The Christian Bashing thred.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Thank you exnihilo, let me try again.

Greebo and Rob,

It seems to me that your problem is with the idea of a future, rather than with God, per se.

Think about it. If there is a future of definate events, ie. in the future x, y, and z will happen, then there is no Free Will, as everyone's actions would be predetermined and we just live our lives like actors playing the part written for us as the future streams through the now and into the past. God does not have to enter into that equation.

The alternative, is that the future does not exist as a set of definate events. The 'future' then is just a term we use to express the expectation that events will continue to occur in sequence.

Let's call these 'futures' F1 and F2, respectively. Now let's throw in God.

In an F1 universe, in order to omnicognizant, then yes, God would have to know the future and you would have no Free Will. But, as we've already determined, your lack of Free Will would not be because of God, but rather simply because this is an F1 universe.

In an F2 universe, which I think is infinitely more likely even without discussing God at all, there is no such thing as the future, only the present and the present expectation that following this present will be another present, ad infinitum. In this universe, God is omnicognizant if He knows everything that has happened and is happening. There is no need to know what will happen, because it is does not exist to be known. Free Will is possible, once again though, the possibility of Free Will has nothing to do with God.

If that doesn't clarify my point then I am afraid that before we can discuss God we would need to have a discussion about space-time.

So to sum up in short. God is omnicognizant. He knows everything there is to know. He does not know the future because it can not be known. It can not be known, because it does not exist. There is no such thing.

[Greebo]

Oooohhh that was a good answer. (no I'm not being sarcastic - that really was a bloody good response!)

I have 2 problems with it that are completely separate of each other.

The first is with God and time. I've always presumed that the Christian God is outside of time. The reason for this is that apparently he is the creator, right? He created the universe the heavens and suchlikes.
But time only 'started' at the beginning of the universe. Big bang happened and we had time. It makes no sense to talk about before the universe (assuming you accept the big bang as being the universe starting point) because there was no 'before'.

So for God to have created the universe, he must not be subject to the universe's laws on time and space. He is outside of them (for want of a better way of putting it).

Now my view of time is of a river....which may split off in places and join in others but generally it flows in the same direction. Therefore an observer outside time should be able to move along it in either direction (past to future or future to past). It strikes me that God would be able to do this and thus could see the future.


My second point is more to do with metaphysics and time travel. Let's start by taking God out of the equation.

Time travel is theoretically possible, yes? We might not have the means to do it but it is theoretically possible to travel both into the past and into the future.
Thus in theory it is possible to travel into the future, see what's going on and go back and report on it.

Now as I said - we cannot do this (yet) - but God can do anything, he's omnipotent. That means he can go into the future and find out what's going on and know about it. Again - takes out free will.


I should point out, by the way, that I'm rather confused on free will even as an atheist. Instinct tells me that free will exists. Logic tells me it does not. I choose to continue to think it exists though cos otherwise I'd be going nuts.


[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[LonelyPilgrim]

First, I don't like treating with the whole Garden of Eden, made the universe in 6 days, eating of the apple thing as literal fact. I am naturally a sceptic, and as such find people who believe that the entire Bible is infallible and should be taken 100% literally a bit nuts. I look at the whole compilation with a sceptical eye, and frankly I generally ignore it before Genesis 11:10, when the reader is introduced to Abram.

Basically, God did not want them to eat of the Tree, because to do so would cause them to become mortal and eventually die. Adam and Eve, as designed, were to live forever as God's friends and companions in the Garden. Essentially, they committed suicide because some snake told them to. I'd be pretty pissed at my best friends if they did that.

You should also understand, that since God gave us Free Will, we are his equals. Not in our ability to manipulate or understand the universe, but in the simple fact that we have minds of our own capable of making a decision. We were the first things ever that didn't just do what God wanted, that had an independent existence.

So, I'd say this story exists for a couple reasons...

1) It introduces us to the concept of Free Will, since it definatively shows we act independently of God's Will.

2) It tries to explain, to a primitive society a reason why life is nasty, brutish, and short (thanks you Hobbes)

3) It shows us that we have the capacity to anger and disappoint God. Which, in a way, is an amazing testament both to our freedom, and how much God cares. If we can hurt God, it is only because he cares about us so much... certainly not because we can cause him any other sort of harm. Before sending Adam and Eve out of the Garden and into exile, God makes clothes for them... He was not so angry that he just threw them out.

4) God told them what would happen if they ate the fruit. So, even though He cared, he could not go back on what He said. So, the next lesson is that God keeps his promises, the good ones and even the ones that end up making Him do something He does not want to do.

I'm running out of ideas here... as I've said before and will say again, I'm not a Biblical scholar. And the fact that I don't regard this episode as real, means I haven't given it too much thought. Nowhere near enough anyway.

I should like to see if exnihilo has anything to say on this, as I suspect that he's a little more knowledgeable about Old Testament stuff. Although that could just be me jumping to unfounded conclusions.

[exnihilo]

I don't have an enormous amount to add; I'd echo the sentiment that there's a danger in trying to read the early verses of Genesis as 'history', they're quite simply not, they're a creation myth woven together from two separate priestly/scholarly traditions.

The purpose of those verses is to give completeness to the account and fill in a gap. Specifically, the gap which lies between the beginning of actual historical knowledge (here in the form of a genealogy) and the observable fact that there is a world which must have come into being at some point.

In common with all creation myths that I know of (have a look at the Norse Heimskringla for example) there are a number of morality lessons contained in the opening verses designed to show humanity what it's place is in the Creation.

What might interest you is that in the Jewish tradition the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden) is synonymous with what you might call 'Heaven', that is, it is the place in which one might be in the direct presence of God. According to the Talmud, Eden is not a physical place, is not in or of the world and is, in fact, far larger than the world.

Seen in that light, the expulsion from Eden takes on a slightly different character. This may seem semantic, but less an expulsion and more a sending out into the world, there to live as mortals, to people the world and to oversee God's creation. Death is viewed as a return, or readmission to the Presence and therefore to Eden.

That's all a lot less clear than I intended, but I'm tired!

[flarewearer]

Bart, I'm no theologian, but I do know that God is more powerful than both Mum and Dad combined.

[hr]..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[Rob Hearn]

If god were omniscient, ability to see into the future wouldn't be important, because he would have perfect predictive powers (think about LaPlace's hypothesis). Also, isn't god supposed to be outside time?

There really is no logical escape.

[exnihilo]

You're doing it again. Your placing a definition to the word that we're not and using that definition to support a syllogism, it's not valid.

[joe]

One can always engage the 'other' about their ontological claims, for we all are within the same one. This is not a matter of perspective, but objective truth (unlike a lot of other things).

Hence it is not small-minded to claim that the christian construal of reality as a whole is misguided/wrong. One is engaging at the same level in claiming that.

[Greebo]

I know - let's start again cos this is just going to end up as a discussion as to what things mean.

Please define God as you think is represented by the bible, including defining the limitations of the various omnis. Also include which parts of the bible you consider valid, and specifically the bits that relate to God, which bits should be taken literally.

Once that's done we can at least debate on the same definitions.

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Rob Hearn]

Fair enough. The christian conception of god stipulates that there is only one, he is perfectly benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and he is the creator of mankind.

The argument that the future isn't something about which god can be expected to know, the future being not-yet-extant and therefore outside the purview of omniscience, is false, because an omniscient entity would be able to extrapolate future events from the present state of the universe (as in LaPlace). The entity would know, if it knew everything, what the universe contains, and how these elements interact.

I don't think that any of the bible should be considered valid, other than in a metaphorical sense. It has no literal value whatsoever - which we know, of course, because it has already been proved wrong on so many counts that its testimony cannot be considered reliable - but it functions perfectly well as a work of allegory, and a piece of fiction. I don't want, however, to equate christianity with the bible. The bible is a fixed source, whereas christianity - by necessity - changes with the times. For example, the bible says in no uncertain terms that the world was created in six days; the church, under pressure from the dominant world view, has had to say otherwise. On the other hand, the bible never says that Mary was a virgin; the virginity of Mary arises from a mistranslation. (This is not disputed by bible scholars.)

[android]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 00:23, 31st Dec 2004:
For example, the bible says in no uncertain terms that the world was created in six days; the church, under pressure from the dominant world view, has had to say otherwise. On the other hand, the bible never says that Mary was a virgin; the virginity of Mary arises from a mistranslation. (This is not disputed by bible scholars.)


Isn't it? I'd say it was the other way around. There's quite a bit of discussion about whether Mary was a virgin or simply a young woman. But if she was described as a young woman and not a virgin, it would make the quotations from Isaiah about virginal conception irrelevant, and it would make it awkward to claim that the account in the gospels only exists to tie in earlier prophecy to the Messiah.
And while it is certainly true that the Hebrew word for day, "yom" is used in Gen 1, it is almost as often used of a vague but limited period of time - "in that day...", "day of the LORD" - and could quite acceptably be translated as "in the first stage...". So I would disagree that Biblical scholars agree on these things (or, come to think of it, on many things at all), and that any "re"-interpretations are the product of trying to make the Bible palatable to modern audiences.


[hr]
Isn't it weird when the signature is longer than the message? This won't be one o' those.

[David Bean]

By my reading, the Bible states that Mary is a virgin at least once, which may or may not be a mistranslation, but it implies that she is a hell of a lot more times than that. So on the whole, I think it's safe to assume from the overall message that she was, indeed, a virgin (at least as far as the Bible is concerned).

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Rob Hearn]

Yes, I was unclear. The bible does state that she's a virgin, but this is a mistranslation. Isaiah's prophecy states only that mary will be a young woman (almah). If the prophecy had intended to suggest that mary would be a virgin, the word bethulah would have been used.

And the six days point: In any case, what the bible states, however you translate it, only matches the geological truth if you're willing to interpret it very generously, and determined to believe that the bible is credible. The stronger and more obvious inference is that the bible is simply incorrect.

[LonelyPilgrim]

I apologize, but this is probably going to be the first in a series of multi-posts, as I address various points.

Rob,

Yes, I would agree that God can extrapolate perfectly, but that does not mean that he can perfectly predict the future. To believe that He can is to discount the entire idea of Free Will. If you believe in determinism, then our decisions are simply mechanical, and therefore, to an observer who knew the state of everything at any given point, it would be possible to predict every event ad infinitum.

However, if you believe in Free Will, as religion tends to teach, as I do, and as Greebo does (with reservation) then you de facto assume that even the ability to extrapolate perfectly will not translate into the ability to predict perfectly. You're extrapolation will only be valid so long as no being with Free Will changes its mind.

So, God's extrapolation from the current state is always perfect, so that at any one point in time, God knows what will happen provided we stay constant. Of course, we don't, so as soon as someone changes their mind, the variables that go into the prediction change, and the result of that prediction change. This ultimately means that from one moment to the next God knows perfectly what will happen, but as one pulls the focus further away from the present God's prediction will bear increasingly less similitary to what eventually will transpire, not because His extrapolation is flawed, but because the data from which He extrapolates is always changing not as the result of some form of determinism that can be observed.

Of course, if you do not believe in Free Will, and I get the feeling you do not, then this argument is irrelevent to you. Then again, you would have to accept that the future exists as a discreet time/space and would have no conflict between Free Will and an omnicognizant God.


[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[LonelyPilgrim]

1. God as presented by the Bible is not, in my opinion, the same as the God ultimately portrayed by religious philosphers and theologians. These guys were blatant sycophants in the Middle Ages trying to get the attention of their Church superiors by coming up wiht some new way in which God is great. During the Enlightenment and afterwards they were trying to defend God against folks like Rob who are too clever by half But they were doing so starting not from the position that the Bible takes, but rather from the image of God that had been built up by the monks et al during the Middle Ages. So, if you want to go back the Bible, and drop the image the Church has built up on it's own over the last 2000 years, that's fine by me. The first thing that is going to go is one of the omni's.

2. For example, the God as presented by the Bible, in my opinion, is omnicognizant, but not omniscient. Which means it would be a good idea to define those terms now...

Omnicognizant - perfectly aware

Omniscient - having perfect knowledge and understanding

The difference is subtle, but real. God as portrayed in the Bible often does not seem to posses perfect understanding about human life and motives. This is not entirely surprising, since we posses Free Will. If God knew perfectly how we ticked, it would be a refutation of Free Will. At any rate, one Christian interpertation of this is to say that one of the reasons God came to earth as Christ was to experience human life first hand and to increase His understanding of what we live through. That also provides a good explanation of why God's relations with mankind changed from dealing with groups to dealing with individuals after Christ's time here. Of course, this is the point where exnihilo and I stop agreeing...

3. In the early parts of the Bible we find God claiming to reside at a given place, or within the Ark of the Covenant, or within the Temple. However, considering how many places God tells people He resides, it seems likely to me that this is not a refutation of his omnipresence, but rather He just didn't think simple shepherds would grasp the idea that He is everywhere.

In later parts the claim is explicitly made that God is everywhere. I don't know the Old Testament enough to remember if the claim is made there, but it certainly is within the Christian New Testament.

4. Omnibenevolence - the perfect desire to do good. Also a trait of God.

5. Omnipotence - absolute power. There do appear to be limits to God's power, self-imposed. Such as Free Will. An amazing discussion of this in the Bible itself is the story of Job. I consider the story of Job to be allegory, not as a real event. However, it is an amazing tale. In short, Job is a sin free man who suddenly suffers great afflictions. We are supposed to believe three things.

a) Job is a good man
b) God is omnibenevolent, rewarding the good and punishing the bad
c) God is omnipotent

Now, all three can not be true, because Job is suffering. Job argues that God is not omnibenevolent. Job's friends argue that Job must not be a good man at heart. (some friends, huh?) Then God comes and says some sufficiently cryptic things that either mean that He is not omnipotent, or that our understanding of what is good and what is wrong is so limited that we are not able to comprehend the greater good. Ie. God is omnibenevolent, but that does not translate into automatically rewarding the good and punishing the bad. There are bigger things at stake. Anyway, it's good reading and a good way to start engaging these questions, as each of the positions is well argued. As an excercise in dilemna I suggest it for believers and non-believers.

6. Speaking of Job, let's turn to the Bible as a source. I just ignore everything up to Genesis 11:10. It's a creation myth, tacked on to the 'historical' record, because every culture needs a creation myth. That's not to say that there's no good moral value in there, but the account of the Abrahamaic God, ie the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God, begins with Abram, and not before.

Actually, even then, I personally treat everything up to Exodus with quite a bit of salt, as these tales were not written down, but where transmitted as oral legend. Just because they concern God does not give us any reason to assume that they were not subject to the same distortions one normally finds in oral legends. Supposedly they were written down around the time of Moses, and subsequent events would have been written as they occured.

Therefore, I think discounting the entire Bible on the basis of what amounts to about the first 60-70 pages of a book well over 1,000 pages is rather irresponsible.

After the Exodus, the Bible becomes a fairly reliable historical account. It is generally correct in it's records of which people lived where, and who their rulers were and what nasty things they did to each other. Even in the case of some of the phenomena that are recorded... the walls of Jericho for example. Jericho has been discovered, and there are definately some archaelogical mysteries surrounding the evidence of it's walls. I'm not entirely up to speed on this, but I do recall hearing about it. Something to look into if you are interested.

Anyway, I'm rambling, as I'm tired and in a hurry, so I'll just conclude by saying, in my view God is:

1. Omnicognizant
2. Omnipotent
3. Omnibenevolent (realising there are tensions between 2&3)
4. Omnipresent

In regards to the biblical account, I'm prepared to provisionally defend the Old Testament post- Genesis 11:10, and especially post- Exodus. The exceptions are Job, which is a morality tale; Psalms, which is just a bunch of poetry; Proverbs; which are just proverbs; and the Song of Solomon, which is frankly borderline pornography, and I'm not prepared to defend it as allegory of God's loving relationship with Israel. It's a love song written by that no-good horndog Solomon, so don't even bring it up. Oh, and I do not take the ages to which people supposedly lived literally, so don't expect me to defend them. I'm sure Methusala was old, but not that old.

AS regards the New Testament, I'll defend the account of Christ and Christ's words as literal. The Acts, I'll defend as an account. Paul's letters are just his personal opinion, but I'll regard them as mostly correct, but not infalliable.

Right, well, I need to run off to Edinburgh, so I apologize if this is a bit rushed and incoherent, I can always clarify.



[hr]
---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[LonelyPilgrim]

Oh, as regards Mary...

I've understood that the word used in the original describes her as a young, unmarried woman - which at the time would be more or less synonomous with virgin. This actually brings to attention that as I understand it, she was not married to Joseph when she concieved, that at that time they were merely betrothed, and that he was very upset that she became pregnant. Which is why the angel visited him and calmed him down.

It is implied, of course that Mary was a virgin, but considering that she's been impregnated by God, this shouldn't be causing problems. Essentially, once you start talking about Mary and the birth of Jesus, it's already assumed that you believe in God, and if so, there is no problem accepting the idea of the Immaculate Conception. If you don't already accept God, then you need to back up, and leave this issue for later.

That said, immaculate conception can occur as an abnormality. It is rare, but sometimes an egg will contain the proper number of chromosomes on creation and will begin to grow on it's own. Very very rare, I'm not sure just how rare, but it is an extant medical phenomenon. Therefore, Rob, I'd say that your problem is with the idea that God caused the immaculate conception, not withth conception itself, as such a thing can, in fact, occur.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[Midget]

What like a worm? That is disgusting, it'd be basically a clone, eeeeeww. Probably be a very fucked up baby, wouldn't survive very long. If it is really possible, any biologists?

[JAK]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 06:39, 31st Dec 2004:
Oh, as regards Mary...

I've understood that the word used in the original describes her as a young, unmarried woman - which at the time would be more or less synonomous with virgin. This actually brings to attention that as I understand it, she was not married to Joseph when she concieved, that at that time they were merely betrothed, and that he was very upset that she became pregnant. Which is why the angel visited him and calmed him down.

It is implied, of course that Mary was a virgin, but considering that she's been impregnated by God, this shouldn't be causing problems. Essentially, once you start talking about Mary and the birth of Jesus, it's already assumed that you believe in God, and if so, there is no problem accepting the idea of the Immaculate Conception. If you don't already accept God, then you need to back up, and leave this issue for later.

That said, immaculate conception can occur as an abnormality. It is rare, but sometimes an egg will contain the proper number of chromosomes on creation and will begin to grow on it's own. Very very rare, I'm not sure just how rare, but it is an extant medical phenomenon. Therefore, Rob, I'd say that your problem is with the idea that God caused the immaculate conception, not withth conception itself, as such a thing can, in fact, occur.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln


Not a biologist, but if that were to happen it would produce a girl: where would she get the Y chromosome?

[flarewearer]

I am a biologist, and I would like to state that "immaculate conception" (parthenogenesis) occurs widely in the insects and worm orders, aphids and ragworms being the classic examples. It has been artificially stimulated in rabbit eggs (although they did not produce viable offspring), but has NEVER been observed in humans.

[hr]..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[Greebo]

Well seeing as yer off to Edinburgh and I got things to organise - think I'll not bother going into this til tomorrow evening (when I get back from work)

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.