|
Post by benjoseph on May 11, 2010 22:41:18 GMT -5
... no response? I'm not trying to be catty, I'm just curious. Sorry to leave you waiting. I had a busy week or so and I wanted to put a lot of thought into how to avoid just going in circles on this topic. I think I see how to avoid a misunderstanding now.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 30, 2010 10:53:28 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? Doesn't this assume some initial knowledge of how things ought to run? If you don't know what the hardware is designed to do then how do you know if the output “makes sense”? I've been asking how you can trust your mind in the context of your unbelief. It seems like your response is: 'who cares, why not.' I can trust that you're not a butterfly because I can trust that my mind is reliable. You believe you're not a butterfly because whatever who cares. I'm not trying to assert you're a butterfly Kureji. I'm only noticing that you don't seem to have any reason to believe anything. If they trust their minds then they can know whether Toyota's are beneficial or not. But I don't know anyone who relies solely on a Toyota for their perception of reality. So when you say God is 'magical' you just mean he has 'seemingly supernatural qualities or powers.'? An uncreated, eternal, unintelligent, chaotic gas. I take your answer to mean “Yes we are just shrapnel in an uncreated unintelligent eternal explosion.” - am I misunderstanding you? I've been asking you how you can be right about anything. Of course. You don't think the lack of mental reliability in any alternative world-view is confirmation in itself? That seems like the strongest confirmation possible. If you accepted that evidence and trusted at least that much I think God would then be able to confirm himself to you in other ways to build your faith but, as long as you reject the initial evidence, how could you trust any confirmation wasn't just a mental glitch? It seems God couldn't even prove himself to you as long as you deny that he made your mind reliable because you might conclude the confirmation was an illusion or hallucination. You don't even seem willing to consider the possibility of there being no mental reliability in any other world-view. The way you turn some of my questions around makes it seem like you have some kind of bias that prevents you from being too inquisitive about your beliefs or lack thereof. See? It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting your mind if God didn't make it. The impossibility of an alternative seems convincing to me. I'm just asking if you have any alternative. It seems all you have is who cares why not whatever. Initially the belief that nothing else is trustworthy apart from God. Then hearing the gospel about Jesus dying for me and that my sins could be forgiven. Then reading the new testament, especially the words of Jesus. There was another experience which I remember thinking was like an internal confirmation to me but I think I had already accepted the fact that nothing made sense apart from God nor did I deny the truth of the gospel or anything like that. But I don't see how any of this could mean anything to you except for the first one. You could prove your existence to someone who believes in God but, if you were posing in front of an agnostic, how could they trust what they were seeing? A. "You" are part of an eternal gas cloud. B. So am "I". C. Therefore Kureji is real. What does that mean? It just seems that's the best an anti-theist can do when it comes to questioning his or her perception or knowledge. I've only asked you how you can trust your mind and you don't seem to have an answer. Sounds like you're begging the question there. I don't really see what else you can do though since you don't want to believe that God made your mind.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 28, 2010 0:22:34 GMT -5
]You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. If I can't have trust in my mind then what else can I have faith in? I believe you can trust your mind to be reliable if you trust God - but how could you be sure you believe or know anything if you could not trust God who made your mind? I agree. How is the concern for reliable data relevant unless there is some initial reliability? For example, how would you know there's any such thing as reliable data in the first place? Why couldn't your mind seem consistent and still be completely unreliable? If it's possible that your mind is untrustworthy, then is it possible that you aren't actually agnostic or whatever? What asset? How could your mind be an asset unless God made it trustworthy? Wouldn't the argument be more like "if something finite is there it must have a creator"? Seems that would either lead to infinite finite creator/creatures or God. I think, for God, 'uncreated' and 'always existed' go hand in hand. How is magic a relevant idea? So, in this view, the universe is kind of like God except it's unintelligent and lacking self control? So we would just be shrapnel in an unintelligent cosmic explosion? Well you could never be right about anything either. Why do you keep saying magical? I heard an atheist use that word about God before. Is that a line from a comic book or something? How much better can you get than God loves us and made us to be happy with him forever? But how can you judge what is likely or unlikely if God didn't make your mind reliable? I don't see what's stopping you from trusting in God. It's possible for God because he can prevent outside interference. As for man-made stuff, I was thinking more along the lines of free energy machines I guess. There's usually some inherent contradiction in the design that cancels out the intended action. I thought the objection (to the necessity of theism regarding mental reliability), that an infinite regress leaves us without reliable minds, doesn't work because, besides being logically unnecessary and irrelevant with God, it comes from a world-unview that lacks any mental reliability to begin with. In order for the objection to have any meaning there must be some mental reliability assumed to begin with. How is this possible without God? It seems like accepting the premise in order to object but assuming something contrary to the premise in order to validate the objection. As Molly pointed out, an infinite regress leaves us with the same question - how do you know your mind is reliable?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 25, 2010 13:27:21 GMT -5
Am I the only Agnostic around here that trusts my own mind? You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. Maybe it was not clear that I meant God (uncreated) when I was talking about our intelligent creator? Seems to me we either have to accept the uncreated or accept an infinite regress and put all certainty into the trash can. Are there any more than these two options? Either (1) you accept the uncreated, or (2) you can never be wrong about anything ever again. Who said you can only be smart if your parents are smart? It was meant to be a silly question. Saying that the uncreated needs a creator is silly. It also reminded me of perpetual motion machines or some kind of marijuana-induced question that didn't make any sense. I didn't actually assume that Molly uses drugs. I don't understand. I probably write in wrong ways all the time. I don't think it's that big of a deal. "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? Maybe it's just a glitch that you should ignore."" Secondly, "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? " Well, if a loving and intelligent creator did not design my loving and intelligent creator, how can I believe he who created me to be loving and intelligent? What I meant by that is that his argument suggests that you can't trust anything that was not created by a loving and intelligent creator, which means that I cannot trust God because he has "always existed" and was not created by a loving and intelligent creator--- basically that benjoseph's entire argument there is bogus. Molly, I assumed you understood me to mean God when I was talking about a loving and intelligent creator. So, if there was an infinite regress of creators of creators of creators etc., then how could you be certain of anything?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 21, 2010 14:19:39 GMT -5
Asking if I smoke marijuana because I expressed your circular reasoning is insulting and irrelevant. I absolutely do not smoke marijuana, and that was completely out of place and rude. Beyond that, if you would like to continue this discussion, I invite you to personal message me or begin a discussion on an appropriate section of the forums because we are debating in an area that is to be used for witnessing and preaching. Well... I don't necessarily believe that witnessing and preaching exist so I don't see how I could be breaking any rules. I don't understand why you show concern for your own honor (not a rapist, not a drug user) considering the one who made you doesn't deserve any concern for his.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 19, 2010 22:22:29 GMT -5
..if God created me solely for me to express him gratitude and obey him at all times, that God is a bigger narcissist than myself, or the archangel Satan. God created you to love him and be loved by him. Since he is extremely generous and extremely wise the only sane expression of your love for him would naturally include gratitude and obedience. You would have to hate yourself in order to disobey someone who always knows what is best for you and you'd have to be all rotten in your heart to not be forever grateful for being given life. So if by "bigger narcissist" you mean "more reasonable person" then your sentence "makes sense" (not that you necessarily believe in making sense). None of this makes a difference if you have evolved to such a level of intelligence that you see through ideas like "reasonableness". wow.....are you a marijuana smoker? Says your mind. I was thinking about how people compare themselves to others to make themselves seem better. Maybe you've heard the story that Jesus told about that. You comparing yourself to a rapist and perhaps a christian hypocrite as well brought this to mind. “Two men went up to the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men—swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I tithe on all things, as many as I acquire.' And the tax collector, standing far away, would not so much as lift his eyes towards heaven, but beat on his chest, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner.' I say to you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 19, 2010 13:59:32 GMT -5
I do "sin" in the view of the Ten Commandments, however I do not do anything that hurts anyone else I thought agnostics fail to acknowledge God. Based on that, "moral agnostics" seems like an oxymoron. By suppressing gratitude toward God you hurt God, you hurt the Lord Jesus, you hurt the Holy Spirit, you hurt any of God's creatures that are aware of your disregard for God, on judgment day everyone will be hurt to hear you confess to God about your ingratitude, and you hurt yourself both in this life and after the judgment. If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? Maybe it's just a glitch that you should ignore. What does it matter if you don't love Jesus? If someone died for me and I disregarded them, refusing to honor them with my whole life, but flattered myself by saying I lived a good lifestyle, how could I have any respect for myself?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 14, 2010 21:00:23 GMT -5
Logic, sorry if I overloaded you with questions here. I didn't mean to make the subject unnecessarily complex or anything.
Robert, sorry if I derailed your thread. I don't know how to answer your questions. I think if I understood the answer to the questions I've brought up then I would feel more confident giving you an answer. I'm pretty sure the whole non-violence doctrine is incorrect anyway.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 20:12:32 GMT -5
That's intense. It seems totally logical.
The bible is so contrary to the 'wisdom of the world'..
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 18:50:26 GMT -5
When you say "the minute" do you mean exactly 60 seconds before they are killed? What if it would take more than 60 seconds to defend them?
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to find out "the minute" that a baby is scheduled for an abortion?
Is temporal accuracy more important than actually saving the babies' lives?
What is the difference between legalized abortion and the civil war? The only difference I can think of is that more people were fighting for the right side in the civil war. If 50 million babies have been killed are we still in the civility phase? What if non-violent means cannot put a stop to it in time to save the babies who are actually going to be killed tomorrow? Are we still in the civility phase? I don't understand..
When you say "within a few minutes", how many minutes is the right number of minutes?
What is the underlying purpose of the time constraint? It seems to me that the principal of 'imminence' you are bringing up is an intersection of two underlying principals: 1) Avoiding excessive harm and 2) Actually saving the life. The reason we shouldn't resort to violence before it seems necessary is because the primary intention is not to harm people but rather to reduce or prevent harm. That's why in some situations you might not act until "the last minute". The second principal, actually saving the life, is why there is a cut off point for waiting. It is wrong to require so much waiting that saving the life becomes a more uncertain possibility. The waiting must be less important than actually saving the life. If waiting for 'imminence' reduces the possibility of actually saving the lives then imminence is already here.
What I don't understand is how a person can prevent the murder of babies who are scheduled to be killed today or tomorrow or even in a week by non-violent means. Is it so likely that I can sway the Supreme Court before they go to bed tonight that I can honestly say the death of 3000 babies tomorrow is not truly imminent? Isn't law enforcement already experienced with and prepared to handle non-violent attempts to save these children? What non-violent means can actually save lives tomorrow? What about the next day when the police are guarding the clinic in response to ineffective demonstrations? Who will save the children who are scheduled to die that day? Will nonviolent means work then?
What if that did not work? Then what can be done to best secure the safety of my children?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -5
It seems to me that Calvinism denies God's free will, or ability to make choices, and Exhaustive Foreknowledge apparently denies God's ability to change his mind (which is also free will). Both views prevent God from changing his mind about anything. This seems to me to contradict omnipotence.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5
I agree with you about God's 'moral nature'. I usually use the word 'character' or 'moral character' in order to avoid confusion for people who think of everything as being a result of 'nature'. The way I see it, God has one nature which includes his free will. God doesn't choose to have free will because that would be absurd. God's free will is a natural attribute (so-to-speak). God's ultimate intention is the well-being of himself, his son Jesus, and his kingdom. This intention is an action of God's will called benevolence (bene = good [as in beneficial?], volence = voluntary, volition). Benevolence is not part of God's nature but is an internal action of God's will. Benevolence is voluntary by definition. Love and benevolence are the same thing. Denying God's free will results in a denial of God's love. God's moral quality is a result of the actions of God's will. If God's ultimate intention is benevolent then the moral quality of God, his moral character, is good. If God had all knowledge and all power to move mountains and such but his ultimate intention was not benevolence he would "not have love" and would have to say "I have not love, I am nothing".
I agree with what you were saying in the crosswalk thread. If God had no free will he would just be a machine. This reminds me of what Paul said in Romans about how the nations worshiped the creature rather than the creator.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 12:35:38 GMT -5
Ps 73:16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me It was the same thing in the 1800's before the civil war. Now unborn children are the new 'n*ggers'. Do you think Christians are being consistent if they submit to civil law and public opinion in this matter? I would think we should start throwing the matter to the courts to rethink the whole matter, but to start shooting the abortionists on sight is not the way to go. We would use lethal force on a murderous thief as He is ABOUT to and in the process of killing your neighbors because he is violent and uncompromising in his current mode of action. There is no way to say, "hey, don't shoot yet but let’s bring this to a court of law to see if you should be doing what your about to do. Let's reason this out." However, with the abortionists, we may block the entryways to the clinics and demand the courts to rethink their allowance for killing babies. With this, there will be some who concede, but they are selfish and unconscionable will not be swayed. My point is that there are civil ways to deal with abortion, but there is no civil way to deal with a murderous thief who is already in the process of killing your neighbor; you must shoot him before he shoots them. If partial birth abortion is leagal, it is logical to let a parent kill their 5 year old and call that an abortion. What if some of them were my children? Would it make sense for me to limit myself to non-violent intervention? Why this limitation? Would you recommend the same non-violent tactics if 3000 first-graders were scheduled to be killed tomorrow? And the day after, and the day after, etc. If so, could you explain why? I don't really understand why people reject violent intervention in the midst of a unilateral civil war of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 10:57:33 GMT -5
They were a blessing to me. I really get excited to hear about God's heart for people. For a lot of my life I've had a wrong idea of God that he is uncaring, distant, and cruel. Some of the things you talked about in these sermons really help me to see past those wrong ideas I've had. I especially liked when you quoted "Let us make man in our image". I also was very touched by the story of the woman who stopped the bell from tolling to save her husband. Hearing about God's love for people makes him seem so humble.. I can't imagine anything that could melt a person's heart more than the tender humility of his maker.
There are a lot of sermons out there that I'm afraid would not be a blessing. I guess everyone is in different places in life but these are among my favorites. I recommend them because I think their content honors the Father's heart in a deliberate and informed way.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 23:15:14 GMT -5
Do you think it would be consistent to apply this same protective love to the unborn? yes, but our courts do not agree. If we are defendng life of others with leathel force beside those targeted for abortion, the courts will be on our side, however this is another story for the defense of the doomed unborn. We will be counted as religious fanatics who take the law into our own hands if we kill abortionist while we will be heros for killing them who would murder our neighbors. We will be imprisoned for killing abortionist but praised for defending our neighbors. What a warped & perverted world we live in. Ps 73:16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me It was the same thing in the 1800's before the civil war. Now unborn children are the new 'n*ggers'. Do you think Christians are being consistent if they submit to civil law and public opinion in this matter?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 22:17:08 GMT -5
And yet again, there's so much I don't understand...but I guess that's part of the growing process. Luke 2:52 ..Jesus increased in wisdom.. I think there is a wrong idea of perfection - a frozen (unchanging) perfection. A lot of people theorize about God being perfect as a frozen, abstract infinity rather than a living, personal, loving being. One man characterized this as an emphasis on Quantity rather than Quality, pointing out that Jesus becoming a man and dying for sinners shows that God values Quality (virtue, love) more than Quantity (knowledge, power, infinity, etc). 1Cor 1:22-25 ..the Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. The apostle Paul said omniscience without love is nothing. 1Cor 13:2 ..if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge (Latin translation: " omnem scientiam"), and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.Our idea of perfection should submit itself to the truth that "God is love" rather than the idea that God is Infinity. The Bible never says "God is Knowledge" or "God is Information About the Future". I think that perfect knowledge is whatever knowledge suits God's loving character best. If the loving thing for God to do was to always know the future then I'm sure God would make sure he knew all the future! If God saw that it was better to leave some things open for his own future choices or for the future choices of humans and angels, then I'd say that perfect knowledge is always open to learning new experiences. God is completely able to change his mind as Jeremiah 18 teaches with the potter's vessel story. If perfect knowledge meant that God knows all of his own future then how could he ever change his mind about anything? Perfect knowledge seems to be a living changing knowledge rather than a frozen infinite knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 20:21:49 GMT -5
Actually, after thinking about my question further, I have found a way to reduce it down to a much simpler question. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. He also taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. So, if an enemy is bringing physical or financial harm to our neighbors, what does Christ instruct us to do about it? Love your neighbors and defend them; with lethal force if needed. Do you think it would be consistent to apply this same protective love to the unborn?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 8, 2010 20:46:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement Jessicker. I'm glad you enjoy the forum here. Your honest and unbiased questions are refreshing. How can God learn, though, if He's perfect in wisdom, understanding, and knowledge? Here are some Bible verses that imply God is able to discover knew knowledge as he interacts with people. Ge 2:19 ..out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.. Ge 22:12 ..now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Deu 8:2 ..the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. Deu 13:3 ..the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 2Chr 32:31 ..God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 7, 2010 18:14:33 GMT -5
By the way, where & how have you been? I've missed you on the forums & wondered how you are doing. I always look forward to your input on the forums. Same here. I decided to take an indefinite break from all the debating. I was getting a bad attitude, getting upset at people including the moderators. I was ashamed because I don't think I had the right motive a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 6, 2010 11:39:09 GMT -5
Does that make any sense? Isn't it like saying some of 'B' is 'A' but none of 'A' is 'B'. I think that is incoherent. If we are like God at all then to that same extent God is like us. It just sounds funny that way, as if I said "my dad is just like me." I think if we distinguish between the question of similarity and the question of who came first then we can sort through it. I could actually agree with the quoted statement in this way: God has none of OUR image (in the sense that we did not cause him to have qualities that we FIRST had) but we have some of HIS image (in the sense that we are like him in many important ways). It's really two different definitions for the same type of phrase though, otherwise it would contradict itself.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 5, 2010 19:39:55 GMT -5
Does anyone have any thoughts about the 666 man having been someone during the first century AD? It seems like people call that Preterism or Partial Preterism. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 5, 2010 19:30:43 GMT -5
I've wondered about the difference between soul and spirit also.
Paul said a soulish (psyche-ish) man thinks the Holy Spirit is foolish (1Cor 2:14).
When I thought about the word 'psyche' being used that way it made me think of the word psychedelic. That helped me to understand how "soulish" could mean unspiritual in that sense. I also thought it was interesting that Soul and Psychedelic are two musical styles. They both seem very emotionally or psychologically intense to me.
Spirit, on the other hand, seems like it could have more than one meaning.
Peter said Jesus preached to spirits (pneuma) who were in prison (in the heart of the earth?) from the time of the flood (1Pet 3:19).
James also said the body without the spirit is dead.
"poor in spirit" probably doesn't mean dead or almost dead. It must not mean lacking a spirit altogether because then everyone who died would be blessed automatically regardless of the judgment.
My guess is that 'spirit' can also mean someone's attitude or the intention of their heart.
Through Isaiah God said, "to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." (Interestingly, the next paragraph in chapter 66 talks about people who are mourning who will be comforted, and people who are hated and cast out for the sake of the Lord's name being made to rejoice.)
I agree with what Logic said about knowing our own dependence on Jesus. That is humility. Having an honest view of ourselves. I think humility makes us aware of how much we need Jesus. I think 'poor in spirit' is a different way of saying 'humble'. I don't think it means lacking in spirit. It might just mean having a spirit of poverty or humility.
EDIT: I also think poor in spirit could mean those who are oppressed and suffering.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 7, 2010 23:59:53 GMT -5
The prophecies about the second coming tell us what the dangers are that we should be prepared for so we can be better prepared and how it’s all going to go down. I was encouraged by that. I've been thinking about these two verses recently in the context of the Lord's return: Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 7, 2010 14:50:20 GMT -5
Jesus tells us that [the devil] was from the beginning a murderer and a liar! So, it appears that he was created that way! The conclusion is that God must have purpose for creating evil! Peace, dmatic From the beginning of what?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 7, 2010 14:45:31 GMT -5
I shared this article with my friend and he shared it with another friend who had the following response: I find Morrell's article very interesting. If you'd be so kind, let me ask you to review this. As I understand, his positions (among others) in simplest terms are as follows: FALL OF MAN: Resulted in a physical curse, due to sin. Adam and Eve's spiritual relationship was severed with God because of sin. The physical effects reach us today, but the spiritual effect was only on them. So each person's essential nature is "good," since sin is man's rebellion, not man's constitution. ACCOUNTABILITY/CONSCIENCE: Man is accountable only for that which he knows/understands. Man cannot be held accountable for that which they are ignorant of, since while in ignorance he is free in conscience. FREE-WILL: Simply means that we can choose whatever is within our ability (whether moral or immoral). If any of the above is an incorrect understanding, please let me know. Taking all of this together generates a few questions, but I'll limit it to one: What does this then mean for the heathen? First of all, they (like everyone) are apparently essentially good. But in the lack of an understanding of God's moral code, are they then unaccountable? And if unaccountable, then free in conscience? And if free in conscience, does that then mean saved? And if it does mean they're saved, does that mean their "sincerity" becomes the central determiner of their standing before God? I have always rejected the "sincerity" thing, because sincerity does not define morality. People (including Christians) can be very sincere in very wrong-headed ambitions. I mentioned the heathen for the sake of the question, but in reality, the answer will, of course, apply to all people. If I rest myself in my sincerity, do I not need to fear deception. It seems like "deception" is often warned against in Scripture, but how is the virtue of "sincerity" and the threat of "deception" reconciled? I was going to discuss natural law out of Romans 1 and 2 and then I was going to explain to him how he can apply the distinction between morality and metaphysics to the sincerity/deception question and come up with the right answers that way. Any other thoughts about his questions that might be helpful?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 5, 2010 9:28:33 GMT -5
I didn't see this poll. It didn't seem to show up in the "30 most recent" view.
I don't know what to think about these things. But I can't imagine why I wouldn't want to understand what God's plans might be. Seems like knowing what God's plans are would help us serve him better.
I suppose I could say does it really matter what happened in the book of Exodus? As long as we are saved what is the point of reading the book of Exodus?
I'd ask what is the point of NOT studying to understand God's ways, whether in the past or his plans for the future?
I'm glad that Micah is open-minded about learning this stuff. I don't have a particular view myself but I get the impression that God does want us to have the right view. Otherwise why write all of those things?
It's like if the president sent a letter to you, would you just say "well, I know I'm on good terms with him so there's not any need for me to open the letter and read it".
But some of us might learn by direct study and prayer and others might learn from having someone explain things to them. I don't know if we all need to have prophecy charts taped to our walls or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 1, 2010 21:12:40 GMT -5
We must consider context in biblical exegesis. Was the Psalm that Peter referred to talking about Judas? Clearly not. The Psalm is plural but Peter modified it to the singular. This is ecbatic, not telic. So when Peter said that the Scripture needed to be fulfilled concerning Judas which the Holy Spirit spoke, he couldn't have been saying that that Scripture was about Judas or that the Holy Spirit spoke it about Judas, but that in application to Judas it needs to be fulfilled. It would be like me saying, "This Scripture needs to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke, in regards to this message board: The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men". I would be saying that the Holy Spirit spoke that Scripture and that it needs to be fulfilled on this message board. I completely agree with what you've been saying. I'm just wondering whether there is anything in the actual Greek sentence that someone could use to build a case against this interpretation. Or does the original Greek clearly allow this interpretation? Just because it flies in English doesn't mean it would make sense in Greek. If the Greek really allows this interpretation then that would be a swift end to any objections regarding that verse. I assume it does allow this view but I was wondering if anyone could actually verify that. I could then explain to someone how it could be more clearly translated. It is difficult to read it without thinking of predestination. I'm sure it would be helpful to have a clearer translation which showed the prophecy was not about Judas. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm already so convinced of this interpretation (that it wasn't about Judas) that I'd question the accuracy of the Greek manuscript if the grammar didn't fit. It would just be reassuring and helpful to have a better translation of the sentence.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 1, 2010 15:31:16 GMT -5
Peter was saying that the Scripture, which the Holy Spirit spoke, needs to be fulfilled in regards to Judas. The Scripture Peter was referring to was that his habituation should be desolate and another should take his place. This of course was not talking about Judas because the Psalm said "their habituation" while Peter changed it to "his habitation". But nevertheless, the principle which the Holy Spirit spoke needed to be fulfilled in regards to this situation with Judas, that is, somebody needed to replace him. Peter was not saying that the Holy Spirit spoke that Scripture about Judas, because then Peter would be lying, but that the Scripture which the Holy Spirit spoke needed to be fulfilled concerning Judas. So the word 'concerning' in the phrase 'concerning Judas' should be understood as modifying the verb 'fulfilled' rather than modifying the verb 'spake'. A natural reading of it (without getting theological) seems to link the word 'concerning' with the words 'spake before' rather than the word 'fulfilled'. This is just in English of course. But shouldn't it be possible that the original Greek allows for linking the words 'fulfilled' and 'concerning' as we are saying is a theological necessity? I don't know anything about Greek to figure this out at this point. If in Greek the word 'concerning' must modify the verb 'spake' then that would be strangely inconsistent with your explanation Jesse - even though your explanation seems like the only reasonable one to me. I can't imagine any of the disciples hearing this were thinking "Wow, those Psalms were about Judas the whole time and no one knew..." That would probably be the least natural response to hearing Peter's words about the sad situation. Can anyone verify this reading of the sentence in the original language?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 1, 2010 12:49:39 GMT -5
Words like "inclination" and "propensity" are so slimy because they sound like two things at the same time: 1) a desire 2) a statistical likelihood
The statistical likelihood is only logically valid in a case where the outcome is necessitated. So it doesn't logically apply to the whole 'sin nature' idea.
And desires of course are not inherently sinful. Even if one inherited a physical and mental desire for a chemical because of 'in utero' exposure and dependence, this would not result in a moral or voluntary desire but only a temptation (if babies were even morally accountable).
Another thought: The whole idea of explaining universal sin seems invalid. One can explain how universal sin is possible. Also, we can explain exactly what has been happening when as universal sin has occured (if it has). However, no one can possibly explain WHY anyone chooses to sin. We can say because they are being selfish and we can explain the nature and aim of selfishness but this does not EXPLAIN why the person would choose their own temporary good above the good of everyone. There is no possible explanation for this because it is completely irrational. If universal sin is true then God himself would like an explanation for it. I'm sure he can't find a satisfying one either.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 28, 2010 22:00:35 GMT -5
How did the Devil turn evil if sin didn't exist?This is a question that I have been having difficulty with. If God isn't the creator of Sin, how did this non existent sin come about in a perfect being that was created without sin? Because sin is a choice. Making a choice is an action you do inside of your mind. Just like other actions (running, sleeping, singing, etc) the action of choosing sin does not really exist in the sense that THINGS exist (feet, beds, sheet music, etc). You can not hold a handful of "running" in the same way you can not hold a handful of "sin". Neither of them is a created THING. God created the possibility of running by creating legs and feet and the ground. Whether someone decides to use this possibility to run is up to them. Likewise, God created the possibility of moral choice by creating the human mind and giving us life. Whether we choose to exercise this ability in love or sin is up to us. Sometimes the Bible talks about sin as if it a literal thing (noun) and not an action. This is figurative or common language rather than philosophically accurate language. Sometimes sin is even personified as if it is a person who sinners battle with. We should not think that sin (a choice) is a created physical or spiritual thing. Sin is an action of our physical/spiritual selves in which one aims at self pleasure above all else. Making this choice does not cause anything new to come into creation. It simply is using God's creation for the wrong purpose.
|
|