nameandnature (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nameandnature) wrote2005-01-29 11:21 pm
nameandnature) wrote2005-01-29 11:21 pm
Different Tan
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
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.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
What are we guilty of? Rejecting God.
Nope. We're guilty of rejecting what someone else tells us is God. The being himself has not put in an appearance to ask whether we reject him or not. I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to dedicate our lives to an invisible entity because some door-to-door salesmen tell us we ought to. There are lots of gods, and even lots of variants on the Christian God (q.v. recent discussions on
Even if we admit he might exist, EvangelicalChristianGod has a few questions to answer. Just because he's the creator doesn't mean he's allowed to get away with anything. But again, it's worse because he's not actually around to defend himself. I'm sure, what with him being wise and benevolent, that the problems I have could be cleared up after a bit of a chat, and then we could all be friends. This insistence that everyone gambles their eternity on which god really does have the power to send them to Hell is nothing short of silly. It's comically messed up.
Someone like yourself who has had the privelege of hearing God's word taught will be judged more harshly than someone who hasn't.
So what you're saying is that Hank will beat the shit out of me when I leave town unless I kiss his ass? Is he available for chess matches or fiddling competions in an attempt to avert this (you may tell me that's the wrong supernatural being, however, the difference isn't so obvious from where I'm sitting)? How about poker? Erm, ballroom dancing?
To be serious for a moment, my position is that there were some things of value in Christianity, certainly, but that I could not honestly continue in it any longer. Either God values honesty and people who try to do what they think is right, in which case I'm OK anyway, or he doesn't exist, in which case it doesn't matter, or he really is a cosmic jobsworth, in which case he's certainly not deserving of worship.
Do you think this is a fair basis to judge people without any other revelation? What their own consciences tell them is right and wrong (which they use to judge other people in this world)?
I don't think that is fair, because some people are fairly amoral and don't appear to be overly troubled by their consciences, whereas other good people constantly feel they're not good enough. However, I suppose most people think they're basically doing alright, and therefore if your description of how judgement works is true, it is vitally important to shoot missionaries and evangelists on sight. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as someone once said.
There are also people whose consciences conflict with what you think of as revelation, of course. What are they to do?
Justice
We have different ideas of what justice is, which means clearly we are going to disagree if something is just. So in someways unless we can agree which definitions we should be using there is really not much point in arguing anything from those definitions!
My thinking is that if you are trying to show that what someone believes is inconsistent then you are obliged to work from their definitions. If you are trying to convince someone that your beliefs fit into their view of the world then you have to work with their definitions, or demonstrate that their definitions are wrong.
Looking back at the thread, I think that your arguement is not that I am being inconsistent, but that my beliefs about God's justice don't fit with your view of justice. So I think the way forward is for me to find out what your definition of justice is and try to establish why I think it is wrong.
So, thinking about justice (and using concepts from our justice system as the basis for what is considered just) I think we need to work out which of the following are part of justice:
1) Wrong-doing being punished
2) Ignorance of the law not being an excuse
3) Claiming the devil made me do it (or I guess modern day: I'm genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour) not being an excuse
(Actually I'm particularly interested in what you think about 2, and whether it should be part of our justice system, and why. I will add, that my argument is not, and will not become, that you being ignorant is not an excuse, as I do not think you are ignorant. Just thought when typing that that is part of our justice system, for quite good reasons.)
I think if you do away with 1 you run into big problems deciding what to do about people who commit "crimes of passion" in the heat of the moment, as deterrence and preventing reoffending, rehabilitation become weaker arguements.
I mention 3 as it might be useful to have a view on if issues about God's sovereignty and our responsibility come up later.
On the whole Hank thing, I'm guessing "kiss Hank's ass" is meant to be a witty metaphor for "repent and believe" and "Hank will beat the shit out of me" is describing God's punishment of sin. In which case I would point out that the Christian claim is not that sin is not punished, but that Christians are in union with Christ who faces that punishment for us. (It is important that I mention that we are united with Christ. Otherwise there is the obvious question of how is it just that someone else is punished for what I've done wrong.)
I'm not convinced God turning up for a chat would really make any difference at all. The last time he did we nailed him to a tree! Out of interest, if you were about at the time, witnessing the miracles Jesus did, do you think you would have followed him, or would you have told him his teaching on hell, for example, were wrong and unjust? I think the main thing greater revelation from God does is help people solidfy the positions they are in already.
Not too sure what you mean by cosmic jobsworth...
Oh, and one final comment. God doesn't need anything, he chooses to achieve his purposes through his means of choice.
Oh dear, that was rather more rambly than my usual comment. I guess mainly as I haven't decided what is the best point to argue. My apologies for that.
Meanwhile at some stage I should probably post something about WAP, and how I think using theories which rely on an multiverse of other universes we can never possibly observe is really rather curious from people who say the evidence for God is not enough! But that's for another time.
Re: Justice
It's a reference to this story, which I found quite amusing.
Will reply to the rest at a later date.