23 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou defined a person as "the thing which performs the action". I was simply following your definition through to its logical conclusion.
[b]"When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person."
Hey, you said God was a person, not me. I am merely going along with your definition.
You are not going along with my definition at all - which, mind you, is not really my definition. You said that the person isn't "the thing which performs the action". I really have no idea what you are ...[text shortened]... t negate free will. Imagine a world in which you didn't determine your own actions.[/b]
As I said before, an action performed within the universe cannot logically be performed outside of time. If this logic doesn't apply to God, then you open yourself up to all of the other logical impossibilities such as "can God make a rock that He cannot lift". If this logic applies to God, as He is incapable of logical impossibilities, then He must act within time and His actions could therefore be predetermined (and in fact are predetermined if He must remain omnibenevolent).
If I didn't determine my own actions, then I would have no free will. This backs up my point that predeterminancy and free will are mutually exclusive.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whiteroseYou defined a person as "the thing which performs the action". I was simply following your definition through to its logical conclusion.
You defined a person as "the thing which performs the action". I was simply following your definition through to its logical conclusion.
As I said before, an action performed within the universe cannot logically be performed outside of time. If this logic doesn't apply to God, then you open yourself up to all of the other logical impossibilities such as ee will. This backs up my point that predeterminancy and free will are mutually exclusive.
When? First you say that person is the same as human. Then when I correct your use of the word, you assert that such a person must act within time. To which I agreed, refining the statement that God's actions are manifested in time. You have not in any way reached a "logical conclusion" that God is constrained by time.
As I said before, an action performed within the universe cannot logically be performed outside of time.
And you have never attempted to logically demonstrate it. You have just asserted it as somehow axiomatic.
If this logic applies to God, as He is incapable of logical impossibilities, then He must act within time and His actions could therefore be predetermined (and in fact are predetermined if He must remain omnibenevolent).
This is where you're objection becomes meaningless. God is omnibenevolent. It's not that He has to be omnibenevolent, it's just that He is. (and it is a logical impossibility to act against one's nature. The way you use the word "omnipotent" - against its universal use among theists - is impossible. As I have explained your definition of omnipotence cannot applicably exist.)
If I didn't determine my own actions, then I would have no free will. This backs up my point that predeterminancy and free will are mutually exclusive.
I hope you realize that made no sense. Your actions are predetermined by your nature, by consequence of the given that your determine them.
And the word "predetermined" is nonsense. "Determined" would have the same effect. However, "predetermined" implies that something before the person determined the action.
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseActually, the Bible doesn't say anything about damning people to eternal hellfire. Many denominations hold this view of "hell", but the fact is that it was not until Dante, that the description of hell became one of fire and brimestone.
Does the bible not say that God damns people to Hell(a place of eternal fire)? Then how is it that I cannot read? There are many interpretations of the bible. All I am saying is that unless you read it literally(in which case it contradicts itself) then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.
The word "Hell" is translated from a few Greek terms (Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, Gehenna), and none of them refer to a fiery pit of eternal torment where a horned red beast will torture you with pincers and pineapples for the rest of eternity.
There is a place in the book of Revelation that is a fiery pit of torment, but no human is ever ascribed as going there. This place is set aside for Satan. Humans are not sent here, but rather the "Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death". Note that it is not the place of eternal punishment, but the Second Death! Death - natural, peaceful, Nothing (capital 'N'😉.
Somewhere along the lines (that line being the early church who did use Hell as a scare tactic, despite its unbiblical nature), the passages got garbled together and the place for the devil and the place for humans got merged together in Christian theology.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidMatthew 18.9, Mark 9.43 and James 3.6 all use images of fire in Hell. It is an old tradition that Hell was a place of intense fire. It is true, however, that an independent tradition depicting devils torturing human bodies developed.
Actually, the Bible doesn't say anything about damning people to eternal hellfire. Many denominations hold this view of "hell", but the fact is that it was not until Dante, that the description of hell became one of fire and brimestone.
The word "Hell" is translated from a few Greek terms (Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, Gehenna), and none of them refe ...[text shortened]... place for the devil and the place for humans got merged together in Christian theology.
23 Dec 06
Oh, regarding benevolence, you will not find anywhere in the Bible that God is described as "benevolent". God is described as Lord, King, Ancient of Days, Good, Love, Redeemer, Saviour, Shepherd, Judge, Holy, others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
I guess you could argue that "good" = benevolent.
To argue that God killing someone is evil (or "not benevolent"😉, it depends on the context. God doesn't kill willy-nilly (which you could describe as evil). Every act of killing is an act of justice for evils done by the people themselves. Therefore, God acting as Judge (which is his right) and pronouncing sentence of death (which is also his right, and the judgement we all deserve) is the
This all comes down to the fact that most people don't believe they deserve death for their crimes against God. And if you don't believe so, then that's fine - I'm not going to force you to believe. But I believe that God is so awesomely perfect that even teh slightest wrong against either God or another human puts a gap between us and God. As a result, we all deserve the death penalty.
So when God makes a judgement act in the Bible, it's based on the assertion that God is carrying out that Judgement, not just wantonly slaughtering innocents.
One could argue that the supreme and complete act of mercy and kindness that God made in reaching down to humanity and taking the punishment upon himself - the punishment that we all deserve - and then making a free gift of that forgiveness to all who but accept that gift, one could argue that this is indeed the biggest proof of a benevolent God.
Just a thought....
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThe word translated in all three instances is "Gehenna" - a valley near Jerusalem. It is a physical place, not a place of torture. You could perhaps relate this "Hell" to the Hell that is described in Revelation and the Lake of Fire, but this Hell is Hades, and refers to the Grave (literally a hole in the ground).
Matthew 18.9, Mark 9.43 and James 3.6 all use images of fire in Hell. It is an old tradition that Hell was a place of intense fire. It is true, however, that an independent tradition depicting devils torturing human bodies developed.
Thanks for those passages, I agree that they may offer circumstantial evidence if there were more evidence than half a dozen passages, but there is not. The after life is also referred to as a barren wasteland, a dark night, a cold place, and one or two more (it's been a while since I've studied this topic in depth).
Dark, cold, barren, hot (and cold at the same time?), yet the Catholic Church in its formative years decided fire. I think in the context of the Bible as a whole there are much more plausible explanations of hell than the fiery pit of torment.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidIt seems likely that the images of hell-fire were intended to express severe agony, which most Christians now identify as the result of a complete separation from God. It's also noteworthy that in Jewish literature heaven was a pre-Copernican place, that is, a place just above the clouds. This seems to have endured into Christian belief. That is why we still refer to the sky as the heavens. Hell, being the antithesis of heaven, thus occupied the lowest point, namely beneath the ground. Which is why "hell", in scripture, is sometime interchangeable with "grave". It seems a logical consequence, from observing volcanic eruptions, that such a place would contain fire.
The word translated in all three instances is "Gehenna" - a valley near Jerusalem. It is a physical place, not a place of torture. You could perhaps relate this "Hell" to the Hell that is described in Revelation and the Lake of Fire, but this Hell is Hades, and refers to the Grave (literally a hole in the ground).
Thanks for those passages, I ...[text shortened]... a whole there are much more plausible explanations of hell than the fiery pit of torment.
I would, however, distance the idea from the early Catholic Church. The sadism we associate with Hell seems to emanate from art work in the Middle Ages.
23 Dec 06
3 edits
^I agree. THough i believe that the Middle Ages WERE the formative years of the Roman Catholic Church (I'm making a distinction between the organization known as the Catholic Church, and the term "catholic (universal) church" ). Yes, I know the Catholics claim papal roots all the way back to the apostle Peter, but the organization we know of as the RCC, the one that instituted the laws that the Catholics adhere to today.
Besides, it wasn't until the 1300's that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy anyway, which reinforces my original point.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidWell you might encounter disagreement there. The term "Catholic" is known to have existed in the second century and the Church Fathers up until the fourth century seem to recognize Roman authority.
^I agree. THough i believe that the Middle Ages WERE the formative years of the Roman Catholic Church (I'm making a distinction between the organization known as the Catholic Church, and the term "catholic (universal) church" ). Yes, I know the Catholics claim papal roots all the way back to the apostle Peter, but the organization we know of as the ...[text shortened]... l the 1300's that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy anyway, which reinforces my original point.
It in fact a misnomer to call the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church encompasses a number of eastern churches who also submit to the authority of the Pope, while still retaining their own rite. They are not however separate.
23 Dec 06
4 edits
Alright, let me rephrase - the modern incarnation of what we know of today as the Catholic Church owes its doctrines mainly to the institution of the organization instituted in the Dark Ages/Middle Ages. For the record, the term "catholic" simply means "universal" - the holy universal church. The Catholic Church (differentiated today by the capitalization) is the organization that is far from universal, but rather the name of a denomination of Christianity.
Regards,
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidI'm not sure what any of this means. What do you mean by "modern incarnation"? The current Catholic Church doesn't distinguish itself from that of the Middle Ages, and all evidence indicates that the Catholic Church (with the capitcal, it was proper noun back then too) was properly established in its hierarchical arrangement by the fourth century. Yes, it is a Christian denomination. Just out of curiosity, why isn't the Catholic Church holy and universal?
Alright, let me rephrase - the modern incarnation of what we know of today as the Catholic Church owes its doctrines mainly to the institution of the organization instituted in the Dark Ages/Middle Ages. For the record, the term "catholic" simply means "universal" - the holy universal church. The Catholic Church (differentiated today by the capital ...[text shortened]... is far from universal, but rather the name of a denomination of Christianity.
Regards,
23 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KHoly - it depends on your point of view.
Just out of curiosity, why isn't the Catholic Church holy and universal?
Universal - one word: Protestantism!
As for the rest, Christianity was instituted in the 4th Century (just before the Council of Nicaea in 351) by Emperor Constantine as the official State Religion. However, if you look at the Catholic Church, it wasn't until its move into England (I think you'll find its move into England as a pivotal moment, though I could be wrong on that) that the church became the modern RCC and instituted many doctrinal laws including the (as you say) medieval architecture and artwork.
Sorry, I've gotta run off now, I'll post more details a little later when I'm online next 😀
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidI'm not sure that's what "universal" means. Catholics holds that there Church is universal, in that it welcomes all nationalities, that it accepts Jews and Gentiles. The gospel of Luke is often described as the Gospel of Universal Salvation because of its emphasis on bringing salvation to all people. This is why it is also sometimes referred to as the gospel of early Catholicism. Universalism does not mean that the Church is universal.
Holy - it depends on your point of view.
Universal - one word: Protestantism!
As for the rest, Christianity was instituted in the 4th Century (just before the Council of Nicaea in 351) by Emperor Constantine as the official State Religion. However, if you look at the Catholic Church, it wasn't until its move into England (I think you'll find ...[text shortened]... orry, I've gotta run off now, I'll post more details a little later when I'm online next 😀
I'm not sure what "instituted laws" you refer to. Are they disciplinary, or theological?
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by howardgeeI think we could safely say that more people throught history have been killed in the name of the Christian God (or Christian religions in the various forms) than all other religions combined.
"Onward Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
Going on before"
Oh, sorry. Don't mind me...just reminding some modern day victims of brainwashing about highly effective brain washing techniques of the past.
But to answer the question, no I wouldn't.
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI refer to laws such as Confession, which was instituted at this point in English history. What better way to have control over the new converts than to know every dirty secret that they've told the priest in Confession.
I'm not sure what "instituted laws" you refer to. Are they disciplinary, or theological?
Celibacy in the priesthood was also instituted at this time. According to English law at this time, when a patriarch dies the land and assets they owned were ceded to their children. Naturally the Catholic Church was losing a lot of land to this, so they instituted celibacy in the priesthood. Thus any land owned by the priest came under the direct control of the Church upon the priest's death (if you look beyond the political and social machinations of any situation in history, generally you're going to find that the acquisition of Land is the driving factor behind the decisions).
I suspect the near deification of the Mother Mary may have been decided at this point also, though I'm not absolutely certain of thisther Mary was decided at this point in history. The Catholic's decision to pray and offer supplication to the only other perfect human (apart from Jesus) is a bone of contention for me personally, though I won't deny any Catholic's right to choose to act as they do.
ANywho, on the idea of the Universal Church, you may be right. I've considered "universal" to mean encompassing, all alone, and with the inclusion of protestants (protestors) in history, that sort of precludes a universal ORGANIZED church of any kind. Though a relationship with God is not confined to any earthly organized religion. God doesn't care about religion, but about relationship. Relationship with God is what's important. But that's a debate for another time, I think.
But I digress. Universal church, you may be right. Even the apostles creed pays homage to the "holy catholic church". As in my last paragraph, I view this in a relational sense and not a denominational sense, but that's neither here nor there.
My apologies, I'm rambling. I hope I've made sense.
Comments, queries?
~ the Android