Different Tan

[nameandnature]

ladysisyphus writes about why she is a Christian even though she cannot say unequivocally that Jesus Christ is her Lord and Saviour, which, as we all know, is the litmus of such things. People who thought that the Jerry Springer entry was intended to imply that I believed all American Christians were nutters, take note: there is at least one who is not. andrewducker says what I'd have said about truth and facts, in a conversation which reminds me of those I've had with cathedral_life.

People who read Hebrew might want to have a look at the huge thread on Creationism that developed under my post here, since some of it relies on what I suspect are standard Creationist assertions about the Hebrew used in Genesis. Or you might not: after I while, I learned to avoid the Creationism threads on uk.r.c, only popping out occasionally to ambush people with physics.

There are more photos of the musicals party, to add to bluap's. My camera's rubbish in low light, alas.

Random Flash linkage: To Kill A Mockingbird, Numa Numa. Been doing the rounds, but I mention it in case you've not seen it.

Update: I got a comment from someone recommending the CICCU mission talks this year (which have now been and gone). This has started a debate on whether God is just. Read all about it in the comments inside.

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I'd really like to get back into that discussion - unfrotunately it's the end of Christianity Explored next week so my attentions are elsewhere.

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy to continue it. Although maybe this is not the best place as I'm not sure pw201 (can someone tell me how to do the whole hyperlink with a person icon thing?) would want us filling up his journal. Of course, then again, he might...

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I would appreciate continuing it in maybe a few weeks. The Christianity explored course has just finished and so I'm partly just enjoying having free time to myself, and when I'm not doing that I'm colecting my thoughts and getting ready to write up my conclusions.

It would probably be better if I wrote up my argument in its entireity all at once rather than the piecemeal tit for tat way these things occur in comments.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Like this:
<lj user='nj21'/> = nj21

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks robhu. (I now expect that I, nlj21, will massively overuse it for awhile; until the novelty wears off!)

[nameandnature]

Can't say I mind you having the discussion on my journal all that much. OTOH if you want to start a new thread on one of yours, I won't be offended either.

This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[(Anonymous)]

im sure you'll be pleased to know that this year's CICCU mission is starting on Monday. Id like to extend an invitation to you, and anyone who reads this. The lunchtime talks are on monday and tuesday in the large exam hall in cambridge, and in fitzpatrick hall queens' on wednesday. on wednesday-saturday evenings there will be talks at 8pm in StAG. do see www.direction2005.com (http://www.direction2005.com) for more details.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nameandnature]

Ooh, an advert for CICCU on my journal. Full marks for chutzpah, I suppose.

im sure you'll be pleased to know that this year's CICCU mission is starting on Monday.

My dear boy (or girl), I am ecstatic. Ecstatic in a way that's appropriate for me, that is, that is, in a sort of dignified way involving swaying from side to side gently in time to the music, rather than waving my hands in the air or suddenly falling over, or any of that sort of stuff, which, as you know, the Lord finds faintly embarrassing.

Thing is, I could probably give those talks myself, were I to be qualified by my elevation to the position of Pastor-Teacher in A Church Where The Bible Is Taught Exactly Like It Is At StAG (such elevation seems unlikely at this point, I'll admit, but, you know, mysterious ways and all that). I know what they'll say, more or less. Some missions might concentrate on getting alongside your nonchristchunfrends' paradigms in a sort of Paul-in-the-Areopagus kind of way, whereas others may rely on mad Australians with amusing views about gay people, but the message will be the same: the Good News that a God you've previously never heard much from intends to horribly torture you. There's nothing you yourself can do to save yourself from this fate. But he loves you (I am not alone in finding this love/torture combination slightly kinky, by the way). So he won't torture you if you Accept Jesus As Your Personal Saviour, because he tortured Jesus instead of you (he couldn't just let you off, so torturing the wrong person was necessary to meet the demands of perfect justice). I think that's the central message, all else is window dressing. Did I miss anything?

While I'm always willing to talk to people who're reasonably polite, the CICCU mission talks are unlikely to be a productive use of my time (or, I'd argue, anyone else's).

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

Ahem. I think I'll have to dip my oar in.

the Good News that a God you've previously never heard much from intends to horribly torture you. There's nothing you yourself can do to save yourself from this fate. But he loves you (I am not alone in finding this love/torture combination slightly kinky, by the way).

I can't help but feel that you are trying to present God as a rather sadistic, malicious, character. Do (did) you believe that God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked?

the CICCU mission talks are unlikely to be a productive use of my time (or, I'd argue, anyone else's).

I must disagree. Knowing people who professed the Christian faith as a consequence of previous missions, and seeing them still living as faithful Christians now, I have to say that on past performance mission talks have been an immensely productive (ok, not quite my word of choice) use of some people's time.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nameandnature]

Do (did) you believe that God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked?

I doubt that God even exists to take pleasure. My point is that the central message, the gospel of CICCU's brand of Christianity portrays God as a sadist, or at least as functionally equivalent to a sadist. There can be no true love under the threat of violence. I think even some leading evangelicals have realised this and become annihilationists. The fact that Ezekiel has God saying "I'm not enjoying this, you know, I'm only doing it for your own good" doesn't alter how we're told God actually behaves, which is all that matters. (I think Ezekiel might be surprised to learn that this passage is read as being about non-Christians going to Hell when he thought he was talking about the punishment of the nation of Israel, too, but I guess there's a bunch of typology there which allows evangelicals to make that translation).

I do wonder about the "productiveness" of these missions, even from a Christian perspective. As you know if you heard the same dire warnings as I did from StAG's leavers' talk, most student evangelicals do not remain Christians for long after leaving university. Interestingly, the UCCF people on their own web-boards claim not to have the statistics which Carrie Sandom quoted to me on this one, but as Angela Rayner writes: "To say that I keep stumbling upon people with similiar experiences [of leaving evangelical Christianity after university] is an understatement."

From my, non-Christian perspective, the talks will give the same glib answers as I've heard before, and there's the worrying possibility that people who hear them will convert to CICCUanity. People are grown-ups and can make their own decisions, of course, but I think the mission talks present a very skewed view of both humanity and Christianity.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

There can be no true love under the threat of violence.

That's a fairly bold and wide-ranging statement (if I've understood what you mean by love and violence). Can I take this to mean that you think parents who smack their children do not love them?

how we're told God actually behaves, which is all that matters

You do not think when assessing actions knowing the motivation behind them is important? I'm not a lawyer, but as fair as I'm aware motivations are quite important in trials; this seems quite sensible to me.

People are grown-ups and can make their own decisions, of course, but I think the mission talks present a very skewed view of both humanity and Christianity.

What is the unskewed view of humanity and Christianity? (This isn't intended as a quick retort. I would actually be quite interested in your answer.)

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nameandnature]

Can I take this to mean that you think parents who smack their children do not love them?

No, although I'm not sure smacking is a good idea. In the context, what I meant was that I find it difficult to see how God both claims to love people and threatens the worst possible violence against them (Hell involving more than spanking, we presume), and how Christians who claim to love God can truly do so when they believe that if they did not, God would do them violence.

You do not think when assessing actions knowing the motivation behind them is important?

Sometimes it is. However, what I think the law goes by is intention: if someone intends to kill, it's murder, if someone kills by accident, it's manslaughter. God must surely be the one person who never does anything by accident. Someone's motivation for an intentional killing may lead us to sympathise, or even to a reduced sentence, but they're no less guilty. And of course, some crimes are so bad that there is no mitigation. Choosing to eternally torture a fair proportion of everyone who ever lived seems to fall into that category to me. I don't care whether someone claims to have reasons for that, because no reasons could be good enough.

What is the unskewed view of humanity and Christianity?

There's a question that could be the subject of books :-) Briefly, on humanity, that within us lies the capability for both great good and great evil. That it is possible to do good without the assistance of supernatural beings. That some people are better than others, and that this matters and is to their credit. And on Christianity, that there entire other traditions of Christianity which do not interpret the Bible the way evangelicals do.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

In the context, what I meant was that I find it difficult to see how God both claims to love people and threatens the worst possible violence against them

Ah, sorry. I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character; this I would have to disagree with which was why I was suggesting you were using a false assumption. That it is difficult to understand all of God's character, and how the various aspects of his character result in his various actions, is not something I would dispute. I strongly suspect it is impossible for me to do so fully. Of course this does not mean I do not consider it a worthwhile task to seek greater understanding of such things; to know God better.

how Christians who claim to love God can truly do so when they believe that if they did not, God would do them violence.

This is where motivations come in again. Christians love God in reponse to the love he has shown us.

Sometimes it is. However, what I think the law goes by is intention: if someone intends to kill, it's murder, if someone kills by accident, it's manslaughter.

I was thinking more along the topical news line of self-defence. When there is an intruder in my house whom I try to knock unconcious by whacking him over the head with my handy oriental vase I am told the law will treat me differently to if decided to start bashing random people over the head, trying to render them unconcious, because I don't like them. Both actions are quite deliberate with the same intention, but treated differently due to my motivation.

Or for another topical example: I think many people when assessing armed conflicts would want to have a look at the motivations of the various people involved. (Of course, there is the pacifist position of saying armed conflict is always wrong, so no motivation can ever justify it. Out of interest would you support that position?)

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character
Evangelical Christianity is riddled with logical contradictions, you get into all sorts of inescapable conundrums by having an all powerful all knowing God who has ended up with a totally screwed up universe, were God really all powerful and all knowing then this would not have occured (see Wikipedia: The problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)).

Another one that came up on the Christianity Explored course was that logically God cannot be totally loving (http://www.livejournal.com/users/robhu/105882.html#isgodtotallyloving) (or perfectly loving, or 'as loving as he could be') if either some are called or some are chosen irresistably. Of course you could say that either everyone has the choice available to them, or that everyone goes to heaven - neither of these match up with what we see around us, or that everyone goes to heaven - but I don't think there are many evangelicals who would say that.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

Evangelical Christianity is riddled with logical contradictions,

Ummm. No it's not. If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement, listing *all* of your assumptions, and I will happily tell you which of your assumptions I disagree with. (He says in the hope that you haven't suddenly come up with some stunning new proof)

Out of interest, are you happy with what is wrong with this arguement (or do you think it is a valid argument against God's omnipotence?):

"Can good make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"

If the answer is no the is something God cannot do. If the answer is yes the is something God cannot do. So God can't be omnipotent.

I ask, as I feel at some stage I might want to show that other arguments are equivalent to that, so would be helpful now to agree with a simple example that such arguments are invalid.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

"Can good make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
I would say that that shows fairly clearly that God cannot be omnipotent. Unless God chooses for some reason not to be omnipotent to create such a rock, in which case he loses his omnipotence by choice.

If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement
OK, I'll give it a go - I'll pass this thread on to a friend of mine who is much better at explaining these things than I.

What about this:

1. God would not create evil
2. God is the only being capable of creating things
3. Evil exists
4. If only God is capable of creating things and evil exists either God is not the only being capable of creating things, evil does not really exist, or God does not exist.

or

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
2. God is the only being capable of creating beings
3. God would not create evil
4. Evil is defined as rebellion against God
5. Given two, three, and four: God would not create a being who would rebel against him
6. God created the devil
7. The devil rebelled against God
8. Given six and seven: God created a being who would rebel against him
9. Given five and eight: God cannot exist

or

1. God is perfectly just
2. Men commit sin
3. If God is just, then God will punish the sin of men
4. God can punish Jesus for the sin of mankind
5. Hell is the punishment for sin
6. Hell can be avoided if Jesus is punished in someone elses place
7. God is perfectly loving
8. God is able to save anyone
9. God can choose who to save
10. It is more loving to save everyone than it is to save some
11. Not everyone is saved
12. If everyone is not saved then God is not perfectly loving

or

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

or

1. If God exists he is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
2. If God exists given that he is morally perfect he would not create evil
3. Evil is defined as rebellion against God
4. God created Adam and Eve
5. Adam and Eve rebelled against God
   
6. God transforms people before they go into heaven so that they will not rebel against him
7. God would not create man with the ability to sin if it were avoidable
8. Given six: God is able to make man such that he will not rebel against him
9. Given four and five: God created man who did rebel against him
10. Given eight and nine: God cannot exist

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nameandnature]

I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character; this I would have to disagree with which was why I was suggesting you were using a false assumption

I think there is a contradiction between claiming to love everyone and doing some people infinite harm. As robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm doesn't apply here (unless you're suggesting that hell is finite, but I thought that evangelicals weren't allowed to believe in Purgatory). Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.

Christians love God in reponse to the love he has shown us.

Indeed, but my point was that love can hardly be seen as healthy when it is given under the threat of violence: it really does sound like the sort of Stockholm Syndrome stuff which Wednesday's Usenet posting talks about. Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").

I was thinking more along the topical news line of self-defence.

A key test for self-defence is whether it is proportionate (so you're not allowed to shoot someone who merely looks at you funny, or similar). I do believe that war can be justified sometimes, but again a key test for a just war is proportionality. In both cases, the analogy to punishment in Hell does not apply, since Hell is portrayed as an infinite punishment for a finite offence.

In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.

I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

I think there is a contradiction between claiming to love everyone and doing some people infinite harm.

I don't think you can just say the two things are contradictory. You're starting with an emotion (love), and ending with an action (harm). I think it is necessary to say how the two are related (emotions and actions) before claiming an emotion and an action are contradictory.


As [info]robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm

As I've pointed out in another reply my aim was not to suggest parrallel or anology, but to query some of your original statements, which I felt were key to your reasoning. (no love with violence. actions assessed apart from motivations)

Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.

Christians have throughout history affirmed both of those truths.


Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").

Such parallels completely ignore God's right to judge his creatures.

In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.

Would you consider a non-infinite Hell to contradict the idea that God is universally loving? And be abusive and unjust?

(I haven't tried this line of reasoning, so be prepared for me to back-track quickly. But the prescence of the word infinite does make my inner-mathmo think an analysis style of arguement might be valid.)

I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.

Correct by definition.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Can I take this to mean that you think parents who smack their children do not love them?
Clearly there is a difference as there is no remedial value in hell (http://web.archive.org/web/20040219232003/www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/hell.html).

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[nlj21.livejournal.com]

Clearly there is a difference

I was unaware I was saying it was the same as anything! I was querying what I thought was an invalid assertion userpw201 was making, that "There can be no true love under the threat of violence", by seeing how it would hold in different situations. (eg. parental discipling of children)

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Ah my apologies. It did seem to me as if you were saying that there was some kind of relationship between God punishing humanity in hell, and a loving parent punishing their children. Of course this cannot be the case :0)

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I do wonder about the "productiveness" of these missions, even from a Christian perspective. As you know if you heard the same dire warnings as I did from StAG's leavers' talk, most student evangelicals do not remain Christians for long after leaving university.
Perhaps they are useful as they continue to drum into the students a fear of hell which hopefully will stop them from leaving the church or thinking about what they are being told. When I stopped being a Christian although I had no reason to believe that Christianity was true I was terrified of going to hell - the idea of how awful it is gets drummed into you so deeply that fear can motivate you into going to church. Someone who left the CU at Derby said to me a few months ago that they were amazed that I was no longer a Christian, when I asked why they said that they didn't understand why I would want to go to hell! This also seemed to be a core reason for them being a Christian themselves.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[cathedral-life.livejournal.com]

I haven't the faintest idea whether God could square a circle or why evil exists. Indeed, the question that has always seemed pertinent to me is that of why /so much/ evil exists. It seems that God knows it exists, and works amongst its existence (or the absence of good) in the person of Christ. I can't decide whether it's the best objection to Christianity or one of the worst. Some of the Christians I know are people one could describe as having suffered a great many evils, and yet they still continue to come to Church.

However, I think that the practice of Christianity on the basis that one considers oneself hell-ward bound without such practice is bad practice. Here is Gerard Manley Hopkin's poem, which I think gives a far better reason for loving God: http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/ilove.html The crucial lines being: "Not for heaven's sake; not to be
Out of hell by loving thee; Not for any gains I see;".

I love the idea of the radical non-utility of that. "Not for any gains I see..." Wonderful. I don't know if it's true, but I very much like the sentiment.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

It's a logical problem for theists (who define God as defined above). If I were to say that Santa Claus exists, has the power to give every child who is good a present, and wants to do so - the existence of good children who don't get presents (for example) means that such a Santa Claus cannot exist (although some other type of Santa Claus might).

Logic is I think quite useful, it allows us to make a reasonably good decision on whether something is true or not. Otherwise one might believe anything. The more you try to take reason (well - and to some degree a God who can objectively be demonstrated to exist in any way) the more you end up with a dragon in your garage (http://robhu.livejournal.com/92268.html).

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[cathedral-life.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I define God as defined above. I don't so much define God as confess the God who is made known to us through Jesus Christ and recognised as the God of Abraham and Sarah.

See here:

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Wordfroms/Tsunami1/tsunami1-7.shtml

For what it's worth, I just love having a dragon in my garage. The problem is that she fights with the invisible pink unicorn...