What is Christianity? How can we understand it better? What don't we understand?

So are you saying God COULD choose "bad", but simply doesn't? I'm honestly confused, because

gave the impression you were making the argument that God is somehow unable to make a bad choice.

 

Well, let me try and untangle this for you. The problem is that there really isn't a short way to answer these sort of inquiries. I was trying to refer to different aspects of something that is fairly hard to talk about. Let me try again, in more extended fashion.

The central problem is that we are talking about the nature of cognition and decision-making. As major components of consciousness, they are pretty opaque to us, and have proven somewhat resistant to scientific interrogation. Though we've gained some knowledge of the processes involved, we are only beginning to grasp the extent to which subconscious factors play a role, and there interplay with conscious cognition and information screening. Because of our difficulty in understanding the decision-making process, we often have to use proxy measurements like looking at results and working backwards to see if patterns are consistent with what we'd expect from, for instance, unbiased decision-making. By contrast, if we had some sort of way to have a precise mapping of the detailed mechanisms behind decision-making, we could theoretically isolate and identify the existence of bias as it happened, without ever needing to reference the results.

With that in mind, we've asked two questions about God.

1. Can God choose to do evil?

2. Does God engage in actual decision-making?

Taking them in reverse order, my argument is that we have strong evidence that God does engage in actual decision-making. He both declares himself as doing such, and his pattern of activity within the text of the Bible is consistent with such activity. It is then the first question that becomes tricky. The answer depends on what you mean by "can he choose." That is, rather than a simple binary, there are several points where you one could intervene to prevent evil choices. A short sample:

1. An ability to comprehend evil. Being thus unable to have awareness of an existence of these options, they can never be evaluated, let alone chosen or acted upon. It was at one time held that severely mentally retarded people would, in this sort of fashion, be incapable of evil because they were too stupid to do otherwise.

2. One can demonstrate awareness of evil, but a sort of thought blocking prevents any attempt to analyze or evaluate such options as a potential course of action. For a fairly poor analogy, here, consider (if you've ever read it) the Ender's Shadow series. Briefly, one character was subject to genetic experimentation, and the doctor responsible had been affixed with something that prevented him from speaking about the procedures. Therefore, when pressed to reveal the truth, the character has to attempt to approach the subject extremely obliquely, and by way of extended analogy, so that he can try to bypass this trigger. That's an admittedly poor analogy, but just tell me if you don't know what I'm trying to get at, and I'll try again.

3. One can demonstrate awareness of evil, fully analyze it as a potential course of action, but simply never elect that actual alternative.

Note here, that the first two possibilities are different from the last. The first two ultimately prevent "evil" from emerging within a formal decision-making tree. While the latter does not, it is still possible for that to result in never choosing evil. And here is where we return to our poor understanding of decision-making. It should be theoretically possible that, however all the different factors come together, strong enough inputs from things like character and personal disposition can overwhelm certain options to make their chance of being selected 0%, even when they are technically possible to select. That is, I believe the question can be analyzed from either a process-based or results-based standpoint. From the latter, I answer that, "yes" it is impossible for God to make evil choices. However, from the process-based standpoint, it's not my position that I imagine something like a scenario 1 or 2 wherein there's some sort of wall that literally prevents evil choices from even registering or somethi

 

No, you interpret it that way. There are numerous other Christians who interpret it differently, and there is a good, solid foundation in the Bible for such interpretations. Your interpretation is not the only one.

There's no evidence that any of the rivers mentioned in relation to the Garden of Eden are the same as the rivers that currently have the same names. Remember, since Adam's time, there was the Flood, which would have completely altered the face of the Earth. It's not uncommon for people exploring a new land (which the Earth would be after the Flood) to name places after places they knew in their old land. (For example, the city of Norfolk, Virginia was named after a county of the same name in England.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

Alright, there's a flaw right there. Your interpretation is different from everyone else's, thereby negating the value of any unit of measurement. ONE DAY equals 24 hours. That does not change... because it is a unit of measurement. If one were referring to another planet's days, but this is Earth the bible talks about. Units of measurement don't change... they can't change... otherwise they're useless.

Therefore the correct interpretation must only be that the Earth was created in 7 days (168 hours). To say different is to change what the bible specified and downright lie about it. If the time was meant to be greater, then the bible should have specified 1.6425 x 10^12 (1,642,500,000,000 days). If Christians interpret this for 7 days, then clearly they need to go back and learn how to count.

Then which ones are they?

Speaking from the standpoint of a geography major... that's just plain wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to support that the great flood ever happened. No depositional land forms, erosional scarring, or geographic features exist of the scale to which remotely supports this bible tale. So to use this as evidence for your point is just a piss-poor attempt to explain away what exists in the real world. You can still use it, but you must first provide proof that supports the Great Flood.

Given as you will find no evidence to support such a massive act of nature ever happened, you cannot proclaim that the world's face had been completely altered. Now if you don't wish to address this, then may I recommend that you find something other than the flood to support your case?

 

You don't sound like you know what you're saying. And how does this explain how you understand God? If you don't understand this most fundamental aspect of decision-making, then it's downright arrogant of you to even think you can comprehend something on the scale of God. If you don't know... SAY YOU DON'T KNOW. Don't go off inventing rubbish so that you can pretend that you know more than you actually do. Religion thrives on ignorance.

For the first... if God can do evil, then he is imperfect (as Christians proclaim him and Christ to be). If God wishes to remain as such, then he clearly must only do what is good and right. But in so doing that, he restricts what he is capable of. He puts limitations of what he can do... therefore the only deeds he is capable of MUST be only good and right.

But if this is GOD you're talking about, he does not have to consider such measures. He's all powerful, thereby capable of always using the most favorable solution for EVERYTHING. Without limitations, you can literally do anything you desire without the need to consider alternative measures. The only reason anyone would have to make a decision is because they're faced with a situation where they have imperfect choices presented to them.

Would you always select your favorite food if you didn't have to worry about the consequences afterward? God faces no such considerations... perfect solution available for him on everything, infinite resources, all knowing. Once you have all that, then what exactly is left that must be considered?

 

I see you missed the first part of our exchange there. It started when I pointed out that the word translated as "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "age" or "era", meaning an indefinite period of time.

The Hebrew word in question is "yowm", and Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary defines it as "from an unused root meaning 'to be hot'; a day (as the warm hours), whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or fig. (a space of time defined by an associated term)." The same word yowm is used throughout Genesis 1 to refer to each creative period, but is again used in Genesis 2:4 to refer to the entire Creation.

Unknown. If I knew, based on the text of the account, then I would have said as much. All I pointed out is that you cannot assume that just because the names are the same they are the same rivers.

I'm sorry, but I don't have to prove anything to you in this thread. This is the Christianity thread, and here Christian scripture doesn't require proof to be used. I was speaking within the context of that scriptural account, and within that context the story of the Flood takes place after the identification of those rivers by name.

This thread is for the purposes of discussing Christian scripture, doctrines, and interpretations. It is not here to demand proof of their validity or truthfulness. Your comments there are no different than the many trolls over the years who have come into the Mormonism thread demanding that we prove that Mormonism is true. Such demands are out of place there, and they are just as out of place in this thread. This isn't a debate where each side has to prove every little thing. It is a discussion, which is meant to gain understanding of another's perspective rather than prove one side right or wr

 

If you make an accusation or conclusion, then you have to address it. If you do not provide counter evidence to the point, then you are admitting a flaw in your logic. If you cannot prove your point, then you cannot use the 'Great Flood theory' to claim that the world was under water within the last 100,000 years or so.

And I was under the impression that Christians typically didn't go for blind faith. I have a friend who's a Christian and he openly admits that it's important to frequently challenge one's own beliefs, as new evidence will either serve to reinforce the belief, or will diminish one's biased perceptions. If God did create the world in such a way as to challenge the bible, then maybe there is reason for it. If people follow the bible without understanding or believing in it, then that is what I'd call blind faith.

If you're not going to address the world in which you live in, then what's the point? You might as well select to worship the Star Wars universe. It's just about as realistic as you can get.

And I'm not here to prove myself right. I simply see an error in logic on the part of christianity and confront it directly. If I were wrong, then this was supposed to be your chance to shove it down my throat. Instead, you openly refused to confront the issue and grandstanded like some people I know.

If you wish to challenge my accusation, then I encourage it. At least believe in the side you're supporting.

 

I'm sorry, but you just proved that you are trolling this thread, rather than engaging in open discussion.

The standard in the Senate has long been for religious thread that it is not a debate, and that neither side needs to prove that their beliefs are correct. Religious threads in the Senate are supposed to be discussions to further understanding of others' points of view.

As for proof of the Great Flood, the only proof required in this thread is that it is described in Genesis. Your demand that I prove the Great Flood occurred before referencing it to explain something else in the text is akin to you requiring that I prove in the Mormonism thread that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate before discussing any doctrines of Mormonism. it is out of line and out of place in a religious thread here. That was the standard what Lord Bane started the Senate, it was the standard when I was a Senate mod, and it is the same standard stated by Lowbacca_1997 just last week (see his 7/6 2:41am post in red).

If you want a thread attempting to prove or disprove Christianity, this is not the place for it. As stated by ObiWan506, the thread creator and former Head Admin, the purpose of this thread is:

I am not required to defend any beliefs (mine or otherwise) in this thread whatsoever. You are simply out of line. If you want to start a thread discussing proofs for/against the Great Flood, then go right ahead. This isn't the thread for that discussion.

From personal experience I know that trying to prove or disprove religion is a waste of everyone's time. If you want to waste your time like that, be my guest. Just don't try to waste our time here.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The point J-w is making that I think you're missing is that, yes, God will always choose what is good and right, and therefore you could say He is not capable of evil. However, this limitation is not due to some external source, but is fully self-imposed by His own will and character.

The same can be said concerning His omnipotence/omniscience. Any limitation is self-imposed, and therefore takes nothing away from the validity of His deity.

 

And you think I'm not trying to comprehend another's point of view? So is Christianity about blind faith? If so, then I'll just assume any arguments would be futile. One cannot reason with closed minds.

No, because the Great Flood is directly used to explain away the changes in the Earth's rivers after the event was supposed to take place. I'm not claiming the great flood didn't happen, but that there is no evidence supporting that conclusion. Is the bible just a tale about some fictional world somewhere else in the universe? I thought it was supposed to be about humanity and this planet. If not, then what's the point?

I'm trying to understand why some friends of mine value religion, as to help me understand what I need to do to get them to change their minds. I'm trying to understand the subject because I need to understand their train of thought before I can hope to have an impact on them. That's why I'm delving into this subject.

You're not required to, just so long as you know that no one will believe you. Those that do have already made their decision before you started typing.

You're already wasting your time as it is. It's for your own good to debate one's understanding of a subject and the only way one can waste their time is to reinforce biassed perceptions. If you at least TRIED to defend your side, that's worth more than what you're doing now. If you believe a certain way, at least explain why you do. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with me.

 

You missed the entire point of that discussion. It wasn't simply that I, personally, do not know. It was that the best scientific researchers on the subject don't know, either. Do you understand what that means? Your whole argument for why this is contradictory depends on something that we know nothing about. If we don't have the facts of how decision-making works, then we can't say whether God's decision-making as presented in the Bible is impossible/contradictory or not.

I was suggesting that maybe you should base your argument on something where there are actually facts to discuss. Otherwise, all you can do is propose theories for how decision-making works, and discuss whether it contradicts that or not. However, as my post demonstrated, one can just as easily create theories of decision-making where there would be no contradiction as you could create one where there isn't. To put it bluntly, all you are doing here is, once again, arguing based on your personal opinion, in the absence of any real scientific evidence to support you.

Please see Dogbert's explanation of my post in regards to this point. His is worded slightly differently, so you may be able to follow it better.

This whole passage is just weird, and leaves out a lot of things. For instance, it ignores cases in which there are equally good choices available. Further, to "consider" an option is merely to be aware of it's cost and benefits. It doesn't imply that a certain amount of time was spent thinking about it, or that you wrestled with it, or that at one point that option was what you were about to do. It simply means that you comprehended what that possibility entailed, and what it's consequences would be if taken. This can and is done frequently, even when the solution is obvious. For instance, when driving on the highway, you can either drive on the right or wrong side of the divider. Even though it's obvious that you should drive on the correct side, so that everyone is driving in the same direction, everyone also knows it would be possible for them to swerve across the divider. They also know that the consequence of doing so is that they'll probably end up in a head-on collision at some 70 mph, which is why they tend not to do it. Thus, people have considered and rejected the option of driving on the wrong side of the highway, even though it wasn't a difficult decision.

 

You just about summed up everything I would have said in response to Yuthura.

Yuthura, you aren't here to understand Christianity. You are here to validate your own opinion of Christianity. As such, your comments are no more than trolling.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yeah, as an Atheist and someone who finds religious beliefs to be silly I'd say you're not helping the cause, Yuthura. Now, I used to be totally disrespectful of Christianity and people who have faith and I still am if they use their faith as a crutch to justify their own hatred. But I've learned to be more tolerable of those who have faith these days and I've gotta say...that 'reason' for trying to understand Christianity better so you can change your friend's mind is quite possibly the worst justification I've ever seen.

You try to understand someone's beliefs a bit better so you two can find some mutual ground or even if you don't buy into their views you can at least respect them. Not try to win a convert. That's despicable and morally wrong. If someone comes to your way of thinking through logical and convincing arguments, fine. Treating your Atheism as if it were a religion, though, is crap.

 

KK,

Here's the text of Genesis, Chap. 1, verses 1-22

The Creation of the World

1:1 In the beginning 1 God 2 created 3 the heavens and the earth. 4
1:2 Now 5 the earth 6 was without shape and empty, 7 and darkness 8 was over the surface of the watery deep, 9 but the Spirit of God 10 was moving 11 over the surface 12 of the water. 13 1:3 God said, 14 ?Let there be 15 light.? 16 And there was light! 1:4 God saw 17 that the light was good, 18 so God separated 19 the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called 20 the light ?day? and the darkness 21 ?night.? There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. 22

The bolded part is very clear that morning and evening, 12 hours each, were the first day. The creation of plants, animals and man took place over the next 5 days.

In Genesis Chap. 2, however, the timeline does get murky. In fact, Genesis Chap. 2 seems to be by a different person, as things are out of step with Genesis Chap. 1.

If you go by Chap. 2, then, yes, the word 'yowm' can mean ages. However, many words have 2, 3, 4 or more different meanings, depending on how they are used (context).

And the meaning of words can change over the years.

 

It's true, but there's no reason to expect that the meaning of "yowm" significantly changes between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, because they are both part of the same narrative. The books of Moses weren't divided into chapters until about 585 BC.

And again, there's nothing in those verses that requires it to be a 24-hour day for the entire process. We don't know how long it took to separate light from darkness. All we know is that at the end of it, the first creative period was marked by an evening and a morning.

It also doesn't guarantee that the other creative periods were 24 hours each. After all, just a few paragraphs later, the same word was used to refer to all seven period. That at least suggests that interpreting the word as "era" or "age" is a reasonable interpretation. (Note: I'm not saying that your interpretation is false. I'm just pointing out that there are other, alternative interpretations that also fit the text. Young-earth creationism and old-earth creationsim are both supportable through the text in Genesis.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

This was intended as a joke, but clearly didn't pass as such. Obviously you wouldn't present something like this in a thread with the clear implication that it would be used against that particular topic. It's not like I really expected people here to see any incentive in complimenting that point. Clearly it was taken seriously.

I do have christian friends, but have since given up on them. To attack their beliefs would have alienated the friendship.

 

have you softened FIDo?

 

Of course. Mainly due to my friends, they're good people and they're not pushy with their faith. That and our old discussions in PM helped as well. I'll still mock the religious when the mood strikes, but it's generally only the ones who make asses of themselves with their arguments and such. To be sure, I still believe that faith thrives on ignorance, but I'm not out to win any converts.

 

KK,

That differences in interpretation are possible is what makes studying the Bible so interesting, as long as people don't insist that their interpretation is the only one or the only correct one.

I know some very pushy young earth creationists who will tell you that you have to take Genesis literally, because if there was no Eden, no Adam and Eve, then there was no fall and no need for a Redeemer.

 

Darth_Yuthura, for purposes of this thread, citations of the Bible are considered valid. Interpretations can be questioned and discussed, but for the scope of this thread there is no need for anyone to prove that the Bible is valid to use. That is considered to be an axiom of this discussion. A particular interpretation of it is not necessarily protected, but it's entirely valid for someone to bring up the Bible as evidence without establishing it as a source first as this thread incorporates that. The fundamentals of Christianity are not on trial in this thread. I do not want to, and should not have to, make this point again.

I'd disagree with this somewhat. Or rather, technically you can ignore defending views entirely, but some of those views are taken as presumed to some extent (like that the Bible is generally a valid source) and don't need to be defended but things like interpretations of it are at least open to question as much as they'd be in any discussion. I'd not give it the absolute immunity you suggest, although it's certainly a greater level than any other thread would have.


As for the Genesis part.... two points, first in relation to the rivers, you suggest that they could well have renamed the rivers we know of with those older names as per the example you gave. However, when the rivers are listed, it lists the Tigris in relation to Assyria, which seems to imply that those rivers are the same rivers known at the time, rather than other rivers with the same names. The text does then establish that at least one of the rivers is the same as the one we know about post-Flood.
And how far later from it's original defining in Genesis 1 was yowm used to refer to the same day? Is that still within Genesis 1, or referring to Genesis 2 usage? Mainly asking as it would seem a jump to interpret the word as necessarily having the same usage in both. In particular, for most of Genesis, it repeatedly cites the evenings and nights as well, rather than just using the word so the definition seems to be clear.

(all citations are from biblegateway.com )
Throughout Genesis 1, the definition includes the evening and morning which seems to make it quite clear that there's a tie to day, although I'd agree in that it's never necessarily established to be a day of any numerically defined length, however it does seem to be a constant time period once it is determined, not a more nebulous term like era.

Beyond which, if we strive for the stance that Genesis 2 is, effectively, consistent in how it uses terms with Genesis 1, how do you address the different chronologies in the two? For Genesis 1, God makes man on the 6th day, after plants and animals. But Genesis 2:4-7 states that when God formed man that plants hadn't yet been made, and animals don't get made by God until 2:19-20. How do you resolve the different orders in the two sections of text?

 

Alright, a simple question: Why doesn't God heal amputees who pray to him? If he is capable of restoring lost limbs, then why doesn't he for some of his more devoted followers? I will adhere to the rules of this thread, so I will treat the bible as accurate and God as the all-powerful being he is.

I do know of some who believe God saves people from terrible diseases, but there are absolutely no cases where something as simple as a lost limb was ever fully healed. Why are some ailments healed by God while others are such that they never fully recover from?

 

A. We don't know that he doesn't. The Bible isn't an exhaustive list of everything God has ever done in the entire history of the Universe. All the various books are rather explicit about the fact that they're leaving things out. One of the gospel writers claims at one point that trying to record even a complete list of the things Jesus did would require him to write more than the total of all written work produced by mankind from the dawn of time until the time of his writing.

B. Assuming that He didn't, why would we ever expect to know? Contrary to that favorite of atheist criticisms of religion, most people don't believe what they do because of some pathological inability to admit they don't know things. Both the writers of the Bible, the people they were writing about, and the Christian readers are all quite frank about not knowing plenty of things. And again, I would note that God knows more than a human could possibly comprehend in a lifetime, is has greater intelligence/analytical skill to handle that knowledge, and a much longer term perspective than we do. It would be sort of odd if, in spite of all that, we were still able to perfectly understand everything that happened and how it fit together with everything else.

 

That's it? There have been tens of thousands who've lost limbs in only the last hundred years or so. Why have none of those people been given a means to have their healthy bodies restored? If by regrowing the limbs like lizards, magically having an arm restored, or by a miracle of medical advancement... but no. Once any person has lost a limb, there is a reasonable presumption that they've lost it forever.

Not one record exists... not one... of a human miraculously recovering from an injury that involves losing more than a hand or a foot. If this is inaccurate, then I would like to know that a friend of mine may one day get his legs back. All he did was defend his country and yet he will never walk again.

Your point being? I'm not asking for Jesus to have shot lasers out of his eyes, taken the moon out of its orbit, or to do every conceivable action... just to prove that he can. I'm asking for him to have performed one element of what probably defined Jesus more than anything... healing.

Why is it that some ailments could be cured (by Jesus or God) while some are quite permanent? Jesus could give back a person's eyes, restore a spinal injury(so a person could walk again), and even revive the dead on one occasion. Why are those with lost limbs discriminated against?

Uh... because it would have been more remarkable than restoring a blind man's sight? Because witnesses might have watched a person's phantom limb regenerate and been more convinced than just watching a person stand up(after having a spinal injury repaired). They could have seen the power working on a level almost as remarkable as reviving the dead. Surely such an act would have been memorable. Why should anyone assume it would just slip someone's mind if it weren't witnessed?

There is some content here that I would completely agree with, but there is a lot that doesn't work. You admit there is a lot more that we DON'T know than what we do... very reasonable to admit one's ignorance when the answer isn't apparent. Yet your message seems to boil down to 'We don't always know God's plans.'

 

My point being, Jesus probably did restore someone's limb at one point or another. Just because it isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the Biblical writers weren't as impressed by that particular miracle as you seem to be.

{quote=Yuthura]Why are those with lost limbs discriminated against?[/quote]

Are they? Again, all miracles are not recorded. The majority were not. You can't say with any certainty that this wasn't one of the many unrecorded miracles.

Seeing as how people were actually raised from the dead, I don't see your point. Besides, there are myriad other possibilities like witnessing the miracle but being unable to write, witnessing the miracle but not being able to convince others it really happened (a concern that's raised more than once in the Gospels), or making a written record that was subsequently lost or destroyed (you know, like a huge amount of historical material always has been?). But for what it's worth I meant why should we expect to know God's reasoning for every particular person he does or does not choose to heal.

Seeing as how your message seems to boil down to "Why don't we get to know God's plans," it seemed like an appropriate response.