Member Rara Avis
the ass-end of space
Not really. The Bible gives an account of the pristine conditions of "man" in the beginning. If you want to call it a "fault" to have the freedom to obey or disobey, to either choose simple childlike trust or to go on humanistic autonomy, that's your prerogative. It was actually a glorious opportunity for us to repress temptation, and to choose love and life over rebellion (we still have that opportunity in Christ). The pathological conditions of mankind came into play after the choice was made
Consider, again using the car theory, that if one tampers with the automobile one voids the warranty. Therefore after the creation of man, a rib was extracted from Adam, thereby nulling the warranty and altering his creation. On a more serious note, I still maintain that if we are to believe that we are truly created in the image of God then our corruptablity is a reflection of something within him/her/itself.
but it is hard for me to see the reasonableness of a moral relativism, that will still attempt to impose ďmoralityĒ upon God, and get offended whenever God hasnít acted according to oneís idea of morals.
I find it incredibly difficult not to. If a leader,teacher,parent lays down the law or standard of behaviour and then acts in a completely contradictory manner we question them. Practice what you preach comes to mind, whereas do as i say, not as i do has never flown with me.
You want evidence that God didnít really regret his decision to create the human race? Well, he didnít end it right there did he? A remnant survived, which he foreknew. He must have been merely communicating an emotion to us when he spoke of his regret. If he seems double-minded, it is so that the double-minded (since the fruit was eaten) like ourselves could understand. He wasnít giving us a theological exposition of himself, but a glimpse of his own tears. You seem to be mistaking something quite poetic (with admittedly some doctrinal implications), for something coldly theoretical and purely systematic
No he didn't end it right there, but he did kill off millions of people to start over, i find that slightly cold. So while he doesn't completely exterminate the human race from existence, he does regret much of his as he destroys all but one. He then charges Noah with a plan, from the ark 'blueprint' to the preservation of other species which is, well, very specific and systematic.
And I understand that you do not accept the biblical claim that Jesus is in reality the incarnation of God, that God suffered for our sins in Christ, but the bible teaches it all the same.
The bible teaches many things, one has to attribute the words to the divinity for them to hold any power, but when there is clear evidence that much of the word has been plagarized, stolen, or borrowed from earlier religions and dieties, then those words hold very little sway over me.
So even if the bible doesnít specifically mention the sins of Jericho, it abundantly mentions the sins of the Canaanites, of whom they were part. But, let me ask ... if Jericho hadnít been part of Canaan, and the bible didnít so much as hint in the text what they had done to deserve punishment, God would not be obligated to let us know would he? Is God somehow accountable to you?
NO, god is not accountable to anybody, that's what makes him a God. Was there no other way the Almighty, could have reformed the Caananites? Was bloodshed and pillaging the only answer? That's the issue Stephanos. To blame human flaws on human development and choice and yet ignore God's influence is absurd to me. Many are led by example, and with that in mind, consider human development in the light of God's actions and reactions. That Stephanos, is my point.
Well, when you believe in a Creator, but hold no definite beliefs, then you are conveniently safe from the Charge of mythology, right? But by doing this, you only escape scrutiny by surrendering all claims to truth. Throw out dogmatism, and you can be glad that your god canít be hurt ... because a spectral, agnostic, or extreme deist god, doesnít have any toes inside of reality to be stepped on.
Of course I may be judging you wrongly. You may have a well defensible theology, or revelation, or system of belief. Would you mind sharing it, since you are so wont to be critical of the Christian view? I think a comparison would be great. I might learn something from you, too.
First and foremost, what an absolutely foolish and arrogant comment to charge that agnostics choose to be so as a safety measure. The scrutiny and danger exists, Stephanos, and is much stronger than any outside force one can face. It's the scrutiny of Self and in the end the scrutiny of the God to decide my fate. What you do not know is that I was baptised, raised and educated a roman catholic and believed in the word until history,logic and reason made me challenge and scrutinize my beliefs. If you think that's easy, or safe well that's ludicrous.
Secondly, I'm not wont to challenge the christian view. I have been equally critical of the Jewish views, especially in this thread where I have condemned the Old Testament and it's diety. If i have challenged the christian view it's simply the most prevalent in our discussions and within this forum.
There is something at the end, which apparently justifies this whole process. You say it doesnít. But neither are you Job. How are you going to call his judgement wrong, when he, not you was the receiver of these sufferings and the rewards?
I want to ask ... why should it be that the sufferer himself is aware (though dimly at first) of some kind of purpose and blessing beyond the suffering, and finally comes to experience that purpose and blessing, while you remain offended? Itís like you are offended for Jobís sake, but he (the party concerned) doesnít seem to agree with your estimation.
I don't question the rewards, I question the means. Let me use an strong example. A while back, a poor desperate mother, was found to be 'renting' her very young daughter for money. The mother recieved a sizeable sum and then used the money to provide for her daughter and their family. The struggling family and daughter no doubt benefited from the money and was cared for does that justify the means? Should the daughter be happy with the rewards or should she question how and why her mother(her creator and protector) while not directly causing harm to her, would allow others to?
Incorrect. By ďcommitting as many sins and transgressions as you likeĒ one is not demonstrating the biblical definition of belief. You are essentially saying, why couldnít I just not repent until Iíve had my fill, and then try to fake it at the end.
Oh I know Stephanos, I was being cute. There are, however, many respectable christians who do transgress during the week only to repent on Sunday or in confessionals. Thats the hypocricy i find appalling.
'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?'