Abra:

I agree with almost all of what you have written in many of your posts
since the last one that I wrote. Let me offer some words that might
clear up some confusion.

First of all, you are correct in pointing out that the Bible clearly
does portray God as an acting, egotistical, jealous, separate being. I
believe that those adjectives fully describe God, and that God is wholly
good, perfect, and sinless. I don't see any conflict between those
adjectives and his being perfect, totally and undeniably good, and
completely sinless.

Second, I totally respect the point of view that the Bible is merely a
collection stories written by men. I don't share this point of view, but
I respect your opinion. My posts, though, have been my effort to
demnstrate that you can't use historical evidence or science to "prove"
that the books are the works of men, uninspired by a God. I agree that
the books built on each other over 4000+ years, but they only built on
each other because God was responsible for it. He directly prompted and
inspired the men to write the specific words that he wanted recorded.
That is the miraclulous part. And then, once transcribed into ink and
paper, the miracle then goes on obeying the laws of physics like
anything else. Texts become corrupted; translations confuse
interpretations.

It's the same effect as in the case of every other miracle in the Bible.
Miraculous bread fills people, miraculous wine intoxicates, miraculous
books can get corrupted. It does not take away from their
miraculous-ness (That previous line is a paraphrase of CS Lewis, in his
book Miracles. If you're sincere about being open minded about miracles,
you really must read that book).

Thus, if God can create a miraculous book, make a miraculous flood,
raise someone from the dead, etc, then why is it difficult to believe
that he could not make sure that his message is not corrupted?
Obviously, to believe that it was corrupted, you have to believe either
that God did not want to preserve it, or else that he could not preserve
it. Those beliefs are totally fine and respectable, but they differ from
Christianity.

All I am saying is that you can't use science, logic, or historical
inquiry to determine whether those points of view are right. Thus, the
choice to believe that the Bible is just a set of stories is a religious
belief. It is no different than believing that the Bible is the inspired
word of God. Neither can be demonstrated via science or historical
inquiry.

One philosophical argument for the belief that the Bible is the inspired
word of God is that the consistency of theme between all of the works is
staggeringly impressive. It's as if a set of 30 authors sat down at a
convention for a few months and worked out an amazing, 2000+ page
philosophy of the universe. But, we know from archeology that the
various books were written at different times and in different places by
hilariously different people from different backgrounds that had (in
most cases) absolutely no contact with any of the other authors. Even if
some "council" had "doctored" it in the early 1000s (which they didn't)
all that would mean is that the portion of the Bible that made it
through their filter is still awe inspiringly impressive in its breadth
and consistency.

Of course, that doesn't make it true. I'm only saying that there are
real, legitimate, intellectually robust arguments for the case that the
Bible is the inspired word of God. The "intellectual" approach is not
necessarily to assume that the Bible is just a set of myths.

Myths attempt to explain all of the workings of the physical universe.
Greek mythology, for example, served its purpose as science, not just
religion. The same is true of Native American mythology, etc.
Christianity (and Islam) are fundamentally different. None of the
stories are meant to explain science, rather they directly serve the
purpose of understanding those (necessarily rare) times when science is
interrupted.

So, in summary, all I am saying is that you have to presuppose that God
is not egotistical before you can draw the conclusions from the Bible
that you are. You can't use history to "prove" or "draw" the conclusions
that God is an ambient force, and you definitely cannot use science.

But I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. I'm only saying that I can
make philosophical challenges to this "ambient, non-egotistical, force"
definition of God. In my reading (which is surprisingly extensive for a
20-something-year-old) I have never found a serious or successful reply
to the arguments made by CS Lewis in the 1940s in his book Miracles. A
strict idea of naturalism is not sustainable. Your idea of naturalism
(plus inherent "conciousness and intelligence") is not contradictory and
can be sustained, but I argue it can only be sustained if you render all
thought meaningless for the purpose of gathering objective truth.

Perhaps thought does not tell us anything about "truth." Hume and Camus
argued that thought really tells us nothing but subjective nonsense. If
you accept that, it's fine. Really, I do not mean to belittle that idea
at all. I'm just saying I disagree. I believe that science itself is a
testament to the fact that our thoughts are valid. And since they are
valid, there must be some external foundation that makes them valid.
When I went looking for that external foundation, I found the Christian
God.

Abra:

(1) I pointed out that your definition was merely a verbal abstraction.
I said that I was not attacking your semantics, rather the essence which
they were attempting to describe.

(2) The idea the people would spontaneously start attributing reality to
a kind and loving God given the he didn't exist is not tenable. You
can't possibly argue that people are so foolish as to see the pain in
the world and then start attributing it to a God who doesn't exist. The
primitive people who "developed" the idea of God would never have
considered him good. This cannot be explain evolutionarily, no matter
how hard you try.

(3) I have said repeatedly that everyone should challenge the Bible and
reason out for themselves whether they agree with it or disagree. I
merely explain my arguments for why I do believe it after critical
analysis.

(4) The Bible (a finite number of particles sitting on my desk) does not
totally define an infinite being such as God. I said that it is
(perhaps) one of the ways in which he reveals parts of his character
(i.e. his definition) to us.

(5) This still does not resolve any of the problems that I pointed out
about the belief that God is merely an ambient force. Rather than
running to attack my beliefs every time your own are attacked, why don't
you ever attempt to defend your own?

This is a very interesting topic. I feel that God cannot be totally
defined. He can only be defined to the extent that he reveals himself
(either through miracles, visions, experiences, books, or words).

I also feel that Christianity is like love: it does not matter how
sincerely you accept it in your heart. All that counts is if you are
unrelentingly committed to maintaining it. Thus, Abra, I would argue
that your sincerely heartfelt commitment to Christ would only have
indicated that you were a Christian if you had maintained it. Since you
did not maintain it, it is not evidence of your ever having been really
a Christian, regardless of your state of mind at the time at which you
felt such commitment.

But that is not a good or a bad thing. As you have said many times, you
are quite happy in your new set of beliefs. So you should not take my
comment that your prior commitment does not serve as current evidence of
Christianity as an offense or anything. It's merely my own assessment.

"That all-pervading universal force in and of all things. The universal
Will behind all manifestation, natural laws and phenomena, composed of
Energy, Awareness and Intent. The collective group mind intelligence of
the manifest and unmanifest cosmos, composed of consciousness."

This is the definition, (not your only one, I note) that you put forward
for God. I understand that the English language itself can't possibly be
rich enough to actually enable a defintion, and so I am not going to
attempt to argue with the words you have written, rather with their
'essence.'

I have to say, first, that this set of beliefs is exactly identical to
the set that Carl Sagan put forward in his book 'Cosmos.' So, it is not
a new concept. In fact, people have held this definition of God
stretching all the way back to the times of Copernicus. People often
make the mistake of believing that in the past there were only
essentially three conceptions of God (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and
eastern mysticism). This is entirely false. All throughout history there
have been atheists, agnotics, "cosmic-force" believers, and a whole host
of other types of definitions of God.

So, it is unfair to say that those who believe in the God of the Bible
are merely brainwashed by centuries of dogmatic assertions that he is
the only definition of God. People of all ages were free to consider the
alternatives. Due to unfortunate (and sinful) tragedies like the
inquisition and crusades, it has not always been easy to disagree with
Christianity. But people have still always been free to disagree with
it, provided that they were truly willing to put their life on the line
for their beliefs.

The main complaint I have with your belief that God is a passive quality
of the ambient universe is that this directly means that God is
reducible to a finite or infinite number of particles along with their
energy. In principle, what you are saying is that there is no separate
creature (of some kind) that exists apart from me and which made me but
himself did not ever need to be made.

But if that is the case, then I can quickly challenge your claim by
arguing that thoughts themselves are not legitimate unless there exists
some source for their legitimacy. For me, that source is an externally
existing God. Hence, my thoughts then have value (rooted in Him) for
determining truth about reality.

If not such God existed then you are essentially saying that you could
fit all of existence (including God) into a box. It may have to be
infinite dimensional, but it is all still bounded by what we could
conceivably measure in theory. And since we then sit on the inside of
such a box, we cannot possibly determine anything true that is not
subjective about the box in which we live. Thus, you would have no basis
for claiming that your beliefs were right and some other set of beliefs
was not correct.

I believe that human thought is the most obvious instance of a
connection with a being that exists wholly apart from our concept of
reality. And via thought and his interactions with us (miracles) we can
know objective truths about the realm in which we live. If He didn't
exist, all knowledge would be subjective and hence not falsifiable.

I don't believe that your beliefs are self-inconsistent like an atheists
beliefs are. But I still feel that you suffer the problem of being able
to base your claim of ability to detect truth on an objective
foundation.

That's what convinces me that an actual existing being, separate from
created things, must exist that is God. Once I came ot that conclusion,
it was very easy to see that Christianity is the account of such an
existing being that has the most credibility (both in terms of
observation and philosophy), so that is why I believe in Christianity.

Old is when you actually jump and jive prior to wailing.

Abra:

I think, overall, you made a very correct and insightful description of
the book of Job. There is only one small point that I think you
overlook, and it is perhaps because it does not enter in to your belief
system.

One reason why people consistently say that Job is an example of why and
how bad things happen to good people is because this book attempts to
explain the idea of justice and fairness.

God is justified in whatever action he takes. He does not need to
justify his actions to men. Job is the example. Despite being an
upstanding man who was blameless (it does not say sinless, because no
one is sinless except Christ, according to the Bible), God still chooses
to allow Satan to inflict misery on Job. And in the midst of such
misery, God still expects Job to maintain his trust and faith in the
Lord. This is because God does not owe Job anything and nothing that God
ever does is unfair.

For most people that is a tough pill to swallow, because we
intrinsically believe that if we behave and are good people, we deserve
kindness and help from God. But this is not the case. We do not deserve
anything from him. Whatever he has given, he has given of his own free
will. That is why God's providence for people is referred to as grace,
rather than payment.

If God were to directly inflict me with cancer, for example, I would
have no right to complain. If he were to destroy my entire life, I would
still be forced to love him simply for being who he is. The amazing
thing is that despite my own personally wretched behavior (my behavior
is severely worse that Job's) I do not suffer as Job suffered. And I
don't have to feel guilty about not suffering. I simply have to
understand that God's priorities and sense of justice are not the same
as the commonplace sense found on earth.

So, when people complain here that God's not being fair, their complaint
is both absurd and irrelevant because we cannot attempt to measure God's
fairness by what happens to us. The mere fact that things happen to us
at all is more than we can claim as something we deserve (for we could
not create ourselves).

But, you are VERY correct to point out the faults of Job's 3 friends.
That is one of the main themes of the book: we are all living this life
together, and you should not parade around as if you know the reasons
why God acts. That is a central idea.

I have but one complaint about your personal analysis of the book. You
say that you don't blame God for the way things go in your life because
you believe that it's "just the way the cookie crumbles."

Doesn't this assume that God is not responsible for how the cookie
crumbles? Then he must not be all powerful, for if he were all powerful
and chose not to act to prevent a particular event, then it would be his
fault that they event took place. Now, if you do not believe in a
sufficiently powerful God to manipulate events, that's totally fine. All
I am saying is that the Bible very clearly explains that God can alter
the way things happen, and in Job's case God specifically causes bad
things to happen to Job.

So, the message from the Bible could not possibly say "Don't blame God
since God is not responsible." Rather, it says, "Don't blame God because
he doesn't have to justify his actions in a framework consistent with
human thought."

That's just my take, but in general I think you certainly found the
value of the Book of Job. I would suggest waiting a few months and
re-reading it, especially the passages at the end where God finally
speaks. It's amazing what you discover as you keep reading it.

why do you intrinsically reach for sex and drugs as examples of shocking
things to find in heaven? might it not be an appeal to an intrinsic
sense of morality?

I want to drink my first beer in Heaven, from a Klein bottle, while I
run laps on a Mobius strip.

youtube, monty python cheese shop, AMAZING!

my best feature is my ability to detect my best feature.

Rainbow:

I think you mean the Peacemaker aircraft. It was originally designed to
be the first plane to carry the "earthquake" bomb, BLU daisy-cutter. I'm
pretty sure the first of these bombs went by the name "daisy" which,
though not religious, is a pretty contemptible title for such a bomb.

They work by detonating about 6 feet before they hit the ground (this is
the "daisy cutter" part from a special fuse), and then depending on the
contents of the bomb, they can have various effects. One common way they
are used is to put a GX slurry compund in the bomb, and when it
detonates it will send out a pressure way that is roughly 1000 psi. Most
living things in the 600 ft blast radius will die from suffocation if
not from the initial explosion because the pressure evacuates the air
for a minute or two. If other chemicals are mixed in the bomb, it will
actually ignite and combust with the oxygen, so then you can't breathe
and you also have to deal with fire everywhere. These are pretty
horrible weapons... but named "daisy."

Red:

Nobody promised that it would be easy to understand. And if anyone
proposed to have all the answers, they would be sorely mistaking. I do,
however, think that we place too much emphasis on observed suffering in
the world. I happen to believe the best 'good' you can do for another
may not necessarily be an alleviation of their physical or emotional
pain. I would rather live in a world where I feel pain but can use that
pain to grow in character.

I can't tell you how to understand God's will for you. All I can say is
that I have an impression of what God's will is for me. I would love to
talk about it more with you, but perhaps a blog like this is not the
best channel for it. Email me sometime if you have any other kids of
questions, though. This is the most difficult things for a person to
decide, and so seeking many opinions is the best things you can do in
terms of figuring this out for yourself.

I guess, in summary, I am saying that I consider my previous posts to be
'logical' given the philosophical framework I am arguing from. A person
who strictly believed that alleviating physical pain was the best good a
human can do for another human would not find my claims to be logical. I
am arguing, I guess, that you may have to alter your conception of
rational.

I'm also very partial to the sci-fi original "Mansquito."

that sounds enticing

the debate is over.

i'm watching jurassic park.

yeah but i didn't want to try to list them all

doesn't the guy kill someone by dropping a chainsaw on them from several
stories above them?

I am trying hard to think of a movie to watch right now. I don't want to
go to sleep yet, any suggestions?

I would very fiercely argue that it's our chief purpose in life to
realize that, alone, we can't possibly hope to overcome the differences
without resorting to violence and evil. But, upon realization of our own
sin, and upon the realization the no one is good, not even one (not even
myself, that is the key realization) only then do we have any hope of
overcoming without resorting to evil.

In short: only because of sin is it the case that resorting to violence
is in our nature. This part was not given to us by God, rather it was
chosen by each of us in our weakness and imperfection. The best we can
do is to realize our place (our miniscule place) as imperfect people,
and attempt to then alter our very nature so that it no longer resorts
to violence.

This is then entire idea of redemption and forgiveness. While it is our
nature to be cruel, we are also endowed with the ability to change our
nature, and that is our primary task in life.

anyone else like the show?

Red:

I'm not saying that God feared anything. I am saying that the problem he
sought to rectify was the lack of diversity among civilization in its
quest to accomplish goals. My interpretation is that when he saw them
building the tower, he though "my, that's a really silly goal to be
trying to achieve... but since they are not faced with the challenges of
overcoming differences (i.e. they have no opportunity for spiritual
growth in the arena of cooperative endeavor) they are getting the point
that it's a silly goal. Hence, they might actually accomplish their task
(i.e. they might build a tower that is satisfactorily tall for them) but
even if they succeed in doing it, they will have gained nothing because
it was trivially easy for them to get together to do it.

Thus, to make the task worthwhile (since the tower (for example) itself
wasn't worthwhile) he added the dimension of diversity (here it
specifically traced to language diversity) as a measure to ensure that
at least if they were going to work on a silly task (and actually make
serious progress on it) then they might in some way gain something from
it.

For me this makes sense, because one of the most fundamental things we
have to do as people is learn to accept the differences we have with
others and work to overcome them as we strive to achieve goals. The
goals we are trying to achieve might look trivial and silly to God, who
can see the bigger picture, so at least as we strive in our limited
understanding, we are gaining character in the sense that we can
appreciate and work through difficulties introduced through differences
in race or language. That is the philosophical value of the story.

It doesn't have anything to do with punishment and it doesn't have
anything to do with people actually building a literal tower that could
reach to heaven. And, I don't think it requires any fancy or
unreallistic interpretation to argue my point of view.

About being wordy: I have to say I agree. But, I don't apologize for it.
I see things in a very logical/rational/scientific sense. When I try to
think of examples to illustrate my point, they often come from science
and often I overlook the fact that not everyone is familiar with science
(and not every cares much for it). So, if my writing is wordy, I
understand your complaint, but I'm afraid it probably isn't going to
improve anytime soon.