Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You should reread this and contemplate what it actually means. It's really quite a bizarre statement.

It is deduced from Jesus’ words on the cross My God, My God Why have you forsaken me? Self alienation is not unknown in psychology. Alienation from God in a sinner is an obvious consequence. For Jesus to be in such a position as divine he would have to be the bearer of sin from else where.

What's the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?

God is the antithesis of evil hence Jesus sense of rejection on the cross. The sin is taken on by Jesus humanity and because he is human and divine it becomes an act of mediation between the two.

Hang on. Jesus endured only a couple of days of being dead.

You don’t endure anything when you are dead. Besides, Jesus is bearing the consequence of human sin so I don’t really recognise your argument here

How can that be restitution for all of human sin? Even if he had stayed dead, it would only have been the equivalent of one fifth of Jack the Ripper's murders. One measly three day crucifixion is nowhere near enough to pay restitution for all of humanity's crimes.

On the other hand, if it's about forgiveness, there was no reason at all for Jesus to be crucified. God could just say "I forgive you" and it would be done.

That would be an obvious kind of magic given the consequences of sin on the perpetrator.As far as we are concerned God has opened the way to himself. Will you take it?

Moderator: quoting sorted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By every measurable metric suffering is consistently lower in nations with lower levels of religiosity. You can make any claims you want about hypothetical, undemonstrable, psycho-metaphysical 'sin' levels that you want to, but until you can demonstrate they're any more real than your claims of the god you use them to try to justify I'll stick with the DEMONSTRABLE REALITY of the correlation between better standards of living and lower religiosity.

And you can show the widespread suffering in the world that arises from, say, Scandinavia, how? The consistent inability of people to decipher IKEA instructions? Nokia phones? Lapland's apparent stranglehold on Santa?

Yes, we are. And when we do those countries with developed technology and higher levels of formal education - which also correlate with lower religiosity, though perhaps not as strongly - will still be better off than the countries that cling to religion as some sort of comfort blanket when they see they aren't those happier, safer places.

No, he wasn't. He's an entirely mythic creation, regardless of whether the 'god' of the story is real, Adam was not.

He was, supposedly, made ignorant of good and evil, and was punished for doing evil... he picked from a tempting tree put in front of a being given curiosity and no understanding of wrongdoing... he was put near a tree that meant 'certain death', yet a being that could create the entirety of reality couldn't understand how to build a bloody fence?

God created this reality, knowing what would happen - any 'sacrifice' in there is meaningless, because God chose that reality when he founded it, if you accept the tale - time is entire, it all exists, it's our sense of it that is limited. If god created everything, that includes time, and if god is outside of time then he can see - and foresee - it all. Ergo, if Adam 'sinned', it's because God chose to create that reality; Jesus 'sacrifice' was part of the plan.

O.

Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made. Wealthy nations have stood by and supported corrupt inefficient governments to get things on the cheap.

Regarding human sin God is not the author.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made.

Oh yes that's right Vlad - all those countries with healthcare meaning that people live longer and healthier lives, with education to provide opportunities for rewarding and well rewarded careers, with low infant mortality rates so parents are likely to see their children grow up, with the ability to enjoy a retirement, and typically with democracy so that people have a say in how their countries are run and protection of human rights, with greater equality between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

Yup all those are clearly terrible things and we should strive for a society where people die young, including as children, have limited education/prospects, live in poverty with huge social and economic inequalities, will have a hand to mouth existence until they die, have no say in who rules them and likely are subjected to routine infringement of their basic human rights.

Of course all those things in the former list correlate with lack of religiosity in a country, and the latter correlate with high levels of religiosity in a country.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding human sin God is not the author.

If you believe that all creation is god's creation, then of course god is the author of human sin. You can't cherry pick Vlad - you can't assert that god created everything than then claim that he only created the good stuff and not the bad stuff.

[jeremyp]

It is deduced from Jesus’ words on the cross My God, My God Why have you forsaken me?

Ah, so Jesus is not God then, according to Mark. Glad we sorted that out.

The sin is taken on by Jesus humanity and because he is human and divine it becomes an act of mediation between the two.

You haven't answered the question. Who made the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?

You don’t endure anything when you are dead.

So what was the sacrifice then? I admit hanging on a cross for an afternoon is pretty bad, but some crucifixion victim endured for days, so what Jesus did hardly seems like "restitution" for the sins of all mankind.

Besides, Jesus is bearing the consequence of human sin so I don’t really recognise your argument here That would be an obvious kind of magic given the consequences of sin on the perpetrator.As far as we are concerned God has opened the way to himself.

Why did he need to crucify himself to do it though? Surely God makes all the rules. Why did he paint himself into such a terrible corner?

Will you take it?

Jesus didn't die for my sins. I wasn't born then and in any case, I'll take responsibility for my wn actions. I refuse to accept I have the blood of Jesus on my hands.

[Outrider]

Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made. Wealthy nations have stood by and supported corrupt inefficient governments to get things on the cheap.

Regards the 'scourge' of economic suffering - everyone is better off than they were - some by more than others, it could be more equitable, but there is nowhere in the world that suffers now as it once did.

Regarding human sin God is not the author.

Regarding sin - isn't God the creator of everything in this little fairy tale?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

it could be more equitable,

True - but there is a clear correlation between inequality within a country and its religiosity. And of course also a a clear correlation between average wealth within a country and its lack of religiosity.

So just think about that - the poorest in many highly religious countries are grindingly poor (way, way more so that in countries with low levels of religiosity) - but not only are they grindingly poor their countries support inequality far greater than in low religiosity countries.

It is almost as if religions aren't really interested in acting to eradicate poverty and inequality - almost as if they need a ready supply of poor people to 'do good to' in order to satisfy their religious requirements.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you believe that all creation is god's creation, then of course god is the author of human sin. You can't cherry pick Vlad - you can't assert that god created everything than then claim that he only created the good stuff and not the bad stuff.

God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, so Jesus is not God then, according to Mark. Glad we sorted that out.

You haven't answered the question. Who made the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?

So what was the sacrifice then? I admit hanging on a cross for an afternoon is pretty bad, but some crucifixion victim endured for days, so what Jesus did hardly seems like "restitution" for the sins of all mankind.
Why did he need to crucify himself to do it though? Surely God makes all the rules. Why did he paint himself into such a terrible corner?
Jesus didn't die for my sins. I wasn't born then and in any case, I'll take responsibility for my wn actions. I refuse to accept I have the blood of Jesus on my hands.

Orthodox Christianity found plenty in the life of Jesus to consider him divine and human and in his sayings on the cross. There were other Jesus based sects who viewed him as God's adopted son.

[Gordon]

Orthodox Christianity found plenty in the life of Jesus to consider him divine and human and in his sayings on the cross. There were other Jesus based sects who viewed him as God's adopted son.

Here's a point, Vlad, that has always seemed odd to me - I've heard Christians say along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting) that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son" (or words to that effect) - but this is 'God' right, and as you recently said it created the "material universe", so how come 'God' couldn't have more that one son?

Hell - even my oldest daughter has more than one son, so why couldn't 'God' have 23, 137 or 1308 sons if it wanted to? After all, if it could create the "material universe" it could surely have as many sons as it wanted and we could have had a Jesus suited to every age throughout history, so that we'd now have an internet-savvy Jesus with PR skills suited to the 21st century: surely that would be a lot better for 'God', believability-wise, compared to a bunch of ancient anecdotes of largely unknown provenance that contain fantastical claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.

Cop out Vlad - if god is the creator then he is directly or indirectly responsible for the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. If god isn't responsible for what goes on in the universe then that means he isn't really the omnipotent creator christianity claims, and it also means that you cannot claim the good stuff as his creation.

It is childishly Pollyanna-ish to create this god of yours and claim all the good stuff, every person miraculously pulled from a building after an earthquake, every good deed, every person who survives cancer to be his doing, which claiming that all the bad stuff, the child killed in an accident, the people who die in an earthquake, all those that don't survive cancer etc as nothing to do with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cop out Vlad - if god is the creator then he is directly or indirectly responsible for the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. If god isn't responsible for what goes on in the universe then that means he isn't really the omnipotent creator christianity claims, and it also means that you cannot claim the good stuff as his creation.

It is childishly Pollyanna-ish to create this god of yours and claim all the good stuff, every person miraculously pulled from a building after an earthquake, every good deed, every person who survives cancer to be his doing, which claiming that all the bad stuff, the child killed in an accident, the people who die in an earthquake, all those that don't survive cancer etc as nothing to do with him.

Pollyanna-ish? The Christian prognosis for the alienated self is about as bad as it gets.

Science does not do Good or bad. The badness of the cosmos I would move comes from alienation towards it.
And that derives from our alienation from God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here's a point, Vlad, that has always seemed odd to me - I've heard Christians say along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting) that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son" (or words to that effect) - but this is 'God' right, and as you recently said it created the "material universe", so how come 'God' couldn't have more that one son?

Hell - even my oldest daughter has more than one son, so why couldn't 'God' have 23, 137 or 1308 sons if it wanted to? After all, if it could create the "material universe" it could surely have as many sons as it wanted and we could have had a Jesus suited to every age throughout history, so that we'd now have an internet-savvy Jesus with PR skills suited to the 21st century: surely that would be a lot better for 'God', believability-wise, compared to a bunch of ancient anecdotes of largely unknown provenance that contain fantastical claims.

God fully identifies with mankind by being a person. Any other mode of incarnation and this full identification falls down and is imv a bit freakish.

[Gordon]

God fully identifies with mankind by being a person. Any other mode of incarnation and this full identification falls down and is imv a bit freakish.

Why "freakish"?

Maybe more than one Jesus at a time would be overkill, but why wouldn't 'God' send another now and again to deal with changing circumstances so as to get the message across? I hear tell of people called 'influencers' who use the internet to promote stuff (or themselves) so maybe 'God' is missing a trick by not doing the same - just think how much more effective 'miracles' would be if they were captured by CCTV, where the prevailing conditions were known, such as numbers of witnesses, and where any witnesses could be questioned systematically immediately.

I think 'God' is missing an opportunity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Pollyanna-ish?

Yup in terms of 'everything good is to do with god, everything bad ... well nothing to do with god' - you made that very point in a post just a short while ago on this thread.

Science does not do Good or bad.

True, but nor does it claim to, unlike your god. And the notion of good and bad is an entirely human-centric matter - humans define morality. The concept of good and bad is completely meaningless to an asteroid in a distant solar system devoid of life.

The badness of the cosmos I would move comes from alienation towards it.
And that derives from our alienation from God.

Complete nonsense - what we define as good is down to cultural and societal norms associated with humans, what is defined as bad is down to cultural and societal norms associated with humans. And, of course, what is considered good and bad fluctuates over time. That some cultures ascribe good/bad to a human created god does not alter the point that human morality is defined by, err, humans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why "freakish"?

Maybe more than one Jesus at a time would be overkill, but why wouldn't 'God' send another now and again to deal with changing circumstances so as to get the message across? I hear tell of people called 'influencers' who use the internet to promote stuff (or themselves) so maybe 'God' is missing a trick by not doing the same - just think how much more effective 'miracles' would be if they were captured by CCTV, where the prevailing conditions were known, such as numbers of witnesses, and where any witnesses could be questioned systematically immediately.

I think 'God' is missing an opportunity.

Why freakish? BECAUSE A HUMAN IS ONLY EVER 1 person with one life I suppose anything other than that and humanity as it is experienced is not fully identified with.

[Gordon]

Why freakish? BECAUSE A HUMAN IS ONLY EVER 1 person with one life I suppose anything other than that and humanity as it is experienced is not fully identified with.

But I thought you guys believed that Jesus was 'God', was still around so that you could have a relationship with him, and that at some point Jesus was to return: in effect then Jesus can't be equated with a common or garden human. Therefore, if Jesus is still around in some sense, and is due to return at some point, then I'd have thought regular reappearances might be an effective strategy and quite consistent with him not being permanently dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I thought you guys believed that Jesus was 'God', was still around so that you could have a relationship with him, and that at some point Jesus was to return: in effect then Jesus can't be equated with a common or garden human. Therefore, if Jesus is still around in some sense, and is due to return at some point, then I'd have thought regular reappearances might be an effective strategy and quite consistent with him not being permanently dead.

We believe he is both Man and God. Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle of God as a promise of future resurrection and to start the Church.

[Gordon]

We believe he is both Man and God. Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle of God as a promise of future resurrection and to start the Church.

If 'miracles' are events that have an "ultra low probability" there are (at least) a couple of issues that immediately arise: first, how to estimate probability when it comes to divine agency/miracle claims and, second, if the available methods for estimating probability of 'miracles' are all naturalistic then what you say about the resurrection being an "ultra low probability" claim implies that divine agency is also naturalistic and not supernatural.

I think you guys need to think through the consequences of what you believe, since what you believe doesn't seem to hang together too well.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle ...

Something with a low probability isn't a miracle, just an event with a low probability.

If I roll a dice twenty times and get 6, 3, 4, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 6, 5, 3, 4, 3, 2, 6, 6, 5, 1, 4, 1

The probability of that sequence is 1 in 3,656,158,440,062,976, which is a pretty ultra low probability. Does that make this sequence a 'miracle' - of course not.

[Outrider]

God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.

No, time is not something that is happening to the universe in an ongoing manner, time is a dimension through which we are moving, but the relative past, present and future are all there, all the time.

I God creates 'the universe', he creates our subjective future alongside our subjective past, and everything in between.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If 'miracles' are events that have an "ultra low probability" there are (at least) a couple of issues that immediately arise: first, how to estimate probability when it comes to divine agency/miracle claims and, second, if the available methods for estimating probability of 'miracles' are all naturalistic then what you say about the resurrection being an "ultra low probability" claim implies that divine agency is also naturalistic and not supernatural.

I think you guys need to think through the consequences of what you believe, since what you believe doesn't seem to hang together too well.   

Naturalistic is without God I take it. That is philosophical naturalism.
Implies that divine agency is naturalistic? It isn't by definition. What makes you think it might be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, time is not something that is happening to the universe in an ongoing manner, time is a dimension through which we are moving, but the relative past, present and future are all there, all the time.

I God creates 'the universe', he creates our subjective future alongside our subjective past, and everything in between.

O.

God is the answer to why something rather than nothing. So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.

[Stranger]

God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.

No it isn't. God, if it exists, is something.

And there is no point in making vague references to "the argument from contingency" unless you're ready to present some version of it and defend it. Claiming that a god is 'necessary' is meaningless babble unless you can fully explain it.

So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.

Whoosh!

[Outrider]

God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.

No, 'God' is a way to avoid admitting 'we don't know'.

So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.

No, there are any number of mathematical models of an infinite universe that do not require any gods.

Neither of those points addresses the question, though: how do you reconcile a theology founded on human free will with the idea of a created universe which would make the idea of free will impossible?

O.