Post-Christianity? (probably not the right title)

[Neil D]

In my younger days, I ran a drama group...I was the director, working with a volunteer force to go to various churches to perform skits and plays....

I have seen people/wanna be actors desire to take over my drama group. I have seen people want the lime light and thier 15 minutes of fame. I have seen wanna bees desire to take over the acting group and kill it. These are 4 year college educated people....who desire the limelight, want to micro manage the actors, and who have NO clue how to work Reader's Theater in a play setting, TELL ME that they know better than I how the author wanted the play done. [i know the author of the play and they have never met the author].

And you're asking the following????

Quote:

Anybody with any kind of wisdom comes to a realization that the praise of people for greatness has no meaning. Why would Lucifer become mentally unstable if he was created perfect and brilliant? Only the immature waste their time trying to gain the praise of others as a basis of their self worth.

And what kind of test would be considered fair to pit the most brilliant being in the Universe other than God with the most immature? I know how easy it is to trick most children and even some adults.

You are kidding me, aren't you????

you haven't been involved in office politics either, have you?

[cardw]

Quote:

You are kidding me, aren't you????

you haven't been involved in office politics either, have you?

Are you saying that God created beings with sinful tendencies?

Office politics are for the immature, not ageless beings of the universe. Do you think Lucifer was only 20 years old?

And if Lucifer wasn't experienced enough to handle the position, why did God place him in such a high responsibility?

No matter how you set this up an all knowing God is ultimately responsible.

It doesn't matter what your drama group did, supposedly heavenly beings don't have the same desires for position and power. Its not comparing apples with apples.

[Neil D]

Quote:

And if Lucifer wasn't experienced enough to handle the position, why did God place him in such a high responsibility?

No matter how you set this up an all knowing God is ultimately responsible.

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

You have it partically right, in that God is either all in it, or not a part of it....And since office politics are for the "immature", you have never been thru a power struggle in an office where one is gonna leave if the other gets the position/what he wants...

And no, God did NOT create being with sinful tendencys, but rather being with the ability to rebel in various forms and the ability to adapt to the results of those sinful tendencys.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

But Richard's point does not pertain to Adventism, but to the Bible. Is he correct in saying that Adventism's principled opposition to slavery is in opposition to the explicit teaching of the Bible?

Richard is really all over the map in this thread. Every time one of his points is refuted he brings up something else. So I am really not trying to dialog with Richard specifically. I am tossing ideas out into the arena of ideas where an exchange of ideas is taking place.

This is how this thread began:

Quote:

So this is the thread for that discussion. I count myself as a Christian, and yet in the recent Australian election I put all the 'Christian' parties at the bottom of my ballot because they stood for racism, intolerance and rampant capitalism including the deliberate continuation of social disadvantage.

Please try to understand that this is not about rejecting Christianity (for me at least - others' experience may be different) - but about hanging onto it with my last breath.

In this context, should not Adventism be contrast with other sects and denominations of Christianity? Couldn't Adventism be the answer to "Post-Christianity?" When an atheist with an ax to grind starts attacking Christianity and his or her points are not applicable to the Adventist movement, shouldn't that be pointed out on an Adventist forum?

The issue of slavery is itself a bit off topic, Originally I responded to that attack on the Bible that it taught racism. Then the topic was changed from racism to slavery. The Bible does allow slavery, it does not teach racism. Those are two separate issues. If we are going to honestly examine the issue of slavery, we would have to compare and contrast the practice of slavery in Biblical times with that of early America. Yet, bare in mind, the Bible also allows divorce and polygamy but these are not part of God's ideal. God allows men to eat meat but it was not part of the original diet.

[cardw]

Quote:

Richard is really all over the map in this thread. Every time one of his points is refuted he brings up something else.

You have yet to refute one of my positions. Let me give you an example from this very post. You refute positions that I haven't taken.

You state that the Bible does not teach racism. This is a Red Herring. From the laws that I posted the Israelites treated their slaves as poorly as the US did. Talk about bringing up new subjects. If you note I was talking about slavery. Slavery is evil whether or not its racist.

Quote:

The issue of slavery is itself a bit off topic, Originally I responded to that attack on the Bible that it taught racism.

My original dialog was about slavery. It is you who brought racism to the table. The Israelite law was certainly racist. If you were Jewish and a slave you would be released in 6 years. If you weren't you were a slave for life. Is this not preferential treatment based on race?

It also treated Jewish women slaves differently. They were not released in 6 years but could be resold.

And you have totally ignored the laws regarding the treatment of slaves. You have purposely ignored them and refused to address the cruelty of allowing masters to beat their slaves unconscious as long as they got up in 2 days.

This dramatically demonstrates a total lack of empathy when the Bible authorizes cruel treatment. This dramatically demonstrates the blindness of a fundamental belief in the Bible to the suffering of others who are labeled evil or ungodly.

The more you post, the more you prove my points.

[cardw]

Quote:

And no, God did NOT create being with sinful tendencys, but rather being with the ability to rebel in various forms and the ability to adapt to the results of those sinful tendencys.

So if Satan did not have a sinful tendency, then where did the motivation come from to rebel?

If one were to rebel, they would have to go against their very nature. I cannot imagine any motivation strong enough within a perfect world to destroy that harmony unless one was mad.

One would certainly have the ability to rebel, but WHY?

Your motivations are based on those who's nature is based in fear, the collection of power, and control. Before sin, according to your cosmology, no fear existed and so no need for control or desire for greatness would exist.

Your premise presumes that Satan had sinful desires.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Your premise presumes that Satan had sinful desires.

No, it doesn't.

The premise presumes the ability to choose to go with God and to go against God. In a perfect world, choice is available to all.

In a perfect world, one would be able to expand his abilities to do all sort of things that he has learned. All of creation would be an open book....until all things were learned....with one exception....the abilitiy to create life.

If you had the universe available to study, and could do anything, but were denied the ability to create life, you would be in essence denied the abilities to become God. That is something to possilbly get jealous over...that is something to get bothered over....

Quote:

So if Satan did not have a sinful tendency, then where did the motivation come from to rebel?

That is called the "mystery of sin". There is no reason for it's existance and yet, it is there...

[John317]

Quote:

And no, God did NOT create being with sinful tendencys, but rather being with the ability to rebel in various forms and the ability to adapt to the results of those sinful tendencys.

So if Satan did not have a sinful tendency, then where did the motivation come from to rebel?

It's impossible to explain sin because it had no cause. Sin arose out of free will. God created intelligent beings with the ability to choose. As the Bible tells it, one of the beings closest to God rebelled. He began to question God's way and spread those questions among the other beings. He began to harbor jealous thoughts, particularly against the archangel, Michael. It appears that Lucifer did not realize that Michael was actually God. He felt jealous that Michael was able to enter into the plan of God to make human beings, whereas he himself was left outside the discussion and planning.

At about this point, there was a "war" in heaven. God did not destroy Lucifer and the angels who followed Lucifer.

What would you have done in that situation?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You have yet to refute one of my positions.

LOL

Not just me... Neil, David and John have been slicing up and exposing the weakness of atheistic opinions like a side of beef in a butcher shop. Of course, monkeys that cover their eyes cannot see anything but that doesn't mean there is nothing to see.

[cardw]

Quote:

If you had the universe available to study, and could do anything, but were denied the ability to create life, you would be in essence denied the abilities to become God. That is something to possilbly get jealous over...that is something to get bothered over....

This is a problem of motivation. No one who has the awareness of the futility of jealousy would ever choose to let jealousy influence them to try to attain something they clearly could not.

I may want to be able to travel in space, but only someone who is crazy would get all bent out of shape because they wanted to have the ability to space travel. And supposedly Lucifer is several orders of more intelligent than we are.

Quote:

That is called the "mystery of sin". There is no reason for it's existance and yet, it is there...

Well this pretty much gets the case thrown out of court. If there is no reason for someone having sin in their life then there is no just cause to punish them.

If we don't know the cause of something then we have no idea how to fix it.

This is why the whole system of Christian thought falls apart. It simply does not make sense in terms of justice, intelligence, or as a solution. And yet many of you seem to speak so confidently of your claims, when all along you don't even know how sin got here.

[cardw]

Quote:

Not just me... Neil, David and John have been slicing up and exposing the weakness of atheistic opinions like a side of beef in a butcher shop. Of course, monkeys that cover their eyes cannot see anything but that doesn't mean there is nothing to see.

Well, I see you have resorted to boasting instead of reason. This is a clear sign that you have nothing to refute my positions. You are simply being lazy.

[Dr. Shane]

Neil has gotten to the point of repeating himself. That is up to him if he wants to continue doing so. I don't see the need. I, Neil, John and others have shown the error in the atheistic opinions expressed here. I don't see the need to repeat myself simply because someone with an ax to grind fails to agree.

[cardw]

Quote:

Neil has gotten to the point of repeating himself. That is up to him if he wants to continue doing so. I don't see the need. I, Neil, John and others have shown the error in the atheistic opinions expressed here. I don't see the need to repeat myself simply because someone with an ax to grind fails to agree.

You are welcome to interpret this any way you want. I have given counter arguments to your points and you continue to ignore those. So, to me, either you can't understand what I am saying, or you are willfully misrepresenting my positions.

You do keep repeating yourself, without addressing my counters. It doesn't make it any more true.

[Bravus]

Well, we did pretty well - up to about the 16th page we were able to keep it civil and keep it a conversation. Thanks to all who participated, and I do think it's had value in helping each of us to think through our own beliefs, ideas and positions.

I'm not sure there's much point continuing, since the debate seems to have degenerated into 'did too, did not', but...

I think part of the discussion is between a holistic and a piecemeal consideration of the Bible.

David K is saying that, if we take the Bible as a whole, we come up with a chronicle of a loving God dealing with people where they are and in less than ideal situations. That holistic perspective is used to give meaning to the 'difficult passages' like those about slavery and a number of other issues.

Richard is taking each of the pieces more individually. He acknowledges the wisdom in Jesus' teachings and the concern for the poor that come through in the Bible, but also feels that, if the claim is that God is perfect, any single instance of imperfection falsifies that claim. He then looks at specific teachings to test the claim of God's perfection.

Both positions are logical in their own ways, but we're not going to get far while continuing to argue from different premises.

I wonder whether there is value in talking about how those who continue to believe in God's perfection and the Bible's inspiration choose to deal with the 'difficult passages'? Are they largely explained in terms of cultural relevance and of being less than God's ideal but appropriate to the culture at the time? That seems to be the point made.

That in turn makes me wonder whether, if the less-than-ideal treatment of divorce in the OT that Jesus later over-turned, and the less-than-ideal treatment of slavery are explained in that way... is it possible that the proscriptions on homosexuality, as one example, are also less-than-ideal expressions of the contemporary culture?

[David Koot]

So, if you have other evidence in regard to this incident, I would like to know.

Delighted to. Although, at the moment the wife is making demands on my time I will get back to this as soon as I can. Should be an interesting adventure.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

up to about the 16th page we were able to keep it civil and keep it a conversation.

I guess you missed these comments by Richard:

Page 4: “Now I admire your ability to hang in here, but (and this is not to be insulting, but in the spirit of AA an expression of truth) your ability to reason is poor.”

Page 5: “Some of your other views are so convoluted that it really goes beyond this particular dialog.”

Page 7: “I don't need to give this much thought because even most children would see the injustice of this. This deserves to be mocked.”

Page 9: “This is pretty much putting blinders on.”

Page 11: “You're a mean one Mr. Grinch.”

Page 12: “Smoke and mirrors… You have put up very little substance.”

We are obviously dealing with someone that has an ax to grind and not interested in listening to reason. Those that think they have all the answers have nothing to learn.

[Bravus]

C'mon man, I'm trying to work toward more discourse rather than less... I'm sure he could post a similar list from the 'other side', but I'm also sure that doesn't take us forward.

[Dr. Shane]

Well let's not pretend that everything was civil until the 16th page. If we want to give the atheist a little more leeway that is fine. But let's not pretend that he is being well mannered and respectful of others here.

[Bravus]

I honestly think that the (dis)honours in terms of abuse have been about equally shared, and no-one is getting any extra leeway. But I think we've proved here a number of times that such judgements are notoriously subjective and 'in the eye of the beholder'.

But if it will get the conversation going again, and focused on the issue, I'm very happy to recant my statement that we'd kept it mostly civil for the first 16 pages.

[Dr. Shane]

I am anxiously awaiting David Koot's wife letting him get back to the computer.

[olger]

:)

[cardw]

Quote:

If we want to give the atheist a little more leeway that is fine.

I really don't care if you treat me respectfully or not. The less respectful you treat me the more evidence you give that Christianity doesn't work in your life. If not treating people sarcastically is a value that you hold and you don't keep it then what ever you are doing isn't working.

I clearly admit when I am being insulting. When I insult its intentional. For me, its to make a point. You might notice that I can have very civil conversations with people who at least make an attempt to understand what I am saying and respond to it.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. And I don't really care if you are being sarcastic or not. I have enough confidence in what I have studied to bring my ideas forward. I have evidence that I produce when needed. And I am open to your evidence. But most of what you have given is claims. I am used to researching things, but you don't give anything to research.

I would like to note that I am no longer Richard, but I have become "the atheist" and I am being given leeway, since I must be so handicapped compared to you Christians.

It is this type of attitude that is promoted by the Bible. The Bible teaches us to marginalize certain populations who have different beliefs or practices. It is a tribal document and won't rise above that world view when viewed as a literal truth.

I have no problem with people reading it historically, mystically, or even inspirationally. It is the particular world view that requires a literal understanding of the Bible that I believe is harmful and unsustainable on a rational ethical level. It is this view of the Bible that creates the idea that there is only one way to understand the problems in the world.

[Stan]

Richard...

I want to make it clear, that you will always be welcome here. Always.. have not read everything, to wordy for my short attention span... o look donuts be right back :)

[olger]

What are the driving concepts of postmodern thinking? To cite only a few, I’m sensitive that several of you are aware of these: Every person is now crafting for himself the true reality in which he or she lives. It does not come from outside, it is not something learned from outside, but the tools already reside within the person to work upon what factual material may be acquired. This means that there are no absolute, universal truths that apply to everyone. For them, reality is an individualized creation.

Since reality for each person is an internal construct (different in every person because no two are the same), the idea of one sovereign Creator who defines right and wrong becomes untenable. On this basis we must be prepared to accept all other ideas and behaviors as equally correct.

Concurrent with the above we are witnessing a remarkable migration of religion among us. From objective to subjective premise. This exactly parallels the postmodern concept of individualized auto-developed reality. Adventist self-identity once rested on adherence to external truths found in and accepted from the word of God. The experiential element always has been there, but it was used to define my reaction, my surrender to a new birth, my response to the call of Christ.

Today’s church ministers to a moving target population. Our faith was hammered together during the solidifying days of what came to be called the modern age. Shaped by deism’s absent god, rejection of the supernatural, profound humanistic confidence buttressed by an endemic optimism, it foresaw an unlimited human development as the wave of the future. The scientific methods would in time meet every human need leading to a wonder world. And it could stand free from all references to God. This is what I am hearing in our friend Richard.

Darwin’s explanation of origins rested on the doctrine of inevitable progress, a theory that he thought proved sound in the forward march of science & technology. Underlying all of this is the premise that nature is but an inert object to be manipulated by human ingenuity through objective examination and testing. May I point out to you that today, that view has been all but abandoned. Now we have new age understanding of nature in which mother nature is being invested with some sort of deity. That’s far from an inert object, isn’t it?

oG

[Bravus]

Quote:

Concurrent with the above we are witnessing a remarkable migration of religion among us. From objective to subjective premise.

I think you've described this clearly, Olger. I think one of Richard's points, though, is that faith in an objective view of truth was eroded by the simple fact that there existed so many differing accounts of truth, all supposedly objectively derived from the Bible. If one such account was the real one, then every single other one would have to be wrong... and how would we choose?

Quote:

On this basis we must be prepared to accept all other ideas and behaviors as equally correct.

Here on the other hand I think you're less accurate - relativism does not necessarily require absolute relativism. That is, saying that there are multiple possible ideologies does not in itself make it impossible to value some ideologies more highly than others.