loves us, and he wants to make God cry? And – if you knew someone was out to painfully destroy someone you loved, and you had the power to stop that person, wouldn’t you do it? I mean – this isn’t trying drugs out, pre-marital sex, and a person needs to make mistakes and grow/mature thing; this is eternal damnation we are faced with. PS - Moses and Joshua were vicious killers doing the will of God. So God is fine with Moses and angels killing innocent children and ruthlessly murdering every Midionite (former allies BTW - Moses betrayed them) and the other tribes to insure God’s special people get the land he wants for them. By all of today’s standards, Moses was a tyrant and a murderer taking land he had no right to other than to say “God promised it to us”. So Moses is the perfect guy doing every horrid, despicable thing God asked him to do, and the thing that pisses God off so much is that he struck a stone with his staff in frustration? Moses married a Midianite woman! God didn’t care that Moses married a woman who worshiped another God, but did get pissed at him for being frustrated once?
CF, I will try to respond to your issues as best I can. I find it very curious that you use Jesus' words on the cross to argue that Jesus was making a statement that he was not God. You mention the word context, but it seems to me your conclusions are not using the biblical context. Jesus is indeed quoting from Psalm 22 which expresses great emotional distress during a time of suffering. I think Jesus use of it on the cross expresses the same thing. He felt the physical suffering and in Isaiah 53:10 we see a prediction that Messiah would directly receive the wrath of God. So while on the cross Jesus was receiving punishment physically, emotionally, and spiritually/supernaturally. From seeing that, it is clear that Jesus was forsaken by the Father as He punished Jesus for the sins of the world. The other side of the issue is are there any verses stating Jesus' Godhood and/or intimate connection to God. They are in fact multiple. It starts in Mark 1 when Jesus is baptized. The Father states that Jesus is His beloved Son in which He is well-pleased. Love, intimacy, connection are all spoken of in this statement. In fact this is a statement of Godhood as well. Part of context is understanding the culture of the people the book is written about. To a Jew a Son was equivalent to his father is essence. It was a correct understanding. The son of a human is a human. Therefore, the son of God is God to the same degree. Jesus also states in John 8 that He is I AM. That is actually more specific than Him saying I am God (theos or elohim). I AM (ego eimi) is the Greek version of YHWH the specific name that God reveals to Moses. Also, just read through John, in that book Jesus states, I and the Father are one, many times. One there can also be understood as "a unity". Again a clear statement of their togetherness. When Jesus is forsaken on the cross it was for a specific purpose for a short period of time, about 6 hours(?). Your second issue boils down to the question of why would God allow evil to exist and then punish that evil eternally. Satan and the angels are involved on the periphery as God's agents. I don't think angels should be considered as better versions of us. They are different beings than us with a different purpose and a different nature. All we really know about them is that occasionally they appear to people and bring messages and other carry out other tasks for God. For the bigger question though. The bible does not answer the question directly why did God allow evil to exist. Some people look to the nature of God and tie it to that. I think there are some acceptable answers out there but everything is speculation, some okay some terrible. The fact is though that evil exists. Right? So how would a righteous God deal with evil? He would punish it all. How would a loving God deal with it? Provide a way of forgiveness. The God of the bible shows Himself to both righteous and loving by punishing sin on the cross and at the same time making a way for us to be forgiven. That is what we can know for certain. A righteous, loving, patient God sounds like a God who is worthy of our faith and worship. Doesn't He? Satan is trying to take the place of God. That is shown in Ezekiel 28. It is also shown in parts of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. He wants people to follow him instead of God. That is why his schemes are so varied. It really doesn't matter what a person does as long as he/she is not following God. The self-righteous and self-destructive are all following Satan's example of worshipping the self. He was the first and that's what he wants mankind to do too. That is the only conclusion I can see when looking at all the biblical evidence. The third issue is a matter of perspective. God who is righteous punishes sin, sometimes He chooses to deal with it on the earth and other times He chooses to wait for the next life before there are any repurcussions for the sinful. In the case of Moses and Joshua, God judged the people of Canaan for their wicked religions. The rituals consisted of orgies/prostitution on one hand and sacrificing infants on the other. God desired to rid the earth of their evil as the ruler of the earth who can correctly judge what is good and evil. In this case, God used Moses and Joshua as His agents to carry out that justice. The thing that distinguished between Moses/Joshua (good) and mass murderer (bad) is who pronounced the judgement which led to the killing? In the case of Moses/Joshua, God audibly told the Israelites to do this. It was an unequivocal statement was the holy judge. In the other case, the killing is done based on a sinful persons sinful motivations. You state that the people of Canaan were innocent and that it was a despicable action. However, the Canaanites were not innocent, they were guilty to the point where God chose to remove them from the earth. Killing is not always a despicable act, it must be judged by the motivation and purpose of the killing. With that said there are very few legitimate instances where killing is acceptable, but they are still there, and in general people do not have the right to decide when another person's life should end. The Israelites conquer of Canaan is one of those instances though being that it was God's decision not theirs.
PS - While Moses did marry a Midianite woman, in Numbers 22 the Midianites plot with Moab a way to have God curse Israel in the wilderness. For that betrayal and then actively seducing the Israelites to worship Baal Peor, God commands the Israelites to eliminate the evil influence. Again the judgement for Midian is the same as for the other Baal worshipers in Canaan. Notice that God does not judge Moab the same. There were involved in the plot but had not infiltrated the Israelites to seduce them. The context is always important to understand what is going on. Taking narrative outside of its context always leads to confusion.
I think that the issues of omnipotence and omniscience are problematic for free will, or a god who does not know the future. This assumes that the future is something that might actually exist as a knowable outcome given a finite set of possibilities. I believe the possibilities are finite if the physical circumstances are limited and the cognizance we are talking about has no boundaries. Assuming god created time, and that time is physical in some sense, then he must know all of its properties, and he must know the cause and effect patterns of all that is with a terrible, total, inescapable intimacy. In a sense, it is not really important to establish that time is physical or real, rather, we must only think of events as being connected due to knowable causes. If you have all the information, you can have all of the outcome. This assumes that there is nothing in existence that is beyond god's knowledge. I cannot clearly see how any human can know what is not knowable to an entity such as that contemplated by our definitions of 'a god.'
Like Buck, I see the coexistence of godly omnipotence and omnisciense, with human free will, as being problematic. As analogy, I see it problematic to find the number 3 in the set of even numbers. I mean, you can have one, can have the other, but can't have both. Of course, one can abstractly define any relationship, but that then alters the meanings of the initial question. Can an ominipotent god not create free will? Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it? These questions are not new, and, they suggest to me, that we have created a concept that doesnt quite work.
And is there a difference between power and control? Or, is there a kind of control that is really no control at all, but instead an almost effortless, efficient application of the correct amount of energy to achieve a desired outcome. Just because I exert more energy than Ernie Els when playing golf does not make me a better golfer. In spite of my greater effort at controlling the club, I have not the skill, or the temperance, to get the club on the ball with the same effortless grace that Els does. His control is not actually total control. It instead allows the club to be what it is, to do what it was designed to do. I think in some way this sort of effortless grace -- the perfect application not of total control, but of the correct amount of meaningful, necessary control -- can be instructive when thinking about how an omnipotent God might operate. I don't think being an omnipotent God obligates him to be a spastic, intemperate God, always wasting his efforts in the same way that I waste golf balls.
People are misunderstanding why God knows what we will do. It isn't because he did a probability analysis, or mentally figured it out. It is because he is also outside of time. So he has seen what you will do and knows it. Not some calculation on his part. It really has nothing to do with omniscience. Look at it this way. God knows you will spill the milk at breakfast tomorrow. Even though it was your free choice to drink milk, not orange juice that morning. He is outside time and has already seen you spill milk. But the inevitability of your spilling milk has nothing to do with his omniscience. Say God takes my bassett hound to sit in his lap outside of time. The bassett hound sees you spill the milk tomorrow. Trust me, my bassett hound is not omniscient, but if there is bacon on the table you will have her rapt attention. So non-omniscient hound sees you spill the milk. Doesn't that lock you into spilling the milk every bit as much as if an omniscient being saw it? So it isn't brain power that is the issue with omniscience vs free will. It is being able to go outside of time, alter time, move through time. Not omniscience.
I think these are characteristics of God that we can not describe with exact certainty. We know that God created the universe so we know He at least everything about how it works. We know he is sovereign or in control because the bible declares it multiple times. We also know that God has a plan because there are direct statements about it. One passage in, I think Isaiah, even describes to what degree God goes to in order to accomplish his plan. He brings a bird from a far away place and he moves the hearts of men. God knows the intentions of our hearts for which there is no natural explanation. I have said it before but I will say it again. The bible paints a picture of a God who is omnipotent and omniscient. However, for us to discuss the intricacies of that without referring to specific passages is dangerous. The idea that God is omniscient because He is outside of time is a nice one and a potentially true description. We know God is outside of time based on him creating the universe and not being of it, which is sometimes called holiness. 2 Peter also has the interesting verse where it describes that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day to God, which shows that His relationship to time is much different than ours. It could even imply that He is outside of it. I would say He is, but it is even hard to prove from the biblical record. On the other hand we know certainly that He is always involved in running the universe from Colossians 1 and that involves time as well. Because of the complexity and difficulty of the topic, it seems that any philosophy that is too far removed from the biblical account is most likely wrong.
