John R (Ripon43) wrote: > I was nominal growing up, mainly C of E. At the age of 15 I stopped > believing in God after reading in the bible that Adam & Eve had 2 > children and one of them married Ruth.
Er, Ruth? Are you sure?
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
>> If you think the cross was about "Justice" then you are much mistaken.
> Why the scare quote around 'justice'?
Not scare quotes just quotes :-)
>> The cross is about mercy and forgiveness.
> Having the wrong man executed is a strange way of showing mercy and > forgiveness!
It is merciful to pardon the guilty and it is forgiving to bear the cost of that forgiveness yourself.
> > The unsaved will get Justice, they won't like it.
> Perfect justice would reward the good and punish the bad. This is the case > in Judaism and Islam, though God is here too inclined to show forgiveness > where He thinks it is deserved.
Perfect justice will indeed do that :-) The bad will be punished and the good will be rewarded.
> Those religions that teach karma uphold a system of perfect justice, where > it is inevitable that you get punished in a future life for your > transgressions, if not in this one.
I know they do.
> A religion that teaches perfect mercy and forgiveness on the other hand > maintains that all are saved. Once could say that justice is compromised > in such a system.
What system is that. I don't think that all are saved and neither is it a normal Christian belief.
> A religion that teaches that some are condemned and others acquitted > without regard to what they actually did is compromised in both the > justice and mercy departments. I fail to see that any right-minded person > could believe in such a system.
Who believes in such a system? Nobody is condemned regardless of what they did, that would be most unjust. All are condemned for what they do.
>> There was an annual sacrifice and scape goating for sin, as I am sure you >> are aware. Lev 16.
> Yes. Such primitive and superstitious thinking!
IYO
>> The priest laid hands on the scape goat and thus transfered the guilt > to it >> and it was the expelled from the nation. The lamb was sacrificed to atone >> for the sin.
> Modern Jews do something similar with a chicken before Yom Kippur. More > enlightened Jews say: 'Jewish chicken-killing ritual "Kapparot" is > "illegal, inhumane and unnecessary. It is animal cruelty.' > <http://www.upc-online.org/kaparos/92906kaparotpress.html>
Well modern Jews are not my concern, enlightened Jews are Christians :-)
>> That is a substitution is it not? Unless you think that the sheep were >> guilty and sinful? Did they have really wicked sheep back then?
> You are quite right, substitutionary atonement is part of traditional > Judaism. I'm sure early Christians would have been aware of that.
Indeed they would.
>> "The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place;"
> Hilarious, isn't it, to think of Jesus as an old goat!
The goat wasn't old.
>> Of course if you had read the OT you would already be famailiar with the >> ideas of both substitution and atonement. Or you could pretend that they >> didn't exist and write this sort of gibbersish above.
> Did I ever say that the ideas of substitution and atonement were unknown > in the Old Testament? What is true is that Christianity gave the ideas a > new twist, and some Christians made them the central plank of their > religion.
What new twist do you think that is?
Atonement is a central plank of pre Christian Judaism too :-)
> On 5 Nov, 22:25, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by >> causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important >> only to offend groups that do not fight back.
> Why is it particularly offensive to imagine Jesus coming back as a > transsexual? Would there be anything to stop Jesus coming back as a > black woman?
> Ian
Would it be offensive to portray your mother as a reformed harlot? Why?
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:59 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> Yes I was a bit ambiguous above. I know he had many children but at >> that point in time there was only mention of Cain and Abel, then Cain >> lay with his wife.
>Oh right, the consensus seems to be that Cain married one of his sisters.
<loiner2...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote: >> I was nominal growing up, mainly C of E. At the age of 15 I stopped >> believing in God after reading in the bible that Adam & Eve had 2 >> children and one of them married Ruth.
>Er, Ruth? Are you sure?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply to Alwyn :-)
>> Yes, it's possible that it should say "not yet going up", >> or that he changed his mind. But note that there can't be >> much lapse of time between his saying "no" and his going up, >> since v2 says the feast was "at hand" when his brothers >> came calling.
> I see it as your wife saying to you, "Gareth, i'm popping to the pub > to meet so and so, are you coming" You say no (and mean it) but half > an hour later have a change of heart and go.
> Was that an untruth on your part?
Probably not. But going up to Jerusalem for a major festival was surely a bigger affair than popping down the road for a quick pint. I repeat: it's possible that he just changed his mind, but it seems rather odd to me on so short a timescale.
> Yes, and I thought of that. But from what we know of Jesus he was not > in the habit of deliberately insulting the (wo)man on the street. > This is the only recorded case we have. Everything else about him > speaks of his compassion for them.
The gospels don't contain much about Jesus's conversations with men (or women) in the street. Much of the time he's arguing with the "Scribes and Pharisees" (and saying things like "You blind fools!", often enough) or delivering sermons and sometimes then discussing with the people who've been listening.
But there are certainly other occasions where the most straightforward reading of the gospel stories seems to me to be that Jesus got excessively angry at not getting the response he wanted. For instance, Matthew 11:20-24:
| Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works | had been done, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chora'zin! | woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for if the mighty works done in you had | been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in | sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on | the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, | Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought | down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in | Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it | shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom | than for you."
(It seems to me that Jesus's complaint in Luke 9:54-55 wasn't entirely fair. He talked about Sodom-like judgement on places that hadn't responded to him as he thought they should; when his disciples did the same, he was angry at them...)
> True. Its my opinion he had foreknowledge of his death and who it was > (the Jews) who wanted him killed.
1. So, he had foreknowledge of his death and how it would come about, but not of his own intentions a day or so in advance?
2. Which Jews? I mean, I know John's gospel quite often talks about "the Jews" as if the whole nation were dedicated to killing Jesus and persecuting his followers, but it seems to me that it only makes sense to address a given group of people and say "you want to kill me" if *those* people want to do that.
Eric Potts wrote: > Gareth McCaughan wrote: >> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
>> | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. >> | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. >> | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, >> | for it is not right to take the children's bread >> | and throw it to the dogs."
> I have selected this to consider first because the two Johannine > passage can be taken together.
> If Jesus was fully human, he would naturally have the attitudes of his > people. It is a moot point whether or not that constitutes sin in > itself, especially if it does not result in any actual harm being > done.
You're welcome to think that. It seems to me that usual Christian attitudes to Jesus are very much dependent on the idea that his opinions, attitudes and actions reflect something better than "the attitudes of his people". (Whether that's true of your own attitude to Jesus, I don't know for sure.)
> Equally Jesus may have been simply quoting a current attitude in order > to prepare for the opportunity to reject it in fact.
That seems pretty far-fetched to me.
> My own guess is the first of the above, and that this was in fact a > learning experience for him that led to a change of attitude.
Noted.
> Both of these bear all the hallmarks of Johannine theologising after > the event.
Always possible. But then, one might say much the same about the idea that Jesus was sinless.
>> Telling untruths: John 7:8,10. .. > And His time had not yet come, as he went later :-) hence the use of the > word "after" .
As I said to John R., note that the timescale here has to be pretty short. So yeah, it's *possible* that "his time had not yet come" on, say, Monday, but on Tuesday it had[1], but that doesn't seem terribly plausible. Especially as later in the same chapter we are told that "his hour had not yet come", and again in the next chapter. Maybe there's some vital distinction between "his time had come" and "his hour had come" here, but I'm not convinced.
[1] Days chosen at random; I haven't looked up the chronology of the Feast of Tabernacles.
>> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26. .. > How is that an insult to the woman?
In just about every culture, calling someone a dog is an insult. For some idea of the associations of the term, take a look e.g. at Deuteronomy 23:18, 2 Samuel 3:8, 2 Kings 8:13, Psalm 22:16, Proverbs 26:11, Matthew 7:6 (perhaps particularly relevant here), Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15.
Eric Potts wrote: > Jesus had to be either male or female; that's the way humanity is > constituted!
Well, actually, there are various conditions he could have had that would have made his sex somewhat indeterminate (or, more precisely, made it not fit neatly into either of the usual categories). There are people being born all the time for whom neither "male" nor "female" is an entirely adequate description.
> I guess that whichever had been the case, some people > would have taken offence at the choice! I think the argument that only > a male could have had his influence, given the nature of contemporary > society, is a fair one.
Yes.
> This suggests realism rather than the > demeaning of the other gender. But at its best the Catholic emphasis > on Mary does something to balance this in that it posits a woman of > exceptional spirituality who came as close to God as any human (other > than Jesus) could do. If we could hold that idea but dispense with the > excessive formalisation of Marian doctrine, I think that would be a > valuable thing.
Perhaps it would be valuable, but it would be somewhat lacking in evidence. (For the claim that Mary was a woman "of exceptional spirituality".)
>> Anyway. Once the pronouns and stories are in place, I don't see >> that any particular extra sexism is needed to make some literal-minded >> Christians get upset if Jesus is portrayed in a way they thing is >> factually incorrect, especially if they think this is being done >> to further some agenda that Jesus isn't known to have had. (And >> especially if it happens to make Jesus more different from *them*, >> and especially if it's unfamiliar and novel, which is probably >> why we don't hear much outrage at the commonplace depiction of >> Jesus as a blonde-haired blue-eyed Aryan.)
> I can understand some Christians getting upset. But their manner of > expressing that upset is far more offensive than the portrayal itself.
I expect that's true. (I can't simply say "I agree" because I don't know exactly what the portrayal was really like; for all I know it may in fact have been very offensive.)
>> [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling >> untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight >> provocation, etc. But I digress.
> There, I think, you fall from your normal standards of debate!
>>> Of course the group had better not be defined by something >>> that Christians consider morally wrong, since Jesus's sinlessness >>> is a pretty important doctrine[1].
[Eric Potts:]
>> It is. But I have often wondered whether it is really essential. There >> is an area to be explored there, I think.
[John:]
> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. > Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) > "He that was without sin became sin for us"
I am not convinced that substitutionary atonement implies (or even nearly-implies) the sinlessness of Jesus.
(I am also not convinced that substitutionary atonement makes the least bit of sense, but that's a separate issue. I mention it only because if your response is along the lines of "go on then, show me a coherent account of substitutionary atonement that doesn't need Jesus to have been sinless" I'm going to decline the request. :-) )
>The gospels don't contain much about Jesus's conversations with >men (or women) in the street. Much of the time he's arguing with >the "Scribes and Pharisees" (and saying things like "You blind >fools!", often enough) or delivering sermons and sometimes then >discussing with the people who've been listening.
>But there are certainly other occasions where the most straightforward >reading of the gospel stories seems to me to be that Jesus got >excessively angry at not getting the response he wanted. For instance, >Matthew 11:20-24: >(It seems to me that Jesus's complaint in Luke 9:54-55 wasn't >entirely fair. He talked about Sodom-like judgement on places >that hadn't responded to him as he thought they should; when >his disciples did the same, he was angry at them...)
I think the key was that in the first instance Jesus went to the towns and performed miracles yet still they did not repent.
The second instance was that Jesus was going to a town but they did not welcome him, It was a samaritan village and they knew he was going to Jerusalem.
The circumstances were different.
>> True. Its my opinion he had foreknowledge of his death and who it was >> (the Jews) who wanted him killed.
>1. So, he had foreknowledge of his death and how it would come about, >but not of his own intentions a day or so in advance?
>2. Which Jews? I mean, I know John's gospel quite often talks about >"the Jews" as if the whole nation were dedicated to killing Jesus >and persecuting his followers, but it seems to me that it only makes >sense to address a given group of people and say "you want to kill me" >if *those* people want to do that.
The pharisees were there, Utimately it was the leaders that whipped up the frenzy of the crowd who cried "Crucify hiim"
>> By the way, I maintain that those Christians who refuse to take Genesis >> literally have trouble explaining how the Fall occurred. Do you agree?
(One common view among Christians who don't take Genesis 3 literally is that "the Fall" isn't a single event but a description of the state we're in. You can say "I'm totally screwed up" without there having been any particular occasion when the screwing-up happened.)
> Can I ask what is your view on good and bad. Where does it come from > and why are some people more evil than others?
> How do you view morality. Do you think morality is a good thing or > doesn't it matter? These are genuine questions.
I'm not Alwyn, but I'm guessing that you might be interested in the views of other godless people. Please feel free to ignore this if not :-).
I don't think goodness is a single thing; it's a label we attach to things we approve of. Similarly for badness. Generosity, honesty, marital faithfulness and courage aren't all just aspects of some single quality, they're separate qualities that we happen to feel similarly about.
So it doesn't make much sense to ask "where do goodness and badness come from?"; but of course we can (1) ask where kindness, rudeness, malice, honesty, etc., come from, and (2) ask how it comes about that we have the sorts of attitudes to these things that almost everyone seems to have.
Similarly, I think that summing up someone's moral qualities as a degree of evilness is generally a serious oversimplification. It may sometimes be a convenient oversimplification, of course. Anyway, rather than asking "why are some people more evil than others" we could ask, e.g., "why are some people more generous than others?" or "why are some people more open-minded than others?".
Well, this last question seems to me a bit like asking "why are some people taller than others?" or "why are some people darker-haired than others?" or "why are some people better at learning languages than others?". People differ in all sorts of ways. Why shouldn't they differ in how honest or considerate or whatever they are?
Similarly for that first question of where kindness and rudeness and so forth come from. If you want an actual explanation then I suppose it would have to be in terms of evolutionary psychology and game theory and all that stuff: we have an inclination to be kind to others (sometimes, anyway) because among our ancestors genes that made such behaviour more likely tended to do well, because (1) cooperation is often good for everyone, (2) many of the people[1] our ancestors interacted with were closely related to them and therefore benefiting them often benefited those same genes, and (3) it turns out that a "strategy"[3] of being nice to people who are, or seem likely to be, nice to you in return is a very effective one even if your ultimate goals are purely selfish.
[1] Or, if we're looking far enough back, apes[2] or whatever.
[2] This is of course a generic term; our ancestors were not the same as any of the now-extant apes such as humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas.
[3] Not necessarily executed consciously. Our brains embody all sorts of strategy, and carry out many of them without any conscious thought being required.
Of course that isn't the whole story: for instance, another thing that tends to make us treat others well is that we're constantly encouraged to do so when we're young. (You could give an explanation of *that* in terms of "memes" -- things that play something of the same role in culture as genes do in biology -- but whether doing so would really be useful is debatable.) Another is that we generally like to be consistent and tend to think in generalities, which produces lines of reasoning something like this: (1) I like to be treated well. (2) It is good that I should be treated well. (3) There's no particularly vital difference between me and everyone else. (4) It is good that everyone should be treated well. (5) I should treat others well.
And so on. The point is that the existence of moral behaviour and thoughts and attitudes seems to me to make pretty good sense from a purely naturalistic perspective: I don't see anything happening that can only be explained by divine intervention, or by a god designing our minds in ways that they could never have been naturally.
I'd say broadly similar things about question 2 above, namely how it comes about that we think in terms like "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong", and that we evaluate others' actions (and occasionally, when we can't help it, our own :-)) in such terms, and that there's quite a lot of agreement about what's good and what's bad. But this is getting long, and it's getting late, so I'll leave it there for now.
Oh, but I notice you asked another entirely different question that I shouldn't ignore completely: whether morality is a good thing. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I think my answer is "yes". (I'm not going to commit to saying "yes" in some *absolute* sense; there's something rather circular about asking whether morality is a good thing absolutely.)
Gareth McCaughan wrote: > [Alwyn:] >>> By the way, I maintain that those Christians who refuse to take Genesis >>> literally have trouble explaining how the Fall occurred. Do you agree?
> (One common view among Christians who don't take Genesis 3 literally > is that "the Fall" isn't a single event but a description of the state > we're in. You can say "I'm totally screwed up" without there having > been any particular occasion when the screwing-up happened.)
That is an entirely reasonable position to take, but unfortunately, it does not make the Christian faith any more coherent. A Christian evolutionist must admit that this is the way we have evolved and that our behaviour has a lot in common with that of other living things tht have come into being through the evolutionary process. A Christian also typically says that evolution is not just the interplay of blind forces and randomness but is God-directed. If so, God is directly responsible for the way we are, and humanity cannot be accused of deviating on its own account from God's purpose; if anyone fouled up, it was God Himself, and it makes no sense to punish us for it.
Human selfishness in particular is attributable to the evolutionary drive to propagate one's own genetic material in an environment with limited resources; this leads for instance to the Tragedy of the Commons, where rational behaviour by individuals leads to the depletion of a resource in a short time. The way we have evolved has not prepared us for situations in which unrelated people must co-operate for the common good. It would be nice if God could help us here, but we don't seem to be in much luck, as the United States, that most Christian of nations, among others, is so reluctant to make any sacrifice that affects its economic success.
John R (Ripon43) wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:59 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> Personally I don't treat Genesis as literal but I think you can still > account for the fall if you use Adam & Eve as an allegory.
So what does the allegory stand for? What do you think actually happened?
> Can I ask what is your view on good and bad. Where does it come from > and why are some people more evil than others?
'Good' is a hard word and is used in many different senses. Perhaps it means that something is desirable in some way, while bad is undesirable.
Asking where good comes from is a bit like asking where the number three comes from. The are abstract entities that we become aware of through teaching and our interaction with the environment.
What do we mean when we say that some people are more evil than others? People vary in their behaviour, and some kinds of behaviour are apt to cause suffering. Some people even take pleasure in causing suffering to others. Such variation can only be due to differing genetic inheritance and differing environments in which one grew up. I believe the consensus these days is that each of these factors has an influence of around 50%.
> How do you view morality. Do you think morality is a good thing or > doesn't it matter? These are genuine questions.
Does it matter how people behave? Of course it does!
However, we need to understand that moral principles are largely local; they differ according to time and place, though it is possible that all people hold very basic principles in common, such as that fairness is to be recommended and kindness makes people happier.
>>> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26. > .. >> How is that an insult to the woman?
> In just about every culture, calling someone a dog is an insult. > For some idea of the associations of the term, take a look e.g. > at Deuteronomy 23:18, 2 Samuel 3:8, 2 Kings 8:13, Psalm 22:16, > Proverbs 26:11, Matthew 7:6 (perhaps particularly relevant here), > Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15.
I repeat the question "How is that an insult to the woman?"
I see that it tells her that she is not in the position of the child but in the position of the dog in the story but it isn't calling her a "dog" any more than it is calling all the Jews "children".
In many cultures calling someone a child when they are an adult is an insult but you aren't claiming that Jesus was insulting the Jews are you? Or are you? If not, why not?
>> Gareth McCaughan wrote: >>> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
>>> | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. >>> | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. >>> | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, >>> | for it is not right to take the children's bread >>> | and throw it to the dogs." >> I have selected this to consider first because the two Johannine >> passage can be taken together.
>> If Jesus was fully human, he would naturally have the attitudes of his >> people. It is a moot point whether or not that constitutes sin in >> itself, especially if it does not result in any actual harm being >> done.
> You're welcome to think that. It seems to me that usual Christian > attitudes to Jesus are very much dependent on the idea that his > opinions, attitudes and actions reflect something better than "the > attitudes of his people". (Whether that's true of your own attitude > to Jesus, I don't know for sure.)
I see it as a mixture: in many ways he was, he more or less had to be, a man of his times. But he could also sometimes transcend those times and the contemporary attitudes. And, as I suggested re the "dogs" incident, he was open to learn and grow and so move on beyond the attitudes of his day.
I think he largely saw his mission as being to his fellow Jews; was surprised and hurt by the extent of their opposition and rejection; and was equally surprised but delighted by the positive response from some Gentiles.
It is very risky to try to imagine we see his developing psychology; some tried to do this in the early 20th century and just before. We just don't have enough information to do this. But I think that the broad development I outline above can be reasonably evidenced.
>> Both of these bear all the hallmarks of Johannine theologising after >> the event.
> Always possible. But then, one might say much the same about the > idea that Jesus was sinless.
Indeed. As indicated, I am willing to question that idea.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
>John R. (Ripon43) wrote: >(I am also not convinced that substitutionary atonement makes the >least bit of sense, but that's a separate issue. I mention it only >because if your response is along the lines of "go on then, show me >a coherent account of substitutionary atonement that doesn't need >Jesus to have been sinless" I'm going to decline the request. :-) )
Smiley noted but a challenge was far away from my thoughts.
I err towards SA because thats what I sense from reading the Bible. I don't give it 100% because parts of it I have difficulty with , which may well be my problem and not God's. :-)
I do not accept the notion that God pours out his wrath on us, simply because we are a fallen race. I do accept that, as a fallen race, if we are shown the light and refuse to accept it (1) then God's wrath is just.
(1) Please don't take that as a personal comment. I do not know your background whilst you were a christian. God may well be not finished with you yet (2)
(2) Based of course that christianity is right, if it isn't then its a moot point.
Alwyn wrote: > That is an entirely reasonable position to take, but unfortunately, it > does not make the Christian faith any more coherent. A Christian > evolutionist must admit that this is the way we have evolved and that > our behaviour has a lot in common with that of other living things tht > have come into being through the evolutionary process. A Christian also > typically says that evolution is not just the interplay of blind forces > and randomness but is God-directed. If so, God is directly responsible > for the way we are, and humanity cannot be accused of deviating on its > own account from God's purpose; if anyone fouled up, it was God Himself, > and it makes no sense to punish us for it.
Actually I think that is a very coherent position, not least since I hold it myself! :-)
Though I'm not sure about the "God-directed" bit; I agree that randomness is very important. But I think I see God as also in some way subject to that randomness, since I see God as within each particle of existence. Yet I also see God's inner nature of creating love as also involved in the whole process, so I suppose "God-directed" is also a valid way of putting it. In another words, God allows the randomness, and works with it, rather than preventing it and making things run according to a predetermined plan.
> an environment with > limited resources; this leads for instance to the Tragedy of the > Commons,
Ah, the poor MP's get it in the neck again! :-)
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
loiner2003 wrote: > Alwyn wrote: >> That is an entirely reasonable position to take, but unfortunately, it >> does not make the Christian faith any more coherent. A Christian >> evolutionist must admit that this is the way we have evolved and that >> our behaviour has a lot in common with that of other living things tht >> have come into being through the evolutionary process. A Christian >> also typically says that evolution is not just the interplay of blind >> forces and randomness but is God-directed. If so, God is directly >> responsible for the way we are, and humanity cannot be accused of >> deviating on its own account from God's purpose; if anyone fouled up, >> it was God Himself, and it makes no sense to punish us for it.
> Actually I think that is a very coherent position, not least since I > hold it myself! :-)
So your God is a botcher, a being who can hardly get anything right. I am not concerned to deny the existence of such a God. But I am puzzled why anyone would want to look up to him, let alone worship Him.
> Though I'm not sure about the "God-directed" bit; I agree that > randomness is very important. But I think I see God as also in some way > subject to that randomness, since I see God as within each particle of > existence. Yet I also see God's inner nature of creating love as also > involved in the whole process, so I suppose "God-directed" is also a > valid way of putting it. In another words, God allows the randomness, > and works with it, rather than preventing it and making things run > according to a predetermined plan.
I'm not sure I understand all the above, but if God created love, He was a little optimistic about the quantity required.
(By 'love' I mean Christian love; love of self and of one's family, so necessary for the evolutionary process, is indeed abundant.)
>> an environment with limited resources; this leads for instance to the >> Tragedy of the Commons,
> Ah, the poor MP's get it in the neck again! :-)
They are of course out for what they can get, but in many countries a career in politics is seen as a road to riches. That is not (yet) the case in the UK.
> I am not convinced that substitutionary atonement implies (or even > nearly-implies) the sinlessness of Jesus.
Substitutionary atonement as generally understood requires a sinless one to be sacrificed for the sins of others. If Jesus was sinful like the rest of us, then He was only atoning for His own sins, which are, as we know, deserving of eternal punishment. The sacrifice of you or me would not have saved humanity, but that of the blameless Son of God was more than sufficient for the purpose.
>[Alwyn:] >>> By the way, I maintain that those Christians who refuse to take Genesis >>> literally have trouble explaining how the Fall occurred. Do you agree?
>(One common view among Christians who don't take Genesis 3 literally >is that "the Fall" isn't a single event but a description of the state >we're in. You can say "I'm totally screwed up" without there having >been any particular occasion when the screwing-up happened.)
I take the view that we all screw up, but that it is inevitable that we will do so. Children don't learn to be naughty, they just are!
>> Can I ask what is your view on good and bad. Where does it come from >> and why are some people more evil than others?
>> How do you view morality. Do you think morality is a good thing or >> doesn't it matter? These are genuine questions.
>I'm not Alwyn, but I'm guessing that you might be interested in >the views of other godless people. Please feel free to ignore this >if not :-).
Thanks, your opinion is welcome.
A bit heavy for me all that Gareth, sorry. Some good points though.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:29:47 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:59 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Personally I don't treat Genesis as literal but I think you can still >> account for the fall if you use Adam & Eve as an allegory.
>So what does the allegory stand for? What do you think actually happened?
Genesis probably happened over millions of years. At some point human life appeared, by God's design. I am not an evolutionist, although i believe man has evolved over the 100,000 odd years he has been in existence.
The aerly people were tribes/nations rather than actual people. The flood was the ice age.
The fall happened, but as a race rather than 2 individual people. At some stage early on the devil gained control, If you can imagine a big battle in the heavenlies, still raging today.
(All in my opinion of course)
<rest snipped, but points accepted> Not too sure on the genetics argument that both you and Gareth made, because then you would get a family generation with a history of evil say. Thinking of people who have committed herrendous crimes (Fred West for example)
In message <878wei55os....@g.mccaughan.org.uk> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Yes, it's possible that it should say "not yet going up", > or that he changed his mind. But note that there can't be > much lapse of time between his saying "no" and his going up, > since v2 says the feast was "at hand" when his brothers > came calling.
Why does shortness of time preclude a change of mind or even a change in circumstances that lead to a change of mind?
|
