My Jesus Challenge

[2PhiloVoid]

Name one reason why I should put so much effort and time into a correspondence with someone whose replies never exceed two to three sentences, tops.

Any entity who'd kill all the firstborn children of a nation as a demonstration of his "power" is a villain,

OR, He is a Supremely ***HOLY*** God who won't take "no" as a satisfactory answer from His own Creation, or from Tyrants [e.g. Pharoah or Caesar] who refuse His Sovereign Will ... (also, see Psalm 2).

Fortunately, God often intends to give us some time to change our minds when we at first (or secondly, or thirdly, or fourthly, or fifthly, or sixthly) say "no." Tyrants typically don't offer these opportunities for reconciliation.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

OR, He is a Supremely ***HOLY*** God who won't take "no" as a satisfactory answer from His own Creation, or from Tyrants [e.g. Pharoah or Caesar] who refuse His Sovereign Will ... (also, see Psalm 2).

Fortunately, God often intends to give us some time to change our minds when we at first (or secondly, or thirdly, or fourthly, or fifthly, or sixthly) say "no." Tyrants typically don't offer these opportunities for reconciliation.

You might have had a point if the narrative showed God punishing *pharaoh* for his "insubordination". (I would object to that rationalisation of evil as well, but there's something more fundamentally wrong here.)
YHVH does not specifically target pharaoh. He does not even perform a "precision strike" on his administration. No, he chooses to target the common populace, the powerless, those ruled by the tyrant. And not even only adults who might have become complicit in the ruler's crimes, but *every* firstborn. Teens, children, toddlers, newborn babes.
There is a reason why such a blatant atrocity would qualify as a crime against humanity if it took place in the real world.
You call that holiness? I hold holiness to a higher standard than that. And even some fallible human beings have displayed more of that than this deity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You might have had a point if the narrative showed God punishing *pharaoh* for his "insubordination". (I would object to that rationalisation of evil as well, but there's something more fundamentally wrong here.)
YHVH does not specifically target pharaoh. He does not even perform a "precision strike" on his administration. No, he chooses to target the common populace, the powerless, those ruled by the tyrant. And not even only adults who might have become complicit in the ruler's crimes, but *every* firstborn. Teens, children, toddlers, newborn babes.
There is a reason why such a blatant atrocity would qualify as a crime against humanity if it took place in the real world.
You call that holiness? I hold holiness to a higher standard than that. And even some fallible human beings have displayed more of that than this deity.

Well, Jane, far be it from me to dispute with you that by today's ethical intuitions, the Biblical matrix of ethics is a bit hard to digest. And I understand that. Depending on where one stands perceptually and conceptually, we're bound to think that God's handling of the Exodus affair is morally wanting, as is the Conquest affair, or even the affair that is supposedly yet to come. Of course, I could also bring in some of the additional considerations regarding the Modern Human Rights Regime which we might peruse and think over from someone like Michael Ignatieff.

But, at the the end of the day, I think you and I would end up on a similar page, simply asking each other:

...and this is where I would finally reside in my moral and political views. And however sweet it may sound, this question is often the hardest to answer for many people. But, the Bee Gees did a pretty good job in asking it, I think.

 

[Robban]

First born is the oldest.

Reuben was first born but forfeited his first born rights by sinning against his father.

Esau and Jakob were twins, Esau was first born, therefore Jakob must have been first in.

Great works of literature should not be read like just any book, they should be studied.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any entity who'd kill all the firstborn children of a nation as a demonstration of his "power" is a villain,

We'll meet those infants one of these days and, if we can ask them about it, I'm sure they'll tell us you're wrong.

"Villain? What villain?"

 

[Tayla]

Do you want a re-phrasing of the dilemma and the theodicy problem?
- Preventable evil exists.
- Therefore, any deity that exists is either a) not all-powerful and all-knowing, or b) not all-good.

Well, it goes further than that, by asking: "Does God do good because it's just, or is it good because God does it?"

Yes, I think you have to conclude that if God is truly good, then evil is somehow outside of God. In other words, God created a space and entities inhabiting it wherein they could do evil deeds without God being responsible. And God, in creating this, is still good. This is the only answer to the problem of evil if you assume there is a good God.

 

[Tayla]

In case of a non-literalist deity, I'd still expect a universe that corresponds more closely to a reality mapped out by a benevolent architect.

Seems the alternative is that the universe, reality, merely happened, by chance really, with no rational conscious personal intellect guiding things. Seems to me, the universe seems guided and designed somehow. Even the fact of its existence having conscious creatures.

 

[Tayla]

fallible men cannot possibly hope to compete with GOD.

Even Christians must read and interpret scripture via their reason and rationality. So just claiming "God said so" is unhelpful.

 

[Tayla]

the results of meticulous research conducted by professionals who have devoted their life to figuring these things out and checking that their own work bears scrutiny while also checking that their colleagues haven't jumped to erroneous conclusions.

I've been studying science a lot lately and it seems their assumption of materialism clouds their thinking. The best example is their claim that the subjective experience of consciousness is merely and illusion or an emergent property of matter or some such. But to my thinking, consciousness exists in it own right, as something beyond the properties of matter, space, time, energy, and etc. In other words, it exists apart from the physical realm, in the spiritual realm.

 

[Tayla]

In a hypothetical scenario where an all-powerful, all-knowing entity exists, there can be no opposition unless the opponent was equally powerful and knowledgeable. Take that away, and every act of "going against the deity's will" happens with the deity's knowledge and - ultimately - consent. Otherwise, the act would be impossible by default.

Yes, if a good God allowed for the possibility of evil actions by someone else, God would have had to set up this possibility without having forfeited his own goodness. In other words, God would have to allow evil and still remain good. It's hard to see philosophically how this makes any sense.

Thinking about: pain, suffering, evil, sin, death. Seems the key is suffering, if a conscious being suffers for whatever reason. But even animals can consciously experience pain, so suffering is built in to the universe and its natural laws. Why would God create a universe like this? Yet it seems created somehow? What's the answer?

 

[Tayla]

I don't think that the radical, diametrically opposed ends of the world view spectrum (i.e. religious fundamentalism on the one hand, and naturalistic anti-theism on the other) are the only viable options.

Seems to me materialistic atheists spend all their time refuting the Christian view of God. I wish there was more public discussion about other views, perhaps materialists wouldn't be so adverse to these.

 

[Zoness]

Seems the alternative is that the universe, reality, merely happened, by chance really, with no rational conscious personal intellect guiding things. Seems to me, the universe seems guided and designed somehow. Even the fact of its existence having conscious creatures.

This is the view I take, minus the design. I often hear sort of an "argument from awe" where the universe is so beautiful it must have a creator. I think some of your other posts kind of hint at why I don't think that's the case; there's still evil, death, pain etc. that exists in a way that makes me think creation is not guided in a specific way. It's us as humans that give those concepts meaning and that does make them valuable. (I've heard arguments that suggest nothing we do matters if it has no divine origin, I reject those arguments.)

I've toyed with Deism and Pantheism as ways of conceptualizing the divine in light of this understanding. But if I am being honest, they're just as likely as any other theism, to me at least.

 

[Tayla]

Most people are pretty decent, sometimes in spite and sometimes because of their world views. If we stop seeing them as "them", and start embracing them as "one of us", that'd be pretty neat. And also pretty much in line with the true Christian spirit, I might add.

I don't think it is the Christian spirit to embrace heathens as "one of us". It used to be possible to burn them at the stake, but now more subtle consequences are used.

 

[Zoness]

Seems to me materialistic atheists spend all their time refuting the Christian view of God. I wish there was more public discussion about other views, perhaps materialists wouldn't be so adverse to these.

This is mostly a side effect of the world where materialism arose, that is in Christian Europe and America. I do agree with you though, because materialism is boring to me. Have you by chance heard of the theory of Panpsychism?

 

[dlamberth]

Why would God create a universe like this? Yet it seems created somehow? What's the answer?

In this Creation, suffering is one of the things that causes change (evolution). An animal can suffer, yes. And if it continues to suffer, and if the opportunity is there the animal will do things differently, evolved if you will. Or die out. But being aware of suffering even when not suffering is something that we as Human Beings, a more advanced consciously aware creature is able to do. Our consciousnesses has evolved to be able to take in Suffering, look at it, think about it, contemplate it, and often even do something about it. In our evolution it appears, at least to me anyway, that we have reached a place where Human consciousness can evolve itSelf to something greater by the choices we make. That would be my answer.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is the Biblical Jesus Christ a man-made invention?

Yeah, I can see how the 1st century Jews would be a little bewildered.

Ezekiel 20:3
“Son of man/adam! speak to the Elders of Israel and say to them, ‘Thus says my Lord Yahweh: “Have you come to inquire of Me?
As I live,” says my Lord Yahweh, “I will not be inquired of by you.” '

John 12:34
the multitude answered Him, 'We heard out of the law that the Christ doth remain -- to the age; and how dost Thou say, 'that it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted-up/exalted<2312>'?
who is this -- the Son of Man?"

John 4:25
The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

It is answered in their book of Revelation

Revelation 14:14 [Joel 3:13}
Then I looked, and behold! a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden Crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another Messenger came out of the Sanctuary, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You[fn] to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”

16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

Joel 3:13
Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe.
Come, go down; For the winepress is full, The vats overflow—
For their wickedness is great.”

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I can see how the 1st century Jews would be a little bewildered.

Well the Jews were looking for the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 militant Messiah to free them from the Romans.

But when Jesus presented His credentials at the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 suffering Messiah they said, "Away with Him."

Academians, of course, would have demanded evidence from Him first, then said, "Away with Him."

 

[MehGuy]

We'll meet those infants one of these days and, if we can ask them about it, I'm sure they'll tell us you're wrong.

"Villain? What villain?"

I love reading your posts.. you are not afraid to go there.. lol.

 

[Tayla]

there's still evil, death, pain etc. that exists in a way that makes me think creation is not guided in a specific way.

I guess I would say that the fact of reality and of consciousness and of the personhood of each human being implies of a higher reality having such things. Call it God, if you will. And since, I design, therefore, God designs.

But, yes, you are correct. There is no good explanation for pain and suffering. But merely saying "God" doesn't design things doesn't help answer this. And saying that "God" merely guides it doesn't help either.

Frankly, I'm stumped.

 

[Tayla]

Have you by chance heard of the theory of Panpsychism?

Yes. Seems easy to refute. Look in a mirror and you see an image from behind you, not in front of you. How can the mirror cause the mind to project its mind map behind you like this?