Christian Conversation. Pearls to swine?

[Robert]

Hello All, first post here on the fora. I was pointed towards the podcast a little while ago through an internet acquaintance, and whilst listening through the episodes over the last several months I greatly appreciate the overall tone and consistent quality of discussion by all those involved. I can take or leave the Stryper references however, but please, just put that down to my own ignorance... I don't think they had much success here in the mainstream UK music scene (thankfully!).

This first post here is a bit of a long one, and I don't expect many (if any one) to read the whole of it, so apologies in advance.

Now and again, my born again Christian brother (Andrew) and I have these loose informal email conversations on religion, spirituality and philosophy. These exchanges took place a few months back (via Facebook), and whilst I was reading through them again the other day I thought they may be passably interesting to some, so I thought I'd post them here. For clarity, my brother has been a born again Christian for around 20 years. He's 52 years old, I'm 39. I have never been a Christian, and have always considered myself atheist.

(All spelling and grammar errors have not been corrected).



Robert -
I've decided I'll just become as arrogant, as decadent, and as nihilistic as the common religious believer. Maybe then I'll get somewhere in life. I just haven't chosen which religion yet. Christianity is the worst, Islam a close second, but Judaism probably wins out purely on longevity. I'm not interested in fringe religions like Scientology or Mormons, people just think you're a nut if you're one of them. No, it'll have to be one of the big three. One where people will think "lucky for him, he's religious. If he wasn't, he'd be out commiting crimes like raping and murdering a go-go. So just as well he believes in a God."


Andrew -
Missed out evolution as a religion has similarities:) Full of decadent, arrogant and nihlistic people who are so confidently right and have a blank cheque to say what they want and the masses swallow it. Could try that, scientists as priests, Darwin as the god and evangelists like dawkins. As a religion it is doing not bad so why consider jumping ship. If you fail in life you could always say well "I obviously was not fit enough to survive". Why bother getting into all the morals it is just a brain fuck.


Robert -
I fear I'm too old to become the right amount of materialistic, empiricalistic and scientistic needed for that. And also too old and just that little bit not naïve enough to become a real supernaturalistic fantasmagoricalistic either. No, to get ahead, there must be another way.


Robert -
Uh oh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hools.html


Andrew -
Attenboroough: I have no time for fools like him or his cronies.


Robert -
Creationists: I have no [longer] time for fools like them or their cronies.

See you around.


Andrew -
Looks like you have taken offence. If you cant take it then why do you give it out. You know I am a Christian yet you constantly make comments like: I'll just become as arrogant, as decadent, and as nihilistic as the common religious believer + Christianity is the worst + then telling me how attenborough is campaigning to get creationism out of schools. If you want to take the attitude see you around then fine. I have no time for mockers.


Robert -
Why is it always your defence to say that I am mocking when I am stating my opinion? Nihilist, decadent and arrogant aren't intended as mocking, but what I truly think. I'll explain.

Nihilist: a person needs God to be good otherwise he'll just do whatever he pleases. Therefore the believer is a nihilist since belief relieves him of his nihilism.

Decadent: believers only take their readings of scripture as far as they are safe enough to go, and then use them as justification for a material and ego-comforting lifestyle.

Arrogant: if you're not one of us (God's children), then you're in error, and shall suffer the black flames of Hell.

Now I suspect what you'll do now is use those same words to describe something about evolutionists or Darwinists. Mocking?


Andrew -
Nihlist: If that is what you think true Chrisstianity is you are in error, It is by Grace that I am saved, sins paid for, past present and future by the work of the Christ on the cross. Therefore, I sin all I like, Gods grace is sufficient, He loves me anyhow. Thats is freedom.

Decadent:I dont need scripture to justify myself. Again I am Justified by Christs work on the Cross. The lifestyle and egoism that I have is human, I have no perfection of my own.

Arrogant: If I boast of being one of Gods children due to somekind of knowledge that I have or something that I have earned and condemn others for not being like me or conforming to my thinking then I am a puffed self righteous idiot who has shunned the cross and dont understand the depth of my own depravity and the mercy and grace that has been poured on me undeservingly. If this is the case then I deserve the title arrogant fool and then it is I that should go to the hell.


Robert -
"True Christianity" as you describe it is at odds with itself. As I have asked you before in the past on a simple point, but I don't remember getting a straight answer to, what do you make of Christians who accept the science of evolutionary theory? To maintain your position as a 'true' Christian, and to be coherent to your own form of belief, you'd be obliged to consider such people non-true Christians and as such in error. In effect, they'd be in the same boat as non believers, and "true Christianity" then only becomes what your yourself determine it to be regardless of the opinions of other saved by Grace individuals who consider themselves Christians.

Put another way, since you insist on a belief creationism which you maintain is the consequence of being a true Christian, I would like you to explain why non-creationist Christians aren't in fact Christian. And to be clear, I'm talking about those kind of people who are thoughtful and intelligent and who have considered the matter in depth. There are plenty of examples of such individuals, highly trained professional people who work in areas like theology and religious studies, sociology, science, etc., so their views cannot just be dismissed out of hand just because you can't be bothered addressing their arguments, tempting as that often can be.


Robert -
And to add, my gripe is really with the kind of Christian belief (and by extension any other religion) that consistently misrepresents whatever evidence based argument in order to maintain a particular emotionally invested position in the face of all data to the contrary. There's something repulsive in the victim mentality.


Andrew -
Interesting point, there are all sorts of denominations and think sets in Christendom. The issue here is about doctrine. If someone wants to believe evolution let them do so. If they want to believe in big elephants theory let them do so. I used to get wrapped up in all this but it is meangless excercise and bears no fruit. To clarify the consequences of being a Christian are not a belief in Creationism some Christians never even go that far. What makes a Christian is accepting that Christ is the the Son of God and His work is sufficient. The rest is for the individual to work out there own salvation. You accept evolution good then go for it, take the whole package, data and philosophy. Why are you bothered with Christians or religion at all, why even waste your energy arguing the point. If evolution is true then in time (say a million of years or so) these weaker being will not survive anyhow.


Robert -
I don't think questioning things is wasting energy, especially when those questions touch on a person's actions, because those actions have consequences.

I was asking about those Christians who *have* went that far, and accepted the science. I want to hear your own opinion of those kind of people who fully recognise the difference between peer reviewed evidence and how that is not at odds with belief. Cleary you have a disagreement with such fellow Christians and you're brushing it off saying it's just up to the individual's own salvation, which itself begs another question - that you can determine who is and isn't saved. But that's another topic.

I don't think you see the contradiction in what you're saying here. Basically, you're saying 'let a person believe whatever they want, I don't care, it's all the same to me in the end.' BUT, only as long as they have accepted Christ as...

Notice the problem here?
(hint: how to determine error of judgment)

There is no "belief" in evolutionary theory, only either acceptance or rejection based on empirical evidence. Important nuance. There's no "belief" that a galaxy is a collection of stars and interstellar remnants, only acceptance or rejection of the data. If the data changes, so will the acceptance of what constitutes a galaxy. There might be a "belief" that a huge elephant is living on some planet in some galaxy somewhere, but there's no good reason to hold to that doctrine other than through emotive desire.

"these weaker beings will not survive", there's that victim mentality again that constantly misrepresents a perception of the state of things in order to satisfy an egoistic identity grounded in opposition to the 'other'. A tribal, petty and parochial mentality. Be mindful of unintended consequences.


Andrew -
You have not answered my question: Why are you so interested in what I believe? Why are you asking me all these questions? No matter how we atart comunicating we always end up talking in mazes and it appears to get nowhere. I need to know what your problem is?


Robert -
I didn't notice you'd asked me that. I'm interested in what you believe for a few reasons. I'm trying to figure out how much of it (with regards to the creationist idea) is dependent on your reading of scripture and how much isn't (if any at all), and how that reading is at odds with differing interpretations of the same text by other Christians who come to differing conclusions. I'm genuinely having a hard time trying to understand why or how you come to cast aside so much valid information in favour of your particular position (again, with regards to creationism, specifically young earth creationism).

I'm aware that my problem, and my frustration at bottom, is that I'm having difficulty trying to communicate with someone who holds an erronous conception of something (evolutionary theory), and who seems ultimately unwilling to correct this poorly constructed conception which itself then creates further damage by communicating the false consequences of this misconception as factual, when in really they are simply mistaken. But mistakes can be corrected, and when I see one being made, I'd like it at least to be pointed out, and at least try to lessen the damage.

But if you don't want to talk, that's fine. I realise we're touching on personal questions that run deep into the psyche, I'm not looking to upset sensibilites.


Andrew -
basically you want me to accept evolution as fact


Robert -
What is evolution but cause and effect? Do you reject cause and effect?! Such blasphemy!! Such hatred of God!!!


Andrew -
Answer the question, basically you want me to accept evolution as fact, yes , no?


Robert -
If it's a fact, what's to accept? It just is. A fact will remain a fact regardless of what I or anyone wants.


Robert -
I think of it like this. At bottom, all evolution points to is change, and what else is there but change? Cause and effect, change, is all there is. The only thing that doesn't change is change itself, yet go out and look for a single cause independent of all else and you won't find it! Effects are dependent on their causes, yet cause and effect as a thing in itself is nowhere to be found! What we have are the results of change, and all we really are concious of is change. That's all evolution really points to, the impermanent and dependent nature of things. Creationism supposes God as the creator of things, but then reject cause and effect by asserting God is causeless! Creationists want their cake and to eat it, they want cause and effect and they want to reject it. As if the ultimate mystery isn't already enough.


Andrew -
why can't you answer the qestion: yes,no?


Robert -
I already did, reject change and you reject God.


Andrew -
bullshit


Andrew -
Robert you know nothing of creation if you think that we reject God due to cause and effect. There is a difference between the created and the creator. The created is a result of cause (as you stated all we see is the effect). However God has not beginning or end living outside and part of of time and space. How can we with finite minds comprehend this other dimention we call heaven or hell when we can hardly make sense of our own. I find you very arrogant in the assumption that if I cannot accept evolution as fact then I reject God in fact I think that statement as ludicrous. Why do I even attempt to respond to these comments you make as you appear to turn them around or pick them up in the wrong way. Looks like we are speaking different languages. I reject evolotion. Just because you do not agree with me you feel that you need to save me from my salvation. Sorry but I dont need another saviour. I am happy with my faith and happy with the God of the bible. What damage is this causing? Why do you and your kind feel it so important to change others into evolutionary thinking. Who is pulling your strings? You reject the God of the bible that is your choice and you are happy with your dry emotionless scientfic theories sorry facts and learning big words to impress and bolster your arguments. Deep personal questions running into my phsche, hatred of God. Have you listened to how arrogant, assumptious and proud your emails are. What if you are wrong Robert. Whatif you have just swallowed the big lie, question your own mind.


Robert -
It's not so much emotionless but more trying to keep emotion from clouding thought. The spirit of my questions aren't intended to be arrogant, but I understand how you feel they are. I don't know what to do about that really, I value truth above all else, and I don't know how to talk about truth without upsetting beliefs at some point which inevitably comes accross as arrogance. The Irish comedian Dylan Moran made a joke about the futility of arguing with a woman, "how can you argue with a hormone?!". If you were a woman, you'd probably find that arrogant, but it's still true.

It's thanks to you in fact that I have questioned my own mind, that I have gone through a long and difficult path in search for truth. You might be surprised to learn that it's in questioning what you've said in the past, our conversations, your view on things in terms of specific beliefs you tell me about, that have forced me to question my own thoughts and my own beliefs. I promise you, I'm not as blind or as naively following some scientific script or a follower of some anti-religion pro-science movement that you seem to think I am. In my defence, and I say this without undue pride or arrogance, I have been through a lot of painful and difficult thought in my own mind in response to your (and others') beliefs that have challenged previous assumptions and forced me to think of things in new and different ways. The result of all this is that I value truth more highly than ever before, and value the rejection of falsity just as equally.

True arrogance is conscious rejection of truth. Being consciously truthful is compassion.

I'll try and reformulate what I'm saying about evolution and rejection of God. You won't find this in any science books, this is my own thinking, not a rehash of some evolutionary scientist and not an attempt at any kind of second hand 'evolutionary evangelism' in the way that term is often used by Christians (mostly) in a derogatory manner.

In a broad general sense, all things are contingent on their causes, no matter what particular thing you observe, it will have causes. Evolution, as understood here not as the specific theory of the mechanism descibed in science in the development of living organisms, but in a much wider sense and more analogous to change, is simply another term to describe the process of cause and effect. Causality=change=evolution, in a very broad sense. Evolution, the specific scientific theory that describes the development of living things, is a marker for change, it's an attempt to capture causes and effects through observation and prediction. So what really at bottom is the difference between a rejection of cause and effect and the rejection of evolution? A person may disagree with the specific findings of the science and those findings in detail may be ultimately wrong, but the basic fact of logic that all that's happening is an attempt to determine cause still remains. Therefore, reject causality and you reject evolution by default. If a person rejects causality itself, they're in contradiction since to reject it is to assert causality in the first place. You could say they were caused to reject it, which is paradoxical. Reject causes and you reject God.

Since I equate God with the Infinite Totality (utterly everything), God is the cause of all things. But God in the sense of the Totality is niether a part of nor not a part of all things, in a real sense the whole of Totality can't really be said to exist at all since the non-dual nature of utterly everything isn't a thing in itself, and therefore non contingent (non-caused, acausal). What we ultimately have is the mystery of existence, a limit we cannot cross since, like you say, we are finite. But we can know that our finite minds have an infinite nature, and that nature is the infinite causes that comprise the Totality. We are products of the Totality, we are products of God.


Andrew -
Thank you for your honesty. I think that the word evolution here is best put forward. I dont disbelieve that evolution exists as cause and effect I have no problem wih this in the broad sense I will explain my stance forward. I accept also that truth is an honourable goal in life and I believe that all human beings have a built in regard for this matter. In fact it is impossible to separate what a person pervieves as truth either learned or by faith from belief. Belief is a summary of the truths that someone has and effects attitude and perception in turn directs more truth. Faith is trust in someone or something to be true before truth being revieled. Faith is something we do all the time. For example faith that a pilot and a plane will take you to your destination as intrinsically promissed. Although due to past failings there is always an element of doubt and fear that it will crash. Here we have faith and fear living side by side. We all have faith and fear and belief. Truth however is sometimes (using the plane analargy) not exposed until after the act, the plain lands or crashes. Evolution in my mind is simply change, buisnesses evolve, people evolve etc. However to say that we came from a simple life (apes etec) form and have evolved into humans I dont accept. I dont eccept it by faith. I accept by faith the person I trust, God. I accept by faith His written word: The bible. Which is a combination of documents about God's intervention with human kind. This is my plumb line and scientiific does not measure up to this. You may think it is blind arrogance or stubborness. And you would be right. I trust God and His word. The bible tells of how He created mankind in his own image and all living things according to their kind. No mention of anything having to form from one lifeform to the next. So I accept that. Thge bible cannot be taken out of faith. For example, Christ born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead, the devil, angels, demons, prophets, fire from heaven, burning water, people living in furnaces, swallowed by whales, chariots from heaven, the nile turning red with blood, manna from heaven, donkeys speaking I could go on. God hid faith from the intellectual mind it is a heart thing. Think of the mind as the placenta to the heart. To accept God you must become like a child. It is one thing talking about planes and pilots but quite another getting into the plane.


Robert -
Thanks for admitting your blind arrogance and stubborness. Refreshingly truthful.


Robert -
Is it correct to say then that you consciously and deliberately make a personal preference in accepting on faith and in a literal way what the Bible says about all those things you mentioned, over any other possible interpretation of those same things by other Christians and/or Bible scholars who might arrive at different and possibly conflicting preferences of their own?

If so, how open is your faith to change, to evolution? It seems to me, and this is my opinion, that faith isn't something stagnant, fixed and lifeless, but a living and constant (in as much as possible) conscious relationship with truth itself.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how it's possible to see a truth and to reject it based on a position of personal faith. It seems to me that it's better to embrace truth wherever it's found than to deny it, unless the person only values truth in as much as it makes them feel secure or safe or boosts the ego or whatever. But then, that wouldn't really be valuing truth at all, would it?


Andrew -
My faith is the antithesis to the theory of evolution: All scripture is God breathed. As stated God created man in His own image and everything according to its kind. I cannot reject this. If I do I reject God. And I cannot live a lie. Evolution states that God did not create mankind in his own image but man evolved from a simpler life form. Evolution thoery is the antithesis of Biblical truth and as such is a lie. Albeit a cunning lie manufactured to deceive even some Christians. Amazing really.


Robert -
So all the other Christians that accept evolutionary theory are being deceived and have accepted a lie, which was presumably manufactured by the devil.

What if those Chtistians who hold a conflicting understanding of things are right, but you have closed your mind and your faith to change because of your self confessed stubborness? Wouldn't a potential consequence of stubborness be a hindrance to development? Being stubborn can be a virtue for sure, but it can also be a barrier, I would think.


Andrew -
Good point, let me expain. We agree on truth, that it is good and unbending. Therefore no matter how emotional we feel or hard we shout truth is as it is a fact and wont change. We also would agree (Ithink) that as humans we are suseptable to believing in non truth we could call this deception. Many have been deceived and I am no exeption to being deceived, therfore who do I trust, myself. This is a parrody of my statement of my weakness of vulnrarability to being deceived. To me I accept all of the bible. I dont pick out pages that I like or dont like, thin it down to suit myself. I accept the bible as truth, all of it not just what I like also what I dont like and also what I understand and dont understand. As stated it is the plumb line for my life. It is good for correction, teaching, buidling up and so on. The bible works hand in hand with the Spirit of God who lives in me. If I dont understand something then I go and learn. If I still dont understand then I wait as perhaps there is other things I need to learn as a basis for understanding. If Christians take evolution theory as truth then they reject the creation chapter of Genesis. In other words they have rejected Gods word for human doctrine, as you stated there are consequences to rejection of truth and these consequences are between them and God. Just as if I choose to reject parts of scripture for other teachings them it is my undoing.


Robert -
I think that it's right that a person should trust themselves, meaning having trust and faith in their own mind. If a person can't trust their own mind, then there would be no way to determine when deception and delusion occurs, they would go from thought to thought like a loose leaf being blown by the wind, rootless and never at rest.

I continue to see a contradiction and a weakness in what you're saying. Assuming other Christians have the same trust in themselves and have the spirit of God, as you said, and that they both accept the chapter of Genesis *and* the science of evolutionary theory, then how can you say they reject God's word? If you say for you, there are things you accept in the Bible but still don't understand, how can you be absolutely certain that one of those things you think you understand is correct and not mistaken? How can you be certain you're not being deceived, not by some outside force or person, but by your own mind?

Add to that the other contradiction that you accept that your own mind is suceptable to deception, as is everyone's, I agree, and therefore trust only your own mind to determine truth from deception, but then you state that you fully accept a priori the Bible as fully truthful (!!!). This is known as begging the question, a fallacy of thought that should be avoided if a person actually values truth.


Andrew -
I can be certain of not being deceived by the living God who lives within me and the written word of the Bible. God does not lie He is Truth. It is a spiritual matter that the mind catches up with.


Robert -
That God is truth is one thing, but written words are just that, written words. Mistakes can be made with words that only your own mind can determine whether a thing written by other people contains falsity or not. I would say that to blindly accept a written text as completely truthful, even before you have made the determination that it actually is, in whole or in part, would be a foolish thing to do. Apart from begging the question, I would have to accuse such a person of having the mind if a fish. A fish may be spiritual in this sense, but it has no method with which to determine for itself truth from falsity.

I would define spirtuality as thruthful thought: a truthful mind would have no (or few) delusions.


Robert -
I would define spirtuality as thruthful thought: a truthful mind would have no (or few) delusions. Delusion is mostly a result of error in determining the truth of a situation, event, fact, whatever. A fish could be said to have no delusion if there's no conception of true and false to begin with, and so it would have nothing in which to be wring about . But I think as soon as you have the conscious conception of dualities, opposition and difference, then you necessarily have the possibilty for delusion and truth to exist.


Andrew -
Blindly, good point but that is the point. When I became a Christian my spiritual eyes were opened. Therefore blind I was but now I see, amazing grace. It is impossible to make you see this unless you are born of God and He opens your eyes. It is amazing but the Spirit witnesses the Spirit. I remember once I was reading a piece (example) of scripture and I felt that there was something not right with it. This is discernment a gift of the spirit. The scripture in question turned out to be written by a sect called Jehova witnesses. God is light and the light shines up the darkness therefore I see what is what.


Robert -
To be perfectly truthful, and without arrogance or pride, I would say that all religion contains sect mentality. Take any Christian denomination, either separately or as a whole, and ask them if they have the Spirit, and they will of course say yes. Of course they would, they would be insane not to. Born again or not, Jehovah Witness or not, that would by necessity have to be their reply. Otherwise, well, they'd have minds of fish, frankly.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that there's a root delusion that has to be positively ignored and ultimately repressed for an individual to become "like a child" in the Christian sense, and that delusion is that there's any truth to be found in modern religion at all. If there is, then it's so distorted and so opaque that a conscious and thoughtful person, once this root delusion is recognised, wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. In my opinion.


Andrew -
Everyone is intitled to their opinion fair enough, so let me have mine. It is you that is deluded Robert. Deceived by the big lie that the God of the bible that there is no truth in religion. There is only one true religion and that is the one of the Savour. Mankind willfully denied God (call this sin) and became separated from God dependent on his own and happy with the fact. His offspring were born into this, we are all born separated from God. Alive to sin and dead to God. Mankind in his futalty still believes that he can go it alone and will make up any fantastic story to bury God under the carpet, evolution is one of many. It is impossible for you to understand the things of God because you are dead to Him. You jeject the only true God because you are happy with your own belief systems. You are proud and arrogant to trample into the ground the saviour, rejecting the only source for eternal life. You keep the your own intellect in high esteem and reject the highest intellect of all, Christ. Be it on your own head. As I said salvation is there as a free gift, paid for by the work on the cross of Christ, the propitiation and reconsiltiation for mankinds sin. In this life that call or olive branch is there holding out for you. It is there as long as you live in this life but that is it. No one knows how long they will live for, today, tomorrow, longer perhaps. The gospel message is the highest intellect that a human being can arisse to. I is a quickening, regenenerated life offered to the undeserving. God so loved the worl that he gave His only Son that whoever should believe in Him shall have eternal life. You will never find this in any doctrine of man, no cult or sub cult.


Robert -
As I was reading your post there, I thought about ex-Christians that have held exactly the same line of reasoning as you here, but have now changed their beliefs, that have evolved in their thinking. I ask you, what happened to them? Why is it that they have matured in their thought and gone beyond their previous beliefs? Victims of the big lie? Not real Christians? Deceived?

I could give you a couple of examples, if you're interested.


Andrew -
Ok, your assumption is that they have matured, this is an assumption. You could also argue that they have regressed. We could fire examples at one anoher all day, no frruit in this. I couls also give many examples of Christians who have fallen asleep as far as the faith is concerned, it is normal. You will find this in any walk of life


Andrew -
Also you assume that their beliefs evolved into "their thinking", so it was not also their thinking in the first place. This is a preprogrammed belief system you have Robert. You assume that the Christianity is a lie or to put it in another way a delussion. Could it be that your thoughts are not your own, your thoughts are emotive or a least subjective to the ideoligy of evolution. In othere words reading slightly into your last mail I can see that you make everything fit this system. No exactly objective.


Robert -
You're reading too much into it, your first response addressed the point better. No, I wouldn't say that an individual's thoughts are not their own, or that they don't possess their own thinking, like you're suggesting I'm assuming. I don't think that makes any sense unless you think I'm seriously saying that I think of people as unthinking robots where their thoughts are beamed into their brain by some objective external source (!). I don't. There's a difference between being conscious of one's thoughts and consciously questioning those same thoughts. The conscious person will question their thoughts, the unconscious person won't.

What I'm trying to argue is that it what you suggest as 'falling asleep' in the Christian context (and other idealogical contexts too, I agree, but I disagree that evolution is an ideology in the sense of a religious creed or conviction as is claimed by creationists), is the definition of the will to unconscious, the will of those who see discussion of nuance of thought as ultimately a fruitless exchange and waste of energy. In other words, that faith alone is enough, that a situation of personal comfort has been attained and that the individual is unwilling to go any further. That sounds to me like an absolutist position, whether the individual is consciously aware of it or not, and which generally indicates a failure of any possible future conversation. It's a little ironic that this is what you accuse me of.


Andrew -
Ok, I agree that faith alone is not enough in fact some Christian denominations believe this to be so to the point of exhalting their own faith higher than anything or anybeing. Crazy ground akin to beliefism or positivism. This is not what I am saying. Faith is a substance, like I suppose gravity is a substance. The best of all scientists as you know have difficulty in fatheming out gravity. We know it is related to mass but thats about it. Similarly faith related to belief. Pritty poor analargy but I am trying. My own experience of faith is like that of perhaps spiritual eyes (say one of the spiritual senses). Eyes they help you make sense of the phisical relm, faith the spiritual. However we have other senses and to put all our mind into one sense and ignore the rest would be unwise. Discernment for example an ability to spiritually sense something not being right in a given situation could be aligned/parallelled to the lower relm of taste or smell as we would do when eating food, it is all there for a purpose. All feeding back to what I would describe as reasonable inteligent thinking. It is in my opinion (faith etc) completes and complements a persons ability to make sense (along with or physical senses) of the natural and supernatural universe.


Robert -
You'll have to define a few things to help me understand what you mean by some of these terms you're using. What do you mean by 'beliefism' and 'positivism'? Positivism has many meanings, definitions, contexts etc, so I need you to be a bit more specific.

How do you differentiate between the 'natural and supernatural universe'? What does natural mean to you? What's the difference between the physical realm and the spiritual realm?

Is it fair to say that what you're describing as faith here is more like 'feeling'? The immediate sense of "something not being right", like you said, for example.

How do you define wise and wisdom?

Thanks


Andrew -
Beliefism or positiveism on an extreme sense can steam role truth. An individual or group think set that focuses on objectives and simply makes it work no matter what even to the point of kidding oneself and others on. I am sure you can think of many secular and non secular examples. Nothing inherently wrong with belief or being positive they are good things but like all things in life taken to the extreme they have in your words "consequences". With regards to faith I did describe before faith as an analogy to trusting a pilot to get you to your destination. In fact every time we fly we put a lot of faith in technology and human elements to do their job. Similarly with currency, a bank note is only a piece of paper but we trust the system. All this is not based on feelings but but accumulated knowledge that matures. However like all human systems they have inherent problems and sometimes fail. Take currency, when people don’t believe the note promises to pay the bearer on demand then this has consequences. If word gets out that a specific bank or country cannot remain solvent then the value of currency suffers. The core elements are knowledge. Not everyone is knowledgeable about currency but it is the experts who have influence. Wisdom: I would say it is the top tier of hierarchical accumulated meaningful knowledge. Bottom end: un-meaningful numbers, letters etc then data where these un-meaningful letters or numbers can be grouped into meaningful logic, then information where data is collated and communicated into transferrable meaningful knowledge and finally wisdom where a person (specialist) who has accumulated knowledge. Hope this explains my thoughts better.
Regards


Robert -
How do you differentiate between the 'natural and supernatural universe'? What does natural mean to you? What's the difference between the physical realm and the spiritual realm?


Andrew -
i'll sleep on that one:)


Andrew -
I have slept. Good question. The only way I can describe this is by my own experience. Before becoming spiritually awake to me the physical realm was al there was. You lived then died. No before and no after. When you were dead you were dead. I remember just before becoming a Christian thinking what’s the point you are as well taking everything out of this life as you can. I remember watching people going to work, thinking of planning for their future, pensions retirement etc, for what to hand it down the generations, for some humanistic morals, who cares. That is about it. Think about it and think bout it deeply either take a razor and slit your wrists or rob a bank it is meaningless anyway, your dead and in a few years no-one will remember you except some genealogist trying to find some ancestor but that wont matter to you because you will be oblivious and the impact on humanity of your life will have no meaning to you, back to dust. You may ask am I dreaming up spirituality as a crutch just to make life more meaningful outside of the physical. If that is the case then I am even sadder than the ones who put all their energy into the illusion of a pension, happy days in retirement and knowledge of science and the physical or anything under the sun will bring them about some soothing balm for this sad and very brief existence.


Andrew -
Addon... Sounds a bit negative (my last post) and it has not answered your question the difference between tthe two realms. However I dont think I can answer this in one sentence. What I am saying is that first look at the physical realm, the tangible, the reality of human existence or lets say fleeting existence in the time spectrum of the universe. It is like a blade of grass grows withers and dies. The universe will die and that is a fact. It had a beginning and it will have and end, this is our physical reality. Science and technology offer hope and have being doing so since the beginning. Hope of living longer and even now the prospect of eternal life. Science offers details of hope and mankind loves this hope, defeating cancer, overcoming deadly diseases, replacing limbs, bionic implants wow. For what? To live another year, two or twenty. To make life a little more comfortable? Before we were here we were not and did not remeber it. Once we are gone the same applies (with no afterlife). Party then because tommorrow you die. What hope does science and technology offer but temporal hope, hope that fades, hope that sometimes does not deliver and even then perhaps flawed or imperfect. This is the physical. Sure there is beauty and snap shots of happiness but these are also temporal. This is the phyisical in reality. Everyone gets their lot. Some live lone some dont even get a start, some walk this life with disabilities but either way no matter what we all meet the same end.


Robert -
Thanks for sharing. Remeber when I mentioned nihilism, and how the religious individual is at root a nihilist? I think you just provided a pretty good example of exactly what I mean. What you're saying is that now you're a Christian, with all that implies, you know have meaning and purpose in your life wheras before you had none. In other words, you're relieved of your nihilism via religion. But to my mind, thus is false reiief, since all that's accomplished is adding an additional layer of existence (a personal God) where it isn't necessary for existential justification, but where the root problem of what existence itself means isn't actually addressed, so nihilism ultimately remains intact. All that's acheived, in my opinion, is ego comforting. I don't really have a problem with that as long as it's recognised as just that, but I do have a problem when it's promoted as truth.

What you're actually talking about when you list all these things you mourne the senselessness of is attachment. Attachment to things, people, ideas etc indicates a belief in the actual existence of things, by which I mean an inherent or ultimate existence of discrete things and objects, individuals, concepts, etc. But if everything is constant change and nothing is permanent, including ourselves ("a blade of grass grows, withers and dies"), does it really make sense to get so upset by what's not really fixed and unchanging? The extra layer of existence that you add for cosmic justification of everything - a personal and existing God - doesn't itself address the root problem of ego attachment, but only displaces it. Cut the root of attachment, its causes, and you cut the root of nihilism.


Robert -
That the Universe will die, a fact according to you, depends on how we define what the universe is. To me, the universe can't die, because it was never born (!). The universe in my mind equates to the whole totality of all there is, ever was and ever will be. In this sense, it's pretty much meaningless to speak of life and death, since this would then finitize what is non-finite.


Andrew -
I understand your definition of nihlism not a problem with that, perhaps I have misled you regaring me being a nihlist before I was a Christian on the contrary I was certainly not. I had a purpose in life I saw life as it was and was quite happy doing my own thing. It was God that ruined it for my super ego:). In fact I was so full of my self that salvation was not something I learned a long time after becoming a Christian. I even remeber wondering what I needed saved from:). The meaningless I am talking about was my viewpoint from this side of the fence (The born again) looking at what the material world has to offer without Christ. The fact is that now I am saved, now that I am enlightned by Gods grace I see the only hope for someone in the world apart from God is Christ. What I am saying is that without salvation there is no true hope. You talk of change and it is true there is in nature things that constantly change but there are other things that do not. Mankind is still greedy, jealous, proud arrogant, self determined and a God hater at heart today as he was 3000 years ago, mankind is laden with sin and his thoughts are occupied with it all day long and always will be. There is nothing new under the sun. Mankind is war$ring today and will be tomorrow. He may do it diferently in detail, he may even have got more efficient in designing weapons but murder is in his heart, wickedness does not change.


Robert -
The ego I'm referring to is the sense of self, not the outer public projection. The things you list like greed, hate, pride, are all rooted in the delusion of an inherently existing self (or ego), just as love, happiness, feelings of comfort and security etc are equally rooted in the same delusion of an independent existing self. In this sense, I see no ultimate difference in the person who commits crimes or starts wars for material gain, and the person who claims saviour in a personal God and everlasting life, they both have delusions of the self as intrinsically existing. Destroy the illusion of the self as actually existing, and you destroy all desire. Even a desire for truth suffers, since once this realisation is fully made, the absurdity of most of our lives is recognised and it becomes quite a challenge keep faith in the truth that all is change, no thing is forever.

I understand completely why most people aren't interested by such an idea, there's not much money, sex, social power or stuff to be gained by it. Which is only to be expected however, it's how we evolved after all. But that doesn't mean of course that we can't fight and overcome our own selves.


Andrew -
The super ego I mentioned was not in the freudian sense of outword projection but my ego it was super:). You mention a delusion and you are right in the sense of the selfish ego and that is my point. The delusion is very cunning but lets take love for example. You say (I think) that it is an emotion or delusion of self. Interesting thought are you ssaying love does not exist outside on mankinds ego. No mankind no love? Also you mention with the destruction of the ego there is no desire as "faith in truth suffers and that all is change" sounds a little like what my point is all along, the ego (sinfull nature of man) needs the delusion to survive his house is therefore built on sand the fear of this realisation shakes his rational mind and he sinks, quickly he needs to dream up more delusion, justifiction for existence. Strip all away and then I refer back to my email meaningless meaningless.

Do some peope dream up a diety? Sure they do I would be a fool not to know this. Do some people dream up isms? All the time. With regards to personal God, well I dont think I have ever been into this. Sounds to me like an invisble made up friend "My Jesus". I do accept that Christ died fo my sins and is the son of God but I wont make him into my own image or change Him into santagod to satisfy some emotive void.


Andrew -
Question on change: If effect is the product of cause or multiple causes and if causality is the relationship between events then the whole universe is therefore simply a dynamic force of change brought about by an initial cause then the universe must have no beginning as cause is required to bring about effect, this must be logically true as something caused the cause and if something caused the cause then the cause would not be a cause but an effect of the cause.


Andrew -
I am not asking what caused the cause just stating a logical thought


Robert -
Some thoughts on what you wrote.

A 'personal' God is defined as a being that exists, that has attributes, and that can intervene into human affairs. It's defined as personal in the Christian sense of the person of Jesus. It doesn't mean personal in the immediate sense of 'my' or 'mine', like 'my shoes' or 'this coat is mine'. You see now you believe in fact in a personal God.

Does love exist outside of mankind's ego? The only ego or the only self I have, is my own, so I'm not conscious of the subjective emotions felt by other species. I don't know if a fish can love. No mankind no love? If what you're asking is can love exists outside of human existence or human consciousness, I'd say no, since no thing can be ultimately said to exist without at least one conscious being around to observe it. Love is one thing, just like wind is one thing, a tree, a cloud, a thought etc are other things. These things don't exist as such without consciousness to observe and name them.

Being conscious of the ego's constant need for satiation and the absurdity of it at bottom doesn't by default lead to "meaninglessness". It's just what it does. Keeping a faith in truth, namely that the truth that all things, including my ego, myself, are causal in nature like all other things, and will ultimately go the way of all other causal things.

I define the universe as absolutely everything, therefore all causes are included. This means that yes, the universe itself is ultimately acausal, or more accurately I suppose, it escapes the label of causality and having a cause. Only things have causes, but the universe isn't a thing. Things imply duality and multitude, but the universe is non-dual. There are not two universes, by definition. Which is what I meant by saying that the universe is unborn, it has the quality of non-thingness. It is not an it, not finite.

Of course, we have to think beyond the scientific thinking and descriptions of big bangs, multiverses and 11 dimensions etc. All these are part of the universe in my defintion. In an ultimate sense though, these are just names that point to a concept. I also sometimes use the words Nature, God, the Infinite, The Absolute, Ultimate Reality. The names and labels are interchangable as long as it's understood what they point to.

[Robert]

(part two)

Andrew -
I worry about you sometimes


Robert -
Why?


Andrew -
I do believe in a God who is a person and who does interviene in Mankind.
Gord is Love

We think different
You believe
Love does not exist outside of makind conscoiusness
There is no beginning to the universe
If you are not conscious of something it does not exist
You put mankind in place of God (Ergo; No mankind nothing exists)

I agree in the personal God in the context that you put.

I believe
God created the universe (Heavens and the earth)
God is Love and does not need makind to have existence, He is.
It is God who has no beginning and no end, the Universe was created by Him, it has a beginning and it will have an end a you and me do.
The Universe is not absolutely everything it was created by God (He put the stars in the sky)

So we think different, Job done!

No point in talking about spirituality with you as our core beliefs are at odds with this conversation. Nice weather:)


Andrew -
Just stating key facts no offence ment


Robert -

No offence taken. I can only say that my God is bigger than your God. Infinitely so.


Andrew -
So you do believe after all, you do have faith in something that’s not all logic or reason: For example: You do not believe that things exists without consciousness, absolutely no way of proving this concept. You believe that love does not exist outside of the human ego, absolutely no way of proving this concept. You believe that the Universe has no cause, absolutely no way of proving this concept. These are all your beliefs and have no base in logical rational thinking, bit ironic really, erroneous beliefs from someone who professes to be a follower of truth. Jab jab, nods as good as a wink to a blind man:). You see my point. When you really drill down past the layer of thought, the core is always belief. No matter who. Everyone believes something. Core beliefs, the foundations that the house is built on. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow or the next but one day, te words your god is bigger than my God will return to you: As God said, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”


Robert -
You're continuing to make a few errors of judgement here, leading you to assert that I have to empirically "prove" things to you. I don't. These are logical concepts rooted in the nature of consciousness itself. Proofs in the empirical sense are irrelevant here, as well as impossible. I have never claimed otherwise. Of course, I fully understand that it's convenient for a person to say "Prove it! You can't? Well that's just belief then!!", as you are doing, since it's a defence mechanism and that's comlpetely normal. The questions themselves are useful, but rooted in a failure to grasp certain ideas.

A correction on a couple of the points in your summary.

On a simple point, I don't assert that if I'm not conscious of something it doesn't exist. I'm not a solipsist. If a thing exists and I'm not aware of it, then all that means is that I'm not aware of it until the moment I do become aware of it, if at all. I make no assertion of a thing's non-existence. That's how consciousness works. There's a difference between the point of logic that states that if there is no consciousness at all to begin with, we can then logically say that there's nothing to consciously divide up: all existing things are given their relative existence via consciousness. And we can't know what lies beyond consciousness by definition, since if we did, well it would be part of our conscious experience. You, and other Christians, claim such knowledge. This is of course contradictory. Which again is ironic since you claim I'm the one putting man(kind) in place of God.

It's an incomplete understanding of my intention to summarise just "there is no beginning to the universe". If you take a moment to consider what I'm saying, the idea of a 'beginning' concerns finite objects. If the universe is non-dual, beginnings and ends are erroneous concepts, they're only useful to indicate using words something that ultimately is wordless.

"Love does not exist outside of mankind's consciousness". Same as above. Again, love is a thing, it has causes and is contingent on these causes. Remove the causes and so you remove love. Clearly, love is not everything, it's not hate or prostate cancer or a lampshade. As with any other thing (products if cause and effect remember), love only exists if the conditions for its existence are present. To make the assertion that God is love, and only love, is, in my opinion, to limit God and finitise Him. And again, it's highly ironic you think I'm the one putting man in place of God. God's nature is infinite. Things are not infinite.


Andrew -
Very confused mind


Robert -
What's confusing you?


Andrew -
Nothing


Robert -
Just claiming that I'm confused, without attempting to explain about what exactly, isn't very useful.

If the conversation is boring you, that's perfectly fine. Just say and I'll back off.


Andrew -
oooooooooooooooooooowww, touchy:))


Robert -
Not really, just trying to be clear. Thanks anyway for the exchange and your thoughts.


Andrew -
Not a problem, we fundamentally disagree on core beliefs Robert and therefore as far as discussions on these subjects are concerned Robert I feel they have run thir race. For example you state love is a thing, that has causes. I believe God is love He is not a thing but God and is not contingent on anyone’s or anything’s causes, He is the cause. You are right Love is not everything. God is not evil. God is not a lampshade but evil and lampshades would not exist without Love. Evil is parasitical in nature it cannot survive without good. Good does not need evil but evil thrives from good things. Lampshades are created by humans who were created in Gods image. A trait that we still possess, that of "creativity".


Andrew -
All the philosophy is fine Robert but it doesn’t pay the bills:)


Robert -
The first thing you realise when 'doing' philosophy is that there's no money in it, not in this society. Socrates is often quoted as defining philosophy as "learning to die", and much is said in so few words.

I think it's an interesting and revealing question the value that philosophy is perceived to hold in modern life, or the lack of value, in both the mercantile and epistemological senses - meaning, what can we know and what can be materially gained from it. Generally, if it can't provide comfort, it's rejected.

There's a good argument to be made in my opinion for the introduction of philosophy in primary school classes. There's no valid reason not to be having conversations with children about ethics and morals at the same time we teach them how to read and write. Much of kids' stories have these themes already, themes of choice, action and consequence, so why not focus on these as actual subjects in themselves and introduce kids to critical thinking from an early age in a more loosely formalised manner. Much could be gained from such a relatively small investment of time and effort.

Anyway, until then (!), good luck with whatever you choose to do next.


Andrew -
You are right about philosohpy it is a dig on life and death. Solomon stated with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief: Ecclesiastes 1:18. As they say ingorance is bliss (but even that has it's drawbacks). There is also another saying that if you cannot find love in life you can always philosophise:))


Robert -
Do both: nurture a love for wisdom, not things.


Andrew -
Wisdom is female:mmm
Proverbs 4 >>
King James Version

1Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.

2For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

3For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.

4He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

5Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

6Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

7Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

8Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.

9She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

10Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many.

11I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.

12When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.

13Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.

14Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

15Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

16For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.

17For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.

18But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.

19The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.

20My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.

21Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.

22For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.

23Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

24Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

25Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.

26Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.

27Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.


Andrew -
Here is a case of science finding it really hard to accept facts. A spider was found in a piece of amber. They dated it 50milion years. Therefore you wold expect the species to have evolved or at least be extinct (according to evolution thoery). And I am sure if 50million years is not enough for a species to evolve (at least a little) then oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ology.html

Huntsman: 49 million-year-old fossilised spider recreated using 3D imaging technology
Researchers were previously unable to determine exactly what species the spider was, as the amber which it is preserved in has darkened and cracked over the years.


Robert -
Yawn


Robert -
If you read the article you linked to, it states - "a variety of which exists today". Didn't notice that, did you?

I'd avoid getting your science news from newspapers, especially tabloids.


Robert -
"a variety which still exists today", my mistake. Not sure what that proves other than to suggest that a particular species hasn't changed much over time. There's plenty of other examples of that sort of thing, so why is this any different?


Andrew -
The point is that the core belief in evolution is that species evolve. Ok, you could argue that some dont evolve due to a variety of reasonings. What I am saying is that there is evindence and clear idence not let me say it is apparently clear that it is evident that God created all things according to its kind and species do not evolve. There is evidence all around that God is the creator and yet the denial is astounding.


Robert -
So you think evidence is important now?


Andrew -
Evidence is always important, never said I did not think so, when did I say evidence was not important?


Robert -
Put briefly, you reject the importance of evidence every time you confuse what the science actually says with respect to evolutionary theory by putting your own spin on things because you think it doesn't correlate with your faith. Like I've said before, with a proper understanding of the science, meaning an understanding of the methodology and epistemology - what scientific evidence is - a person is less likely to make fallacious claims. Evolutionary theory is not, nor is it equivalent to, Abiogenesis. End of.


Andrew -
Well I think you need to tell that to the whole educational system (in this country at least) where they teach abiogenesis. Remember I understand well scientific methodology etc etc. I do have an academic honours Robert. Your form of evolutionary branches of from the mainstream (sort of sub cult). Listen to your own words that you accuse me of and aim them at yourself. This is your spin.


Robert -
It's thanks to you (directly and indirectly) that I did question my own words and aimed them at myself. But you should know that what I've learned from doing so only shed light on the darkness of your rhetoric.

But that's just me and my opinion. Wrought from evidence.


Andrew -
Interesting choice of words. I am a very dark person:) Dark views, dark rhetoric, dark God and dark belief systems. Me and my kind should be eliminated from the planet as we stifle all that is good. I am sure Dawkins thinks so. What have we done that is so repulsive? Is it not conforming to the global evolutionary scientific think set. Is our moral standards; a hindrance to human evolution? If you say that you question yourself and I am to blame for your self-awareness then give an honest answer to why people like Dawkins openly hate (and I feel the word hate is fare) Christians? That is my question. I use Dawkins name as many follow his teaching, happily so. Why do they (and you with me) spend so much time and energy discrediting the Bible, God and Christianity?


Andrew -
Too difficult to answer?


Robert -
I think that's a very naive take on things, Andrew. Your reaction here is child-like, feeling that other people 'hate' you or your 'kind'. I can't speak for Dawkins, obviously, and nor would I care to, so you'll have to ask him yourself what he thinks.

For me, it's not about discrediting God or the Bible, or 'hating', but a questioning of the absolutist and fundamentalist nature of certain beliefs held by certain types of Christians. You happen to be one that has these beliefs. Since all we can do as individuals if we're serious about getting to the truth is question our own assumptions and those of others, then we quickly understand that it's the questioning itself that becomes what's important and revealing, and that those who can reveal the most are the ones who can question wisely. In other words, where the religious thinker (or any other sort of dogmatic thinker) stubbornly digs in his heels for fear of upsetting his own mind, or believing he has gone far enough and can go no further, the truly brave thinker faces the fear head on with a full faith in truth itself, a faith in his own mind. The faith of the religious is generally constructed through a faith in the 'other', in someone or something separate from himself, and separate from his own mind, upon which all is built. But the truly courageous sees that he has the world already fully constructed outside him and so he has no choice but to absorb it.

This is really nothing new, it's what thinking humans have been doing at their own risk since Thales, at least, and I think even earlier the East. It comes down to, for me anyway, that the definition of spirituality is as a critical and philosophical activity, it's a rejection of falsity since falsity isn't truth, yet what isn't true is mostly what I see openly promoted in religion. But I don't equate the labeling of false to 'hatred'. It's just false, not true.


Andrew -
I think your take on religion is bsed on what has been promoted to you or what you have read or picked that is based on the negative, naive downside. You feel that religious people are unwise, yet it has been religious people that have changed this world for the better and religious people that have created a platform for free thinking. You may argue this not to be the case and argue that there has been many religious dogmatic bigots that hem in creative thinking and this would be true , remember it was these people that crucified our Lord (they were religious). Christ (read new testament) fought with religion, John the Baptist fought with religion (was murdered by a politician) and God fights with religion. You always find this in cultures and always will. It is a shame that you have built up such a negative view of Christianity caused by misinformed Christians (of which I can only apologise for) and other sources which are usually in existence due to negative dogmatic Christians or misunderstanding. The only thing I can say about this is that it is usually the loudest that get heard but not always the wise.


Robert -
I want to make it clear again that I'm not trying to be aggressive or arrogant with this, my intention and spirit is conversational, like an ongoing dialogue. So please don't let emotions get too involved with any of our responses here from either of us, they only cloud clear thought, which is what I'd like to achieve and maintain. So with that...

Notice that I did mention the absolutist and fundamentalist type of belief and believer. I think of you as this sort of Christian, I think of you as the type of misinformed Christian that you're complaining and apologising for. In fact, to be able to claim that other Christians are misinformed implies that you yourself are not! I'm not a Christian, not in the religious sense, but I don't consider your form of Christian belief wise, at least some of it, since I define wisdom as going beyond the religious impulse.

I can't see how you could possibly disagree that your form of belief is not absolutist and dogmatic simply because you say yourself that you accept blindly that the Bible is wholly accurate on all accounts, and that whatever you don't understand today will be revealed to you tomorrow as true. It would be fine, I think, if a person were to admit that there are things in the Bible that they don't yet understand, and leave it at that. But to go on to claim an absolute objective truth in something written in the Bible that clearly is a question of personal subjective preference (and for whatever reason) is the definition of a fundamentalist. And the insistence on this perception of truth in spite of all argument and evidence to the contrary is the definition of an absolutist.

It's revealing that you turn things around and point out the perceived failings in other Christians, when it's just as possible that these other Christians could do exactly the same thing with respect to your beliefs. I actually think those voices should be louder. Who's to say that you are right and the others are wrong?


Andrew -
Glad you are revealed:) I was apologising for the Christians who have led you astray in thinking that there is room for the demonic doctrine of evolution in the bible, for those who think that you can marry the bible with this doctrine are deceived and misrepresenting God. The bible and God is clear, as stated (not by me) God created all things in six days on the seventh He rested, this is truth not my truth Gods truth and He is not a liar. I apologise for anyone who says they are Christ ones and have adopted another gospel. Yes I am a fundamentalist, you are right. I wont move on this, never. As stated I am happy with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This is the Gospel: In the beginning was God, through Him all things were made, nothing was made without Him. Mankind rejected God and went his own way but God had planed ahead. He came to earth in the form as a man (The Christ) to redeem mankind from his sins and bring him back into relationship with Himself through the work of the cross. Born of a virgin, crucified, died and rose again from the dead. He now sits at the right hand side of the Father, and whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life and not perish. He will come back for His own. There is only one Gospel message. This is it. Repent (change your thinking) turn to God and ask him for mercy and to forgive you and your foolishness for rejecting him. Do this while you can or spend eternity in hell.


Robert -
What is hell?


Andrew -
Good question. Tis scholar has written a two part atud on the subject. I have read them and agree with them. The commentary providea an indepth account of hades (temporary) and hell (enternal).

Hell Part 1: Assurance of Eternal Torment for the Lost
http://www.matthewmcgee.org
Will the wicked really spend eternity in flames of torment? Yes, the Bible makes this abundantly clear.
Share


Robert -
I would've preferred to read your own words, your own definition.


Andrew -
Sure, if you prefer. Hell is a place. Think of it lie this. We are eternal beings created in the image of God. At the moment we are in a physical body. When the body dies we go through a transformation of metamorphosis and are released into our spiritual bodies. There are two types of people here, either in Christ or not. Clothed with righteousness (His) or have your own. Then the individual goes to God for judgement. Those in Christ are accepted those not in Christ are self condemned as they will be naked (no righteousness) and as there own righteousness (see Matt 22:2-14; Lk 14:16-24)i all they have they will be seen as insufficient to be in communion with the Holy God. As stated there are two places at the moment Hades (or Sheol) and hell for the ungodly (meaning without Christ). This is the judgement of the individual, you either are in Christ or not. God the father either sees you clothed in His sons righteousness or not. If not then it is eternal judgement. The only offence that has been committed that would justify eternal judgement is simply this: To reject His Son’s Salvation offering during this lifetime. There was only one way for mankind to be saved (remember the default is separation from God) and that is by accepting Gods free gift of salvation paid for by Himself by His work on the cross, there was and is no other way (see Luke 22:39-46). It is simple, mankind has no holy righteousness of his own. No matter how good an individual is in this life it is not sufficient to be in communion with God, that is why Jesus came to earth. Jesus spoke many times about Hell and how hellish it is. The problem today is that it is not mentioned much as many people see as just an idea, or whatever but it is a real place. Initially created for the fallen angels and Satan, it is a fire an eternal fire that never goes out. It is darkness outer darkness. The opposite of light. It is insanity for eternity, ever and ever (see revelation). It is utter torment for the individual. A place where there is not hope it is the end with no end. This is hell the final destination for the ungodly. I am unsure about how hades works but I think it was a place where people were held (and perhaps still are) untill the final return of Christ, you could say a holding pen before the final judgement. There will come a time when God will wrap it all up. This is the time when Satan, the rebellious angels, those with there own justification (without Christ, see Matthew 25:31-46). Hell therefore is the final place for those who have not God. It is a place of consciousness not unconsciousness. Where the conscious soul suffers in outer darkness, suffering eternal flames and insanity and imagine all your fears allowed to manifest, and magnify them to constant paranoia etc. No love, bitterness, self loathing hatred and anger all inward, no one to turn to solitary confinement for ever. Can I imagine or touch upon the fullness of hell, no. Christ spoke about it and even said it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand than face hell. It is the bad news of the good news of the gospel message. When talking about salvation this is what is meant by salvation. Saved from Hell, eternity apart from God, eternity is.


Robert -
Sounds like a totalitarian's wet dream. "Accept me and my dogma, or you'll be tortured for ever". Hardly a loving God, hardly Agape, hardly unconditional, since there is at least one condition... Really, this reads like something from Harry Potter. Literally for children, of all ages.

Explain this hypothetical to me:
How would it make you feel believing that people you know will go to hell? What if your daughter grows up not to share your fundamentalist (and, to me, quite depressing) outlook on existence? It's an honest question and one I'm sure you'll have pondered already. How can you literally sleep at night with the idea that a person you love may be tormented for eternity, and there's nothing you can do about it, whilst you'll be having an eternal life next to Jesus? Is it really possible to be happy in heaven knowing that someone you care about is going through utter agony? Why wouldn't you be the one who'd go insane in that case, and insanity for eternity?

I'm sure there's a explanation for this ethical dilemma in the Bible that you could quote back to me, but I want to get your own opinion.


Andrew -
Pearls to swine: Thought I would get this answer from you Robert. Listen, it is not me that is making this up, it is written in the Bible, God says. He is love that is true but He is also righteous. All men have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory ALL MEN. And the gospel is to whosoever listens to it. You have rejected it as "A Harry Potter Story". Why should I bother explaining anything any further with you if you take this stance? The gospel is sweet to the ears of those who accept it and vinegar to those who do not. This is not my message to human kind it is Gods. He is simply stating facts. He did not need to provide a way for salvation. It was mankind that departed from Him not the other way around. God had to provide a way for the salvation of mankind (in love) that would also be righteous. Death entered into the human race from the moment the human race departed from life (Jesus "I am the life). Jesus came to earth without sin and did not sin. He gave himself up on the cross as a sinless man. He died that did not deserve death. He did this because "God so loved the world" that He gave Jesus to redeem mankind. Death had no legal hold on Christ (as he was sinless). I know it is hard to accept from a human point but listen to this. You will not be interested in other people when you are in Hell. You will only be concerned with the rejected opportunity that you had. Your notion of harry potter will haunt you for eternity. You mock God. The gospel is a message broadcasted to individuals. You are rejecting the only solution that God could provide for you. Think about this Robert, dont mock it. This is not a case for opinion it is a message you either consider really consider or reject. God is not threatening anyone, He is simply stating what is. If there be another way then take this cup from me (Christ in the garden of gethsemane just before being crucified), there was no answer. Do you think that if God could provide another way He would not have? The price was high. God gave up His life so that you may have life, that is love.


Robert -
Can you answer my question please? Knowing that someone you care for deeply is in an eternal torment whilst you're in heaven, how does that make you feel? Do you see the point of the question? Isn't that torment for you toi?
...for you too? (not toi, that's French, can't get away from it)


Andrew -
You are right and no you cant get away from it; It has always been an issue and it is one of the reasons that people like me evangelise on earth knowing that the defacto is hell and only one way out. In heaven I dont think it is an issue as we will be in a different state (Glory). From this percpective I look at it through a thick glass (heaven that is). It wont be hell in heaven. In heaven all will be revealed. I trust that God will do right and it will not be a concern of mine at that time. In the meantime I can echo one of the great teachers of the new testament (Paul) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Romans 9 1:3


Robert -
So it's entirely possible then that you would be conscious of the fact that your daughter or anyone else you may care for is suffering unnameable anguish whilst you're in heaven, since you don't know for sure what will happen, and that all you can do is trust all will be revealed.

Presumably also, that any possible question you may have will be revealed, including whether someone is in hell at the moment. It seems to me that such knowledge would only serve to torture you even more, unless the bliss-like state you imply happens, something like I suppose a constant heroin high, where all that may bother you is just numbed away. Is that what's on offer, a release from suffering?

Since to have a mind is to identify things and make contrasts between what there is, all thought itself has an element of suffering attached - to have the concept of non-suffering itself requires the concept of suffering. In that light, what exactly is the point of being in heaven? The ultimate high that blocks out all concepts themselves? For eternity?


Andrew -
Ask the butterlfy what it thinks of the caterpillar.


Andrew -
Point being: How can the caterpillar understand the butterfly and does the butterfly care of the caterpillar. You are viewing things from an earthly perspective (caterpillar mentality). I do not understand how the glorified individual will see things in glory as I am incapable of doing so. All I know is that it is real. You measure things from an earthly perspective and judge accordingly. God through the bible and his interventions with human kind gives us some insight into this but I can only assume that it must be difficult speaking to the dull minds of human beings especially when they think that they are the pinnacle of creation. They find it impossible to comprehend that God is a person who has always existed, no beginning and no end. They find it impossible to comprehend the trinity God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Triune God that is thre individual persons who is one God. They find it hard to comprehend ALL KNOWING. They cannot imagine eternity because they have never lived outside of time. So how is it possible for the caterpillar to understand the butterfly let alone the creator Himself? Evolution is just a conventient solution to the self determination of humankind.


Robert -
Impossible, yes. It's impossible for a person (or any 'thing') to have always existed, to have no beginning or no end. Things, and persons, exist in relation to other things, and other persons. One thing, or one person, cannot have infinite existence (no beginning or no end), since existing things and people are finite and relative. An infinte thing or person (no beginning or end) is a contradiction. It's an absolute I'm afraid.

It's not just human minds who recognise the impossibility of this. Any being with a mind capable of conscious thought can recognise it. It's one of those "in all possible worlds" scenarios. Even "glorified" individuals will fall into this same logical boat. It's not just from an earthly perspective, it's from an ultimate perspective that this truth exists. Meaning, that it's a truth that cannot be doubted, it's axiomatic in nature.

Ask God, he'll tell you. That's what Jesus' message was, after all. Your nature is already eternal, from God himself. From he who doesn't exist, but is the source. From the unborn heavenly father.


Andrew -
You are again judging by human logic and human reasoning, caterpillar. This is the problem with your science. It is based on the measurable, tangible and if not it is assigned to the lesser ranks of philosophy or theory, ideas etc. It elevates the human mind to that of God. But science by it's very nature will never measure God that is one of the reasons people like Dawkins spend so much time discrediting Him or His own as a delusion, yet it is they who are deluded. Yet the title of his book will condemn him at the final judgement. Fools arrogant fools blind fools indeed. Again you have the arrogance to state God's characteristics and you don’t know Him, how can you judge or comment on someone or a subject which you know nothing of? What do you know of glorified individuals, nothing. So how can you judge, you just say impossible how convenient for you? And you state it is not impossible for God to have always existed, it is just impossible for your mind to comprehend. There is no contradiction here this is just an opinion from yourself. You talk of wisdom but your wisdom is the wisdom of man, terrestrial and temporal which will decay, this is foolishness. Would it not be wise to seek wisdom that is eternal and does not perish? You are right in the statement your nature is eternal, created in Gods image but created remember, not the creator. Created in the image of God, life breathed into mankind by God. This is the issue I am speaking about. We were born. I was born then I was born again, the second birth. Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God and will not. Instead your eternal soul will be in Hell. This is a truth and this is a problem. When God created mankind his intention was not for hell. Hell was originally created for Satan and his rebellious angels. Do you think \God is pleased when someone dies and there soul is lost forever this was never his plan. God strives with people to accept His solution to the terminal eternal illness of the soul, separation from Him. Do you think this conversation comes just from me? Do you think that God is not trying to reach you, not trying to direct you towards His salvation? He is and I have no doubt about this. His heart aches for the lost.


Robert -
Grasshopper, that you think I have a "science", and that this science is assigned to the "lesser ranks" of philosophy or theory reveals just how far off the mark you are in grasping what I'm saying. That you keep bringing Dawkins up is just silly, and totally missing the point. Please, forget empirical science, I'm not talking or suggesting anything of worth that has its root in the valdity of empirical study. What I'm trying to allude to is beyond such reasoning, and quite the opposite of what you seem to think I'm saying. I do fear though that maybe you're just not capable of grasping what it is I am alluding to, so blinded you are by your strategies of ignoring upsetting truths. I do think that such strategies prevent a person from fully grasping God's nature, and leads them down nonsensical alleys and into irrationality and fantasy. It is amusing though that we both talk of God, you as if I am separated from him, and me as if you are limiting him. In the end, it's really God doing this all along. We have no part in it...


Robert -
I assume you're familiar with Don Cupitt. Here's an interview with him on Philosophy Bites podcast, it's about 15 mins long. I'm also assuming, given your fundamentalism, that you disagree with what he says and his view on Christianity. I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on what he says, if you do disagree and how much, and with what.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybit ... ut_God.mp3

Thanks.


Andrew -
Sure: Queston though before I do, why do you want me to listen to this?


Robert -
Your disagreements interest me. He says he's a Christian, as do you, so I'm trying to gauge how much a Christian is defined, how much fundamentalism is required before you'd accept a fellow Christian's claim that he is a Christian. Say, for the sake of argument, that you're a 100% (or very high at any rate) Christian, how much would you score Cupitt? Sounds silly, I know, but just for fun.


Andrew -
The Nicene Creed Should help you define the fundamentals of Christian faith. It cover the pillars of Christianity. If someone states they are a Christian then they will have no problem with this. Hope it helps.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.


Andrew -
Let me ask yo a question: What do you think of this (Just for fun:)

In the beginning was mankind (consciousness) and mankind had relationships with mankind and his consciousness was truth.
Before the beginning of his consciousness there was nothing and after his consciousness there will be nothing.
Through his consciousness all things came into being, without his consciousness nothing was made or existed. Consciousness gave mankind life and his thinking was the light of all mankind. This light shines on the darkness but some don’t understand it.
There are certain enlightened men (scientists and philosophers) who witness to testify to mankind’s consciousness about how all things are created through this so that they may believe in the light.
These people testify of the truth but many fellow men do not believe them but for those who do they are given the right to be called children of the age of reason. Children not born of a god but children evolved from evolution to evolution to higher human will


Robert -
After you address my questions on the Cupitt thing first.


Andrew -
I thought I did. You asked me how to gauge a Christian and I sent you a copy of the Nicene Creed to give you a plumb line. Then again it is not fully exhaustive but simply a confession of faith there is more to it than that but it does help as it gives certain fundamental criteria. For example, if someone says that they do not believe that Jesus came to earth from heaven to save mankind and has not risen from the dead and is now in heaven they are not a Christian (this is a core element of faith, probably even the corner stone).

With regards to someone calling themselves a Christian, well anyone can call themselves anything they like there is no law against this. I could say I am the queen (ludicrous though) on a more serious side someone could say they are a graphics consultant and all they have done is made a drawing on Microsoft paint. Unfortunately to the layman they can be conned. It is truly only other graphics consultants who can judge competency.However true graphic consultants could help the layman by giving them a set of criteria to look out for to help them with deceivers and it is up to them to judge if that person is really who they say they are, hence the creeed.


Andrew -
Therefor,r to answer your question about cupitt I would say certianly not and I hope my explanation above helps to explain this deduction. As stated the nicene creed is not the only way to judge false Christians. The epistles (teachng books from scripture) contain many warnings from such men. For example: 1 John 2 vs18-22 explains this.

18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.

22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Therefore as you can see, you can logically extract some information from this.

Firstly, they came out from amongst us. These false Christians were or still are church goers. Secondly, they deny Christ and God the Creator. And finally, they are anti christs. Here John explains that not only have these people left (or never really were part of) sound doctrive and Christ but they actively teach against it. The word Anti here is "instead of". Therefore you have people who actively teach another gospel that is instead of the true Gospel of Christ.

You asked for an explanation I hope you have some respect for my answer.

(End)

[SocialSam]

Wow ... I read about half the exchanges. This feels like every circular argument between a believer and an unbeliever, you'll never get him to come round to your side and he'll never convince you to repent and become a Christian. However, you're pretty lucky to have the kind of relationship with your brother that allows you to disagree so strongly without resorting to never speaking to each other again. I wish I had that luxury! My parents are funddys ... We once tried to discuss gay marriage as separate from any Biblical declaration of sin ... We left the argument with the mutual agreement to "never speak of this again."

Here's my two cents, for what it's worth (again, I apologize if I miss the mark, I got thru the first half of email exchanges) In the end, we are much more likely to be right, but the Christians will never know that. Whenever religion is used to opresss others or hurt someone, shout it from the rooftops. Otherwise, let them have their superstition if it makes them happy.

My philosophy is thus: "having a religion is a lot like having a penis; it's nice that you have one and it's nice that you're proud of it, but please don't pull it out in public or try to cram it down my throat."

[Banana Man]

Hello Robert, Thats quite a long post and I have to admit I didn't get very far with it. As SocialSam said the debate seems pretty much like so many others I've already heard so many times before.

Whenever someone is as convinced as Andrew and has closed their minds to the point that they think science is nothing more then another faith practiced by fools, then they will almost never change their minds through debate.

Have fun debating Andrew if you like but I really doubt you have any real chance of changing his mind.

I spent about 35 years as a funddy and even when I started having strong doubts it was hard for me to trust science because I had be taught it was not trustworthy for so long.

P.S. I don't care much for the Stryper fan chat either.

[Robert]

Thanks for the responses SocialSam and Banana Man, sorry for the delay.

To answer both of you, yes, I don't have any ambition to change his mind in any major way. I realise at bottom it's much more about his emotional attachments to scripture and a particular lifestyle which he maintains and defines as 'spiritual', over any clearly thought out logical arguments. Of course, I think it's ultimately an impossibility to fully reason with the emotive since there's an automatic in-built resistance - the emotions themselves. Really, at that level, it's like talking to children, with the exception that actual children are generally more open to new ideas (due to their lack of attachment to concepts).

[LoftyTower]

Long is right!!

Can somebody sum up the first post in 100 words or less? I have a feeling I like this thread.

[Robert]

If I had to summarise the first post, I'd say it's an attempt on my part (in a roundabout way) to get my brother to understand how a definition of God can be attainable in an atheistic sense, and also, more importantly, to understand how this definition is ultimately at odds with the Christian 'personal' God of modern theistic thought. It's all very informal, so it's more a rambling discussion than a debate.

Anyway, here's somewhat of a little update in our most recent conversations, and this time a lot shorter. We talk about how to define 'good'. This one doesn't end too well. This took place last summer, and I think this will be the last of these kind of conversations between us for a while.

*****

Robert -
If God is good, as you've said, I'm having a very hard time understanding what 'good' means. In this video, this chap reads a short passage from scripture and asks some difficult yet thoughtful questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrWd3nvGFiE&sns=em

I'd like to hear your thoughts if you have a moment.

R

Andrew -
And your intention?

Robert -
To try to understand how that's good.

Andrew -
Fair enough. I don't have all the answers to this but as you said you would like to understand. One point I will mention is that it is a human weakness to judge without the full information. On this basis I can acknowledge some points, I was not there, I will never have the full information and I am not God. Never the less a good starting point is an understanding of the Amelakites background and culture and the surrounding culture of other nations at the time and the interwoven complexities of the effects that each culture positive or negative had on each other.. There are many a read and to be true I have not studied it in any detail but have read this article: http://tcapologetics.org/2012/07/god-of ... kite-card/

Regards
Andrew

Robert -
Thanks. I read that blog post and comments and, hmm, it doesn't really offer anything other than to say that they were really bad people and so possibly deserved what happened to them. This is written from the perspective of the aggressor of course (or defenders of the aggressor), as is common throughout the history of wars, so that would have to kind of be expected that they'd be demonised in that way. As are practices like keeping the women/girls for the victors (Numbers, chapter 31, verse 18, as cited in the video). So it's tempting then to dismiss it all as expressions of local political power and finding justification for actions as being divinely granted, but many Christians go beyond this and claim it as a good action. I'm still having difficulties with understanding this, it doesn't ring true to me.

I'd like to hear your own thoughts some day if ever you do study it in detail.

R

Andrew -
Don't blame you, there are many portions of scripture that people would rather ignore, skip over and the like as it is difficult or probably impossible to reconcile in the mind. Violence is included through out scripture. I would be lying if I knew the answers and thought I would just throw this idea into the air.

Noah's Ark: God wiped out the entire human race except Noah, his three sons and all their wives.
Sodom and Gomorrah: Again wiped out.
Plagues on His own people where thousands died.
Egypt: The fist born of every Egyptian. Then the whole Egyptian army drowned (red sea)
He chose a violent death and one of the most cruel form of punishment known to man for redemption the cross and crucifixion.

The statement only God is good was made by Jesus. I am not God and I can certainly say that I am not good. I may have good points but I also have not. So how can the imperfect judge the perfect Robert. I am not waylaying any responsibilities here all that I am saying is that He is sovereign. Simple truth is I do not have the answers at present and may never have on this side of the Jordan, I suppose that is where faith comes in. Trusting that God is good (and there are many many obvious good things) in the midst of seeing or reading about His wrath in action. This is the core of faith (trust that is). The bible does not make it easy to enter into a relationship with God through human means in fact on the contrary it opposes this. Jonah in the whale, speaking donkeys, walking in a fiery furnace, death resurrection, walking though walls are examples. intellectually there are billions of reasons (and then some) to Judge God. The way forward is accepting the fact that it is beyond our full understanding. Does it mean that we do not have an intelligent service, no. But rather than sitting on our throne we yield, humble ourselves and accept that we are not God. I deal with this through faith in a loving God, omnipotent who cannot be measured and has many names as well as good: http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html

Regards

Robert -
I can see why trust in something good for it's own sake could be a thing that helps get through life, it certainly would relieve the 'but why' questions that sometimes arrive. That does have its own risks though, in that how can you know that this trust is actually in something good, perhaps what we think of as good ultimately is evil. If we can't understand the reasons why God would do what we consider evil acts, how can we be sure that these acts are actually from a good God, other than what Jesus says. He could be lying or deceiving or we could be mistaken, since whatever God does is really at bottom not comprehensible from our perspective, then how is it possible to trust anything that's said at all? And why should we consider what we call good acts from God as good at all? If its a case of the imperfect judging the perfect, what then does perfect mean if its unknowable? I think there's a distinct difference between being humble in not knowing something unknowable or beyond our understanding, and certainty through a trust or faith in the unknowable. The first is human and reasonable in that we're honest that knowledge is lacking, and the second is animal, like praying to the rain gods to bring a good harvest. As you can tell, I only see problems and further questions.

Andrew -
Point taken, many are deceived and how do I know I am not one of them. How can you test if what you believe in is real, true and not a fiction or as you put it a crutch to help you hobble through life. All in all the cross is at the centre of the faith. An act of selflessness by God to redeem. That is the starting point, examine the cross, consider the cross, then you will know all that is necessary to know and when to know.
Andrew

Robert -
Not to nitpick, but isn't the cross after the events that took place in the old testament, the wars and killings etc by God? So the cross is really irrelevant as far as making sense of these previous events are concerned, unless God is redeeming himself for his own previous actions, which he isn't of course. So I think it's a mistake to point to the cross as the starting point when you consider what has come before, or rather you'd have to deliberately ignore what has come before if you want to make the cross the starting point.

Andrew -
Not nick picking in fact valid. The cross is central to all scripture. In the old testament all roads point to the cross. In the book of revelation we read (KJV of course) in chapter 8v13 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The point being is that the provision for the sin of man was in place before God created the earth. This was the cost of the build. The bible has an eternal unbreakable silver thread biding it together, with prophecies in the old testament pointing to the cross and references in the new testament pointing to the cross. The first prophecy of the cross is mentioned In the book of Genesis after the fall of Adam. God declares to Satan "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". Without getting into too much detail here and going over every passage of scripture that mentions the forthcoming redeemer I will focus on the Genesis portion and how it relates to your main question in that why did God command the genocide of the Amalekites.

Notice in the statement God did not say the seed of humanity in total (that is Adam and Eve) no, He spoke of the woman only indicating the virgin birth. He also spoke of the wound that would be inflicted by her seed (The Christ) by the bruising of Satans head. "Before the foundation of the the world" God had a pre-emptive plan for the salvation of man. Also note that Satan has seed "thy seed and her seed" and this is where we move on. The first example of this enmity between seeds is Cain and Able, and as we know Cain killed able his brother. Fast forward and there are another duo Esau and Jacob. We read in Malachi that Jacob the father of Jewish nation and Esau the father of the Amelakites nation. Malachi 1 v 2-3 "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness". Remember there is a war going on hear. A war between God and Satan, between the seed of Satan and the Seed of the woman. A war that started in heaven between Satan and God and is fought out here on earth. God hated Esau the seed of the Serpent Satan. The Amelekites were sons of Esau (Gen 36:12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife) and the Israelites sons of Jakob her seed and your seed. The silver cord was being carried by the Israelite nation. The Amelikites hated their very nature (seed of Satan) the Israelites (her seed), there was enmity between Satans seed and the seed of the woman. I do not know the details as to why God commanded them to be wiped out as I am not the commander but it was necessary.

There are two leaders at war here, the god of this world (Satan) and the God of the universe. Satan reads the bible, listens to God and executes plans of attack (know thy enemy). He knew what God was talking about when it was declared that her seed would bruise his head, meaning he would suffer defeat and therefore had strategic plans to overcome. If he could break this thread, this lineage, then victory would be his, by default, no Christ, no redeemer, no eternal damnation. The Amelekites were a Satanic nation (and is historically proven to be practising Satanic rituals as evidence of their allegiance to their father) that aimed to annihilate the seed of the woman, this may or may not have been the conscious intention of the Amelakites but it certainly was the intention of their god and he was going to execute his plan. This war was started in heaven (Ezekiel 28:2-5 Revelation 12:7) and is being fought out here on earth. The full details as to why God commanded the genocide of this nation is beyond my knowledge at present but they were an obvious threat to the linage of the Redeemer of mankind.

You did ask:)

Regards
Andrew

Robert -
Hmm. You do say yourself however (twice) that you don't know why God commanded genocide, but you still think it was necessary. That seems like a stretch, you would think that God, being all powerful, could have settled the matter another way, so complete genocide wasn't in fact 'necessary'. Referencing the cross or not, God would still have had another way. What happened to Thou shalt not kill?

Andrew -
You stated that your intention is to try to understand how that is good. You asked me to give you my take on it if I did research it further which I did. There was obviously no other way, God chose to wipe them out. And lets face it, if your family was being targeted by a bunch of Satanic nutters who had no intention other than to kill everyone of your family, then you may think different. I certainly would. If I knew that someone was out to kill my wife and daughter and there was no other way to stop them, then sorry but "see ya", my family first. And if I thought that anyone of then, young, old infirm or whatever would one day attempt to full fill there ambitions, then wipe out it is. Call it genocide or whatever you would like, don't care, threat gone! I would have no pity, mercy or whatever on them. Love defends it's own.

Robert -
Yes, thanks for your thoughts. Well you and I are not the Christian God, so that's not really a fair comparison since we are not omnipotent, and so must refer to the real world of actual evidence and determine an individual's or a group of individuals actions and react accordingly to defend our own interests and what we value or are have become attached to.

What I'm realising is that I think it comes down to the question of how can an all powerful God not prevent the need for these kinds of events in the first place. The options seem to be 1. He chose not to. 2. He couldn't. 3. We are mistaken to think that we can judge God's actions at all. So all three of those options leave us in a difficult position, since 1 means he doesn't really care about the suffering he causes, 2 means he's not all powerful, and 3 means we can't know anything with certainty about the methods or reasons for his actions. So I still can't see how that's a definition of good, unless good means something else and altered from how we'd normally define it, like the deliberate causing of preventable or unnecessary suffering is good.

Questions.

And to add: That's also a slippery slope though isn't? If you condone the murder of others for future crimes not yet committed, who's to say you aren't guilty of some future crime yourself and so then you yourself would have to be dealt with?

I don't think that's a reasoned argument you have there. Ever seen Minority Report (the film)?

Andrew -
So what do you want? Is it a conversation or just to negate everything I say. It is obvious that I do not have any answers to your questions in fact all I seem to do is create more questions and all you seem to do is contradict anything I say. I don't even think it is worth conversing over as you have been dishonest (in reflection). You say you are trying to understand how God is good. I give examples of how good defends it's own, you reject it, I talk about foundations, you reject it, you reject a personal God, you reject parts of the bible that does not suit your philosophy and call them myths, you reject reject reject. Then you have the audacity to ask me a question about how God is good and you don't even recognise the Christian God in the first place. I think if you are truly honest with yourself your motivation is not to try to understand how God is good but to dethrone God my God. That is what I get from this Robert, dead ends, rejection of whatever I say or responses I make. Ironic really, you don't recognise the bible as fact yet all of a sudden when it suits you, a fact appears (The Amelakites), that you can use as a weapon to attack. If you were honest in the first place stating that your intentions were not to seek the truth about God then that's ok. But lets give you the benefit of the doubt (And this is a stretch) you are seeking the truth not your truth but thee truth, then my answers are unsatisfactory but this is all I know at present and then perhaps you should just ask God yourself or seek answers from someone more knowledgeable than me.

Robert -
I'm rejecting the responses that I don't find convincing, I can hardly be reprimanded for doing that, and there's no wrong or negation in that. Not being convinced of the evidence presented for something is perfectly fine, it just means that I don't think the evidence or argument is strong enough. Colour me sceptical. Yes, these questions do in fact create more questions, which is perfectly normal given the subject matter of judging moral actions, where contradictions are bound to occur since there is often no clear cut black/white answer. My only motivation is to question, that's about as sincere as I can be, and I'm honestly indifferent to dethroning your God from you, surprising as that may sound. To ask difficult questions about your faith, absolutely I do, as I think they need to be asked. Is that a crime? Would you prefer I don't? To ask you these questions doesn't require from myself that I already believe scripture, the point is to highlight the inconsistencies and press you on them, so it's unimportant whether I view the particular scripture as fact or not. I value truth above all, but this seems to be at odds with you because I don't share your values and beliefs. A conversational tone between us would be nice, but you think that because I don't accept your point of view and arguments means that I'm dishonest... Who are you, the sole possessor of Thee Truth? Come on. I've offered a few, what seems to me at least, interesting thoughts on things that have only lead to dead ends too, so you're not alone here in thinking its pearls to swine. Do I say you're dishonest when you reject my point of view or argument?

Something I heard recently comes to mind where at moments like these the defence of Christianity becomes a perfection of the ad hominem argument: attack the person as a rebel and deceiver rather than confront the criticism itself. I can feel it coming...

R

Andrew -
That's the point, you say you value the truth above all and you reject it. The bible is the truth, it is gods word. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. He said I am the truth. Therefore, if you do value the truth above all it is there staring you in the face, blatantly but you sway, avoid, argue, look for more answers, deflect. The truth is there,

I am the way... Thee way.
I am the Truth...Thee Truth
I am the life...Thee life

Christ quoted scripture upon scripture. Either Jesus was a liar and then you can negate all the bible and justifiable so or He is the Truth. Logically this is black and white. He is either the truth as he said or is utter filled with delusion.

He stated He was God
He stated He was the redeemer of mankind
He stated He was there in the beginning creating the world.
He stated He is the cornerstone
He is the foundation solid ground

I have accepted the Truth. You have not. That is the difference. You oppose the Truth and yet you say you value it above all. It is you who is deceived. there are no more questions as you reject the answer that is staring you in the face. Always learning but never acknowledging the truth as far as the faith s concerned rejected. You spit out anything that comes close to this. You may be honest but does this justify you, no. You may be inquisitive but does this justify you, no, you may even have valid sceptic arguments, does this justify you, no. It may bring you honour among your peers but where will they be when you stand alone. The bottom line Robert is that as stated you will always find reasons to reject the truth. This is the easy road, the wide road. Your reprimand is simple, you state you seek truth and reject Christ. This is arrogant as it implies that Christ is a liar. How much evidence do you need? Read about Him. This is not my point of view. As above Christ clearly states who he is. You blame me stating that it is my point of view you are rejecting but this is not my point of view. It is what Christ said, clearly said. If he said I Am God then this is not my point of view. If he said I have came to take away the sins of the world, this is not my point of view. Non of this is my point of view, to say it is my point of view is invalid as I did not say it. This has nothing to do with oral actions or morality, this is about the truth, the truth that you claim to be very interested in. Yet you reject it and clearly so. Sometimes things are black and white even though it does not suit you. No man can sea the father except through me (Christ). So there is no point Robert in continuing this conversation as the conversation you are having is not with me but with God. It is plainly obvious what Christ claims. Your choice in this matter is one of either the status quo or exchange.

Regards
Andrew

[humanguy]

There's no way I'm going to read all that.

[marcuspnw]

Robert,

Welcome to the forum. Skimming through your conversations with your brother, I get the feeling you should just talk about something else. Your brother just doesn't seem engaged or committed to discussing these issues in the same way that you want to approach them. Good luck but you might be wasting your time.

[Me[kk]A]

I agree with Marcus, the tone I got from reading your brother's posts reminded me of someone ever lost in their own bliss.

In the grand scheme of things, what's more important.. having a brother that loves you? or winning the debate?

Most of us atheists are in the same position.. I'm dating a catholic girl, I answer religious queries from my perspective when she asks, and I get a respectful answer.

For all other angles going forward, we agree to find the middle, no matter what the cost.

Welcome to the forum.

[Robert]

Yes, bliss. What I especially liked about the discussions in the A Christian and an Atheist podcasts was the tone, there was a level of mutual respect for ideas and arguments themselves rather than the typical one sided deconstruction and criticism of one side's ontology over the other found in most online media. Rather than point scoring debates, they were conversations. This, ideally, is the tone that I would like to engage in with my brother. Unfortunately it's apparent that there's a submission to emotionality that the religious seem unable to transcend, that ultimately trying to reason 'around' emotions is met with claims of "you can't understand my spirituality if you ignore emotion", at which point it's basically like speaking to an adult child.

[Keep The Reason]

The thing of it is, discussing via the written word is invariably more hostile sounding than discussing verbally. Emery and Scott do the gentlemanly podcast thing well, but you can find posts by Scott (less so by Emery but they exist too) where he comes off as rude as anyone else.

I think it's more the nature of the medium. We say things here to one another we'd not likely say face to face, and even if we did, it's likely our tone would be such that our intent would be better understood.