Soteriological Reductio Ad Absurdum

Originally posted by FMF
You are describing every self-anointed cherry picker's dream.

I know, but it is a whole study that has not been explored enough. There are rules that would apply, else you would be correct. Anyone can use figures to cherry pick anyway they chose

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I know, but it is a whole study that has not been explored enough. There are rules that would apply, else you would be correct. Anyone can use figures to cherry pick anyway they chose

Because you subscribe to the version that you just so happen to subscribe to, you have probably been deprived of the ability to conceive of how much damage its cherry-picker-friendly quality inflicts upon its credibility in the eyes of those whose beliefs differ from yours.

Originally posted by FMF
Because you subscribe to the version that you just so happen to subscribe to, you have probably been deprived of the ability to conceive of how much damage its cherry-picker-friendly quality inflicts upon its credibility in the eyes of those whose beliefs differ from yours.

I expected about as much from you.
So I have been deprived? From an unbeliever, I don't mind your critique at all, even though it is weird.

It probably doesn't' matter to you, but it matters to me that the bible fit together without contradiction.
God would not tell Balaam to do something and then get angry because he did.
But like I said, it probably doesn't make any difference to you since you don't believe the bible is authored by God anyway.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I expected about as much from you.
So I have been deprived? From an unbeliever, I don't mind your critique at all, even though it is weird.

While people of all faiths gain perspectives from the things they come to believe, I think they can lose perspectives too. The word "deprived" as I used it corresponds to this notion of "loss". I don't see how it's "weird" at all.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
But like I said, it probably doesn't make any difference to you since you don't believe the bible is authored by God anyway.

But the cherry picking problem, and the Bible lending itself to it, has given rise to countless hundreds of denominations, sects, and cults, and conflicting doctrine, some of it shockingly ugly, other bits head-shakingly incoherent and far fetched. It makes a "difference" to me in so far as it is an interesting upshot of the human condition and also underpins some fascinating interpersonal and intellectual behaviour in arenas where people interact, like this one.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

It probably doesn't' matter to you, but it matters to me that the bible fit together without contradiction.

Whether or not a person is a theist or an atheist doesn't change the fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions. I understand that you want it to fit together but any serious study of the bible shows that this is not the case.

Contradictions were of course unavoidable, considering the numerous authors involved.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Whether or not a person is a theist or an atheist doesn't change the fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions. I understand that you want it to fit together but any serious study of the bible shows that this is not the case.

Contradictions were of course unavoidable, considering the numerous authors involved.

Apparent contradictions are due to...
1- verses read out of context
2- words with a poor translation
3- the readers own bias or lack of understanding
4- not understanding the culture in which it was written
5- not understanding figures of speech or when they can be applied.
to name just a few. There are other reasons, I'm sure.
The words spoken by holy men of God are truth. I am not saying that the bible is completely accurate as it stands, since it is only a version.
But in my opinion it is very close as it sits and we can get back to the original with some work. Study, research, prayer, etc. can open up more understanding as we apply what we already know.

Originally posted by FMF
But the cherry picking problem, and the Bible lending itself to it, has given rise to countless hundreds of denominations, sects, and cults, and conflicting doctrine, some of it shockingly ugly, other bits head-shakingly incoherent and far fetched. It makes a "difference" to me in so far as it is an interesting upshot of the human condition and also underpins so ...[text shortened]... inating interpersonal and intellectual behaviour in arenas where people interact, like this one.

I fully understand the cherry picking problem, and all the different religious denominations.
The human condition you speak of has always been a matter of the heart.
Everything around us changes, but the heart remains the same. Hate, racism, greed, selfishness, pride, etc. will always be with people until they get a "new heart" and train it according to God's will.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Apparent contradictions are due to...
1- verses read out of context
2- words with a poor translation
3- the readers own bias or lack of understanding
4- not understanding the culture in which it was written
5- not understanding figures of speech or when they can be applied.
to name just a few. There are other reasons, I'm sure.
The words spoken b ...[text shortened]... . Study, research, prayer, etc. can open up more understanding as we apply what we already know.

6 - Apparent contradictions are due to the existence of actual contradictions.

😉

How, for example, do you reconcile the drastically different God portrayed in the old and new testaments, and which of your 5 explanations account for the disparity?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I fully understand the cherry picking problem, and all the different religious denominations.
The human condition you speak of has always been a matter of the heart.
Everything around us changes, but the heart remains the same. Hate, racism, greed, selfishness, pride, etc. will always be with people until they get a "new heart" and train it according to God's will.

You sound like you're standing for office in America. If I were a baby, and cameras were near, you would be kissing me, for sure! 😵

Originally posted by FMF
You sound like you're standing for office in America. If I were a baby, and cameras were near, you would be kissing me, for sure! 😵

I don't know, you might be ugly, in which case, camera's or not ....I might decline..🙄

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
6 - Apparent contradictions are due to the existence of actual contradictions.

😉

How, for example, do you reconcile the drastically different God portrayed in the old and new testaments, and which of your 5 explanations account for the disparity?

I have brought this up before, there is no disparity, He was just trying to save the human race... by killing off the cancer.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I have brought this up before, there is no disparity, He was just trying to save the human race... by killing off the cancer.

No, i was referring more to the nature of God presented. (Jealous and destructive in the OT, loving and forgiving in the NT).

But if you prefer:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, i was referring more to the nature of God presented. (Jealous and destructive in the OT, loving and forgiving in the NT).

But if you prefer:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall ...[text shortened]... l the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

All you need to do is "google" it and you will get plenty of good answers. I don't have the time right now. But It has been answered in this forum before. Perhaps you weren't satisfied with the answers?

Originally posted by whodey
For me the question of free will comes down to the notion that God is love.

Love demands free will, does it not? That is, love between two sovereign participants. Without free will to love the other back, there is no mutual love.

So if there is compulsary reconciliation, is there still free will to reject the other party? Is it really love?

I think you are implicitly (without realizing it) coupling love (in fact, a conditional love) with a retributive notion of justice—those who do not love God back will suffer condemnation, or at least forever-lasting consequences. I argue two alternative soteriological views: that of reformative/restorative justice or that of healing/well-making (both of which can be found in the texts). That means that, in the end, no one will be forced or coerced but will be brought into a state of knowing reconciliation. (I liked your phrase “two sovereign participants”—that must at least mean two participants who are fully conscious of all the parameters.)

I am currently re-reading Romans (in part so that I might better respond to divegeester’s post), and I think that there is a clear dialectic going on in Paul’s presentation—but I did think of your post here when I came across this passage: “So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.” (Rom. 9:16) This, of course, comes after a discourse on the election of Israel.

Further, I think that God’s love (or—and I agree with you here—God as love) is perhaps best exemplified by the parable of the Good Samaritan—wherein the Samaritan’s loving actions are not conditioned upon any response from the injured man, who, so far as we know from the story, was never even conscious of what was going on. I believe that the Samaritan represents the God who is unconditional love (or the Christ who is the incarnation of that love).

So, while I don’t think you’re comments are totally off the mark, I am not talking about a coerced reconciliation, but an irresistible one. And, a long as we are not fully conscious (like the man in the ditch), God will act with unconditional love. Also, I argue that physical death is no bar to God’s further action in the matter.

As a side note: I wouldn’t think that a love based on free will could be commanded either—and yet we have the “great commandment”.