Re: The False Promise of Vicarious RedemptionmagicalweasalMarch 30 2009, 16:28:01 UTC
You are right, you are a sentient being.
But, to God, a pen is all we are. Romans calls us all by nature objects of wrath, and you also have a verse that says can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way?
That is all we are to him, are vessels and tools.
What is happening here, is you are projecting your morals and beliefs onto God. But he is not bound by them, because He made them.
And Christianity doesn't mean that Christians are better than anyone else. We're not. The problem is that none of us are perfect, and a perfect God demands perfection. A perfect God is also a just God, so anyone that does not live a perfect life has to be punished.
Now obviously no one can live a perfect life. So it was prophesied (even in Genesis) that the Christ would come to save Israel. The prophets in the OT saw two aspects of the Christ, Christ as a suffering servant (this is in Isaiah 53 I believe) and they also saw Christ as a reigning king. NT scripture says they were puzzled by this, because this was locked from them. They did not see the age of the Church and the time of the Gentiles that we are in now. What they did not see was the 1st and 2nd coming of the Christ.
Israel rejected the Messiah the first time, and salvation came to the Gentiles (I am a Gentile, I'm not sure about you- you are if you're not Jewish) and Paul is able to make arguments from the OT that the Gentiles were destined to receive salvation.
A lot of Christians make the argument that they chose salvation. A lot of Christians believe that they had some part in their salvation. That's not really what people should find when they read scripture as that's not the picture it paints, but as I know you know, people often have personal convictions that can't be reasoned with, even Christians who claim the bible as authoritative.
I am a Calvinist, and I don't believe people really "choose" God or have any part in their salvation.
But more than that, I am a Christian. Eph 2:8-9 tells me plainly that the fact does not make me better than anyone. I had no part in my salvation, I can't boast about it. I am not better than you or anyone else. If I had some part, then God wouldn't get all the glory, would he?
Re: The False Promise of Vicarious Redemptionchron_jobMarch 30 2009, 17:10:11 UTC
> But, to God, a pen is all we are.
That's why I said autonomy is not a continuum. The difference between a pen and a person is not on some number line, where we can say "We are far up the line from pens... but God is so much farther up than us, that it makes sense for him to treat us as a pen." The difference between an object and an agent is a difference of Quality, not Quantity.
> That is all we are to him, are vessels and tools.
Say that of a person, someone who neglects our obvious autonomy, and we would call them a psychopath. But don't get caught up in that assertion, read on....
> What is happening here, is you are projecting your morals > and beliefs onto God.
Not quite. I don't believe God exists... therefore I don't expect him to have any moral or amoral behavior whatsoever. While I do think it is appropriate and consistent to typify his claimed behavior, as expressed in the Bible, as amoral, I don't think that this is particularly meaningful in itself, to either an Atheist or a Theist... since to an Atheist God doesn't exist, and to a Theist moral responsibility is only relevant for humans, not God.
But the real meat of Hitchen's speech isn't "Is God moral or amoral?" It was "What do these beliefs do to human behavior?" It is his assertion that the belief in vicarious redemption is damaging to the concept of personal responsibility that is the cornerstone of ethical behavior. At this point he wasn't arguing ontology... he was responding to the specific and often repeated claim that moral behavior flows from, and requires religious faith.
That being said, let me get into some details of what you said that I find interesting beyond the above point.
> a perfect God demands perfection.
Why? How does the one follow from the other? Why does holding some attribute invariably mean demanding it in others? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it strikes me as presumptuous... to presume to know the demands of a hypothetically transcendent being? And why does it become less presumptuous if those demands happen to have been written by someone in a book?
> A perfect God is also a just God
Again, why does the one follow from the other? What do the two values have to do with each other?
Part of the problem here, is that the word "perfect" is supposed to refer to some distinct quality, held by an object. Something might be a perfectly circular drawing, or perfectly delicious cake. These statements only have meaning because we know what a circle is, and that it is a quality of a drawing that can be tested against some absolute. We know what 'delicious' means, and how a cake can be delicious, and we presume there is some absolute of deliciousness that we can compare this cake to.
But, when we say "A perfect God"... we're missing something. We have the object (God), we have the word perfect, but we have no quality connected to the word perfect. Perhaps "god" is both object and quality? Well, then what does it mean to be 'a perfect god'? To know that we'd need a definition of God, just as we have definitions of Circular and Delicious. Without such, it is exactly as rational to presume a 'godly' being would be perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly knowledgeable; OR perfectly cruel, perfectly arbitrary, and perfectly ignorant.
Re: The False Promise of Vicarious RedemptionmagicalweasalApril 1 2009, 21:06:34 UTC
I've wanted to comment on this for the past two days, but haven't really had time.
Hitchen may talk about the lack of personal responsibility, but he also talks about the totalitarianism, as he sees it, of Christianity. He's upset that Christianity teaches that he was born with a sinful nature, and that he needs God to save him. He's upset at that Christianity, as he says, is the only religion that punishes in the afterlife.
The misconception he may have is that forgiveness is a release from responsibility, or that grace/forgiveness are a license to sin.
Let's consider speeding. I speed all the time. I've gotten tickets before, and I've gotten warnings before. Say for example I'm driving 80 in a 65. I get pulled over, and I get a ticket. I have the option or choice of going to a class and paying extra money. If I do this, then the ticket is wiped from my record. (I saw you're from Florida, in IL where I live, this is possible.)
The State doesn't then permit and encourage me to go speeding again. They don't want me to. But they have a system where I am given undeserved favor and a chance to turn from my speeding ways. If I speed again, I may or may not get caught again. But forgiveness is not a license to continue to do evil. But of course, many people do.
Whether or not that is true, Christianity is the only religion where a God lived in His creation and died to save it. It's also the only religion where works do not save you. Only grace through faith does that.
That part aside, back to what you were saying.
I don't mean that a perfect God has to demand perfection, but He does. Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly father is perfect. I can't make you believe the Bible is authoritive. My only response is that in His word God made himself known to the Israelites. He gave them his laws and said exactly what would please him and what wouldn't. That may sound odd, and maybe totalitarian to you, but in that day people didn't know what pleased their Gods. No other God was clear about his rules.
When I speak about justice, it goes back to what I said about everything good. Everything good comes from God. You agree that justice is good, yes? If you speed and get pulled over and pay a fine, that's justice. If I kill a man and get the needle, that's justice. Our justice system is an imperfect one that falls short of God's. If he is a creator, then he knows his creation, and can judge it impartially.
And to answer your other point, God defines himself in the scriptures. He reveals different names about himself that describe different parts of his character, makes different promises and covenants at different times.
I initially missed your comment where you say that bible verses are like speaking in code. That happens because of this:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. Link.
Click to view
But, to God, a pen is all we are. Romans calls us all by nature objects of wrath, and you also have a verse that says can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way?
That is all we are to him, are vessels and tools.
What is happening here, is you are projecting your morals and beliefs onto God. But he is not bound by them, because He made them.
And Christianity doesn't mean that Christians are better than anyone else. We're not. The problem is that none of us are perfect, and a perfect God demands perfection. A perfect God is also a just God, so anyone that does not live a perfect life has to be punished.
Now obviously no one can live a perfect life. So it was prophesied (even in Genesis) that the Christ would come to save Israel. The prophets in the OT saw two aspects of the Christ, Christ as a suffering servant (this is in Isaiah 53 I believe) and they also saw Christ as a reigning king. NT scripture says they were puzzled by this, because this was locked from them. They did not see the age of the Church and the time of the Gentiles that we are in now. What they did not see was the 1st and 2nd coming of the Christ.
Israel rejected the Messiah the first time, and salvation came to the Gentiles (I am a Gentile, I'm not sure about you- you are if you're not Jewish) and Paul is able to make arguments from the OT that the Gentiles were destined to receive salvation.
A lot of Christians make the argument that they chose salvation. A lot of Christians believe that they had some part in their salvation. That's not really what people should find when they read scripture as that's not the picture it paints, but as I know you know, people often have personal convictions that can't be reasoned with, even Christians who claim the bible as authoritative.
I am a Calvinist, and I don't believe people really "choose" God or have any part in their salvation.
But more than that, I am a Christian. Eph 2:8-9 tells me plainly that the fact does not make me better than anyone. I had no part in my salvation, I can't boast about it. I am not better than you or anyone else. If I had some part, then God wouldn't get all the glory, would he?
Reply
Reply
That's why I said autonomy is not a continuum. The difference between a pen and a person is not on some number line, where we can say "We are far up the line from pens... but God is so much farther up than us, that it makes sense for him to treat us as a pen." The difference between an object and an agent is a difference of Quality, not Quantity.
> That is all we are to him, are vessels and tools.
Say that of a person, someone who neglects our obvious autonomy, and we would call them a psychopath. But don't get caught up in that assertion, read on....
> What is happening here, is you are projecting your morals
> and beliefs onto God.
Not quite. I don't believe God exists... therefore I don't expect him to have any moral or amoral behavior whatsoever. While I do think it is appropriate and consistent to typify his claimed behavior, as expressed in the Bible, as amoral, I don't think that this is particularly meaningful in itself, to either an Atheist or a Theist... since to an Atheist God doesn't exist, and to a Theist moral responsibility is only relevant for humans, not God.
But the real meat of Hitchen's speech isn't "Is God moral or amoral?" It was "What do these beliefs do to human behavior?" It is his assertion that the belief in vicarious redemption is damaging to the concept of personal responsibility that is the cornerstone of ethical behavior. At this point he wasn't arguing ontology... he was responding to the specific and often repeated claim that moral behavior flows from, and requires religious faith.
That being said, let me get into some details of what you said that I find interesting beyond the above point.
> a perfect God demands perfection.
Why? How does the one follow from the other? Why does holding some attribute invariably mean demanding it in others? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it strikes me as presumptuous... to presume to know the demands of a hypothetically transcendent being? And why does it become less presumptuous if those demands happen to have been written by someone in a book?
> A perfect God is also a just God
Again, why does the one follow from the other? What do the two values have to do with each other?
Part of the problem here, is that the word "perfect" is supposed to refer to some distinct quality, held by an object. Something might be a perfectly circular drawing, or perfectly delicious cake. These statements only have meaning because we know what a circle is, and that it is a quality of a drawing that can be tested against some absolute. We know what 'delicious' means, and how a cake can be delicious, and we presume there is some absolute of deliciousness that we can compare this cake to.
But, when we say "A perfect God"... we're missing something. We have the object (God), we have the word perfect, but we have no quality connected to the word perfect. Perhaps "god" is both object and quality? Well, then what does it mean to be 'a perfect god'? To know that we'd need a definition of God, just as we have definitions of Circular and Delicious. Without such, it is exactly as rational to presume a 'godly' being would be perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly knowledgeable; OR perfectly cruel, perfectly arbitrary, and perfectly ignorant.
Reply
Hitchen may talk about the lack of personal responsibility, but he also talks about the totalitarianism, as he sees it, of Christianity. He's upset that Christianity teaches that he was born with a sinful nature, and that he needs God to save him. He's upset at that Christianity, as he says, is the only religion that punishes in the afterlife.
The misconception he may have is that forgiveness is a release from responsibility, or that grace/forgiveness are a license to sin.
Let's consider speeding. I speed all the time. I've gotten tickets before, and I've gotten warnings before. Say for example I'm driving 80 in a 65. I get pulled over, and I get a ticket. I have the option or choice of going to a class and paying extra money. If I do this, then the ticket is wiped from my record. (I saw you're from Florida, in IL where I live, this is possible.)
The State doesn't then permit and encourage me to go speeding again. They don't want me to. But they have a system where I am given undeserved favor and a chance to turn from my speeding ways. If I speed again, I may or may not get caught again. But forgiveness is not a license to continue to do evil. But of course, many people do.
Whether or not that is true, Christianity is the only religion where a God lived in His creation and died to save it. It's also the only religion where works do not save you. Only grace through faith does that.
That part aside, back to what you were saying.
I don't mean that a perfect God has to demand perfection, but He does. Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly father is perfect.
I can't make you believe the Bible is authoritive. My only response is that in His word God made himself known to the Israelites. He gave them his laws and said exactly what would please him and what wouldn't. That may sound odd, and maybe totalitarian to you, but in that day people didn't know what pleased their Gods. No other God was clear about his rules.
When I speak about justice, it goes back to what I said about everything good. Everything good comes from God. You agree that justice is good, yes? If you speed and get pulled over and pay a fine, that's justice. If I kill a man and get the needle, that's justice. Our justice system is an imperfect one that falls short of God's. If he is a creator, then he knows his creation, and can judge it impartially.
And to answer your other point, God defines himself in the scriptures. He reveals different names about himself that describe different parts of his character, makes different promises and covenants at different times.
I initially missed your comment where you say that bible verses are like speaking in code. That happens because of this:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Link.
Reply
Leave a comment