My apologies. I re-used a vi macro from the reply to you and forgot to edit the nameThe Midge said:
Regards,
Rob
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My apologies. I re-used a vi macro from the reply to you and forgot to edit the nameThe Midge said:Please edit the quotes because I can't take credit for them!
That was a fascinating read (I read the 7000-word version) but it wasn't really what I was looking for. Several people have advised me to read C.S. Lewis and I think that is the course I need to take. In your case you always held on to some religion and ultimately came back to Christianity. I am very happy for you that you finally refound your homebase and I think you should hold on to it.exwitchoz said:Well I dunno if i fit your definition exactly Rob... but I was a Christian (even wrote a series of booklets on doctrine in the mid-late 1980's), became involved in the occult (ended up as the High priest of a Neo-Pagan Coven) and am now a Christian again...
The full story is too long to relate here but here;s a link to my Testimony...
There's two versions - one is about 1100 words the other more than 7000... the later will give you a better idea of the full story of my conversion and "re-conversion"...
http://exwitchaustralia.com/About_Me.html
I surely will.BlondieLashes said:Let us know what you think of the books once you are able to get ahold of them.
I would expect an honest account of God not to put such emphasis at the importance of man. You told me previously that you are not a YEC yourself. You haven't stated before if you are an evolutionist, but if you are, when exactly did homo scapiens scapiens became so special to God that he even sent his own son to die for our sins? Is it when we were cavemen (by that time we were genetically indistinguishable from modern man)? It is when we developed language? Writing?The Midge said:There is no doubt that the bible is written from a human point of view. How elae could an honest account of God be written? I think it is this characteristic that sets the bible apart. It is written for real peoples expereinces and perspectives not delivered in a cloud. Did yourealise that most of the people who brought revelation did not write their books- the books/ The Gospels are about Jesus. Most ofthe prophets accounts are in the third person as are the stories about Moses. Why is that? Why do most other religions ahve direct dictated revelation for the most part like the Qur'an?
Maybe my capabilities of reading English are a lot worse than I thought, but in 2 Sam. 12:14-18 I seem to read that God kills David's child for something David has done. That's not just ''effect of sin'' like your greenhouse effect example, that is punishing an innocent child for the sin of his father.The Midge said:It is exactly the effect our sin has on others that mmost of thee passages cited are talking about. Or the SAB authors have failed to take the cultural contexts into account. Ham shamed his father- which was disgraceful in the ancient orient. The list does not tell us what the verses actually mean or the point of the reference in which they are contained.
The SAB is written to make a point not to search out the meaning of the bible which is why you have to approach it carefully. It sets out to partizan rather than neutral of scholarly. The results reflect this.
I see that it's US based but in this day of internet connectivity national customs should not take an overtone, especially considering the fact that this forum is touted as the largest Christian forum worldwide. But I'm over most of my annoyance on that regard. I still dislike the belittling (like the fact that I need 100 posts to take part in debates. I also dislike the extremly annoying eye candy (CF characters etc.). Ever heard of Heuers Law? It states: ''any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off''. I agree with it wholeheartly. I consider all the eye candy a bug, because I can't turn it off. I appreciate that other people like it, but I don't. I'm a minimalist, I edit this message in vi (thanks to the Mozex plugin for Firefox).The Midge said:Just count the flags. needless to say I don't agree with all the policies on the board. But I am not the owner.
That sounds pretty interresting (I skimmed both words at Wikipedia). OTOH, should God's reveiled work not be crystalclear? The fact that so many interpretations are possible, the fact that God as portrayed on th OT seems completely different wrt. compassion, cruelty etc. when compared to God in th NT, those things give me the impression that the Bible is the work of man, not the work of God. IMHO the work of God should not need hermeneutics, it should be clear and consise througout time.The Midge said:In part it is symbolic. You ahve to study the context. There a diverse range of literature types. I would recommend fee & Stuart "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" as a guide to determining what type of literature and context of a passage. We call this Exegesis. It is hard work sometimes. The objective of the Bible student is to understand what the authr orgininally meant. Which is where the SAB is falling down- they are applying meanings from our own culture which are not shared by the author. The art of apply the bible (or other text) to our culture and times is hermaneutics. You could try a google on those two words?
Exactly, it's ancient customs. I would expect God who is of all times to lead his chosen people into a better and more moral lifestyle. This again brings doubt to the idea that the scripture was inspired by an omnibenevolent entity.The Midge said:The search for truth is not a numbers game. It is understanding what the text is saying to us. The argument about proof is blinding many of us. How God created the universe has little bearing on the redemption plan- which is the heart of Christianity. I think it is better for you to focus your enquiry on the life death and resurrection of Jesus- not that the Gospel texts are without their cahllenges.
Again- it is ancient custom we are dealing with. I think you are reading in rape. It was more like arranged marriage of servitude.
God sent the she bears. Did God see it as just? That's the real question to me.The Midge said:The author tells it as it is. Now if a curse had no power to it or nothing behind it... Or does it say something about the holiness of God and the respect that is due to the person? To slight a kings messenger or ambassador was akin to personally insulting the king. That is the message of the text. You and I may not like it- but the author saw it as just.
The keyword is again: proportionality.The Midge said:Does a cleaned up acount of a God who never reacts to wrong and defamation really tell us the need for us to repent if the consequences are so drastic?
Oblivion or anihilation I have no real issues with. Atheists also believe in anihilation but that believe is based on the apparent link between consiousness and the physical brain.The Midge said:I persnally believe in hell as oblivion. Such passages refer to the waste tip where the unclean parts/ sin bearing parts of the sacrifice remove and disposed of sin (symbolicaly). These images of hell only occure in apocolyptic literature and references.
There are many philosophical issues to the points you mention. If God does not want to suffer evil, why did he create it in the first place? Why does a loving and all-knowing God create people a who he foreknows that they will not choose him?The Midge said:Again we must tell it as it is. The consequences for our sin are eternal. God's solutions is eternal. We have are mortal time to come to terms with it. Or should God suffer that evil should continue for eternity?
We shoud also not prejudge God. Judgement is personal and case by case. It is by a God who sees and knows everything so we cannot hide. It is by what we know for to those who have been given much much will be expected.
Confess to who? Many atheists lead a very moral life. Has the precondition then been met? What's next?The Midge said:First we have to honest about our sin. Confess. You don't need to believe in God to see the human condition for what it is. I never said it was proof for God
It may. I appreciate the effort you put into this, it does lead to other references to explore. I haven't studied so much of Christianity before my deconversion, but my treshold for reconverting is a lot higher than it was before. The reason is simple, my considerations still make a lot of sense to me.The Midge said:The time may come.
To be honest it is not for me to convince you- only to point out other frames of reference and avenues for you to explore. I might still be wrong, and acknowledge that.
I hope you get better soon.The Midge said:Please excuse the typos and mistakes I'm not feeling very well today.
To be honest I don't know. The 6000 years since creation was calculated by a dark age monk. We are not tld exactly when the world began.sheratan said:I would expect an honest account of God not to put such emphasis at the importance of man. You told me previously that you are not a YEC yourself. You haven't stated before if you are an evolutionist, but if you are, when exactly did homo scapiens scapiens became so special to God that he even sent his own son to die for our sins? Is it when we were cavemen (by that time we were genetically indistinguishable from modern man)? It is when we developed language? Writing?
God was not punishing the child. He did not answer David's prayer. May be it was merciful of God to ensure that an illegitimate child was not brought up in the royal court trarnished by his father's adultery. The only person under jdment in the story was David.sheratan said:Maybe my capabilities of reading English are a lot worse than I thought, but in 2 Sam. 12:14-18 I seem to read that God kills David's child for something David has done. That's not just ''effect of sin'' like your greenhouse effect example, that is punishing an innocent child for the sin of his father.
Indeed the list does not tell what the verses mean, but it is not true that it doesn't point to the reference in which they are conteined. That reference is just a click away (clicking in the actual verse number) and it takes you to a complete and unaltered KJV exactly at that specific verse. (unaltered is in words only, verses of interest are highlighted with comment in the margins, cf. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/20.html#5).
Sometines clarity results in rigidity- fundamentalism. One short text cannot cover every eventuality we may encounter.sheratan said:That sounds pretty interresting (I skimmed both words at Wikipedia). OTOH, should God's reveiled work not be crystalclear? The fact that so many interpretations are possible, the fact that God as portrayed on th OT seems completely different wrt. compassion, cruelty etc. when compared to God in th NT, those things give me the impression that the Bible is the work of man, not the work of God. IMHO the work of God should not need hermeneutics, it should be clear and consise througout time.
Except that a lot of the story is how God's people we far from moral and obedient yet God still perseveres with them.sheratan said:Exactly, it's ancient customs. I would expect God who is of all times to lead his chosen people into a better and more moral lifestyle. This again brings doubt to the idea that the scripture was inspired by an omnibenevolent entity.
sheratan said:God sent the she bears. Did God see it as just? That's the real question to me.
No: it is persepctive. If we could see the consequences od sin, all of them, laid out in fornt of us would we still feel that it was only a minor thing? I think this is part of what the biblical concept of judgement is. You can not read about hell unless you understand judgement. In biblical terms judgement is more important than the sentence.sheratan said:The keyword is again: proportionality.
There is room for this interpretation.sheratan said:Oblivion or anihilation I have no real issues with. Atheists also believe in anihilation but that believe is based on the apparent link between consiousness and the physical brain.
God allowed not created. God created human beiongs withthe capacity for choice and freewill. Would you prefer the love of a wife or a robot?sheratan said:There are many philosophical issues to the points you mention. If God does not want to suffer evil, why did he create it in the first place? Why does a loving and all-knowing God create people a who he foreknows that they will not choose him?
Perspective again: moral compare with what?sheratan said:Confess to who? Many atheists lead a very moral life. Has the precondition then been met? What's next?
IMHO that is a good thing.sheratan said:It may. I appreciate the effort you put into this, it does lead to other references to explore. I haven't studied so much of Christianity before my deconversion, but my treshold for reconverting is a lot higher than it was before. The reason is simple, my considerations still make a lot of sense to me.
You're avoiding the questionThe Midge said:To be honest I don't know. The 6000 years since creation was calculated by a dark age monk. We are not tld exactly when the world began.
God did kill the child:The Midge said:God was not punishing the child. He did not answer David's prayer. May be it was merciful of God to ensure that an illegitimate child was not brought up in the royal court trarnished by his father's adultery. The only person under jdment in the story was David.
So was God just doing the child a favor by killing him just because he was an illigitimate child? Shall we help God doing his work in this day and age by killing all illigitimate children?KJV Bible said:14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
16David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.
(Biblegateway link)
I would argue that the lack of clarity is mostly responsible for fundamentalism. The fundamentalists have way too much leeway to interpret scripture in their favour. In Holland there's e.g. a Christian political party (S.G.P.) which refuses women as official party member or being electable, based on their interpretation of scripture (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)The Midge said:Sometines clarity results in rigidity- fundamentalism. One short text cannot cover every eventuality we may encounter.
But he didn't preserve the little boys and non-virgin females that were POWs.The Midge said:Except that a lot of the story is how God's people we far from moral and obedient yet God still perseveres with them.
f that is true I call it unjust. The sentence is a major part of any judgement.The Midge said:No: it is persepctive. If we could see the consequences od sin, all of them, laid out in fornt of us would we still feel that it was only a minor thing? I think this is part of what the biblical concept of judgement is. You can not read about hell unless you understand judgement. In biblical terms judgement is more important than the sentence.
Yes, but not all Christian sects adhere to that interpretation. Which one is right?The Midge said:There is room for this interpretation.
Not according to Isaiah 45:7The Midge said:God allowed not created.
KJV Bible said:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
No, he didn't. Choice and free will imply that there's the possibility to do something that was not forseen. Because of the causal asymmetry of time foreknowledge is fundamentally incompatible with free will. Read Prof. Linda Zagzebsky for more on this (I provided the link before).The Midge said:God created human beiongs withthe capacity for choice and freewill. Would you prefer the love of a wife or a robot?
Compared to the moral standards of society. Compared to their own concience (which atheists do have). No, it's not the morality I read in 2 Samuel 12:14-18.The Midge said:Perspective again: moral compare with what?
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't seem like what I'm looking for. This looks like a book dealing with how Christians should live, not really about debunking the atheists arguments (or mine) against Christianity. The comments referred to another book instead, namely ''Finding God in the Questions'' by Dr. Timothy Johnson, but that is described as an ID book. Now, ID is just as anti-evolutionistic as YECism, so I won't spent time on that part. Evolution vs. Creationism is a past station in my point of view. Thanks anyway.dvd_holc said:Hey Rob,
I think you might want to check out The Good Life:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0842377492/qid=1139862512/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-4639394-0316157?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
there are reviews and commets.
I listened to a interview of the author. It is actual not Christian life book. The author does not quote the bible until the end of it. Instead, what he set out to do is to give a strong arguement outside of the bible to show how our nature is to seek out relationships and when we look at our nature we find the natural calling of God. As noted in the information, he does bring up the topic of evolution among others. You don't have to buy it. Look around in book stories or a library for it. But it is not a "Christian" life book similar to a purpose driven life...sheratan said:Thanks for the link, but it doesn't seem like what I'm looking for. This looks like a book dealing with how Christians should live, not really about debunking the atheists arguments (or mine) against Christianity. The comments referred to another book instead, namely ''Finding God in the Questions'' by Dr. Timothy Johnson, but that is described as an ID book. Now, ID is just as anti-evolutionistic as YECism, so I won't spent time on that part. Evolution vs. Creationism is a past station in my point of view. Thanks anyway.
Regards,
Rob
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?