Six Reasons (The Christian) God Exists

[StruckingFuggle]

A: I had no idea where in the bible it was, and B: Huh. Then what am I thinking of, where God hardened their hearts to get the judgement He wanted?

[JudgeMental]

You're thinking waaaaay back to when God hardened Pharaoh's heart against the Israelites. But the mechanism is not what you might think. Pharaoh's heart was hardened not because God poked Pharaoh and said "Your heart is hard." It was more a result of God showing mercy and relieving each of the plagues. Pharaoh still had a choice in the matter; God wasn't supernaturally forcing Pharaoh to harden his heart.

And even in that case, where is it said that the judgement ends up being what God wanted?

[StruckingFuggle]

Really?

"And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

It seems to me that by saying "he hardened Pharoh's heart", God is taking deliberate action - He wills it to be so, and in making it be so, he makes the choice for Pharoh. And if he was going to do that naturally, instead of making a different decision, why would God bother to harden his heart in the first place?

And even in that case, where is it said that the judgement ends up being what God wanted?

Well, if it wasn't the judgement God wanted, why would he have hardened Pharoh's heart?

[Arc Orion]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="684771"]A: I had no idea where in the bible it was[/quote]Towards the end of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of course. You know, for such an anti-Christian, I would expect you to know more about the Bible. Even if you didn't know exactly where it was, you could always have just searched for "Barabbas".

[StruckingFuggle]

Well obviously its towards the end, but the NT is still a thick book.

And you know, I'm not necessarily such an anti-Christian. That Christ fellow wasn't so bad. It's his dad I wouldn't mind kicking in the nadgers. That and I'm not so denominational about it. Judaism and Islam would fall under a lot of my same objections. But meh, that's beside the point.

[JudgeMental]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="684780"]
Well, if it wasn't the judgement God wanted, why would he have hardened Pharoh's heart?[/quote]

I asked my pastor that question several years ago. The conversation was quite long, and I don't even remember some of it, but I'll try to catch the main points.

First, like I said, God didn't violate Pharaoh's free will. When it says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it was in the same way you might piss off a friend or something. Influence through external interation, you might say.

Second, you have to realise that the Pharaoh lived in a very, very different culture from what you'd be familiar with. He was an absolute ruler, believed to be deity. The Jews were considered inferior, as slaves. Think white supremacy, Aryan nation kind of thing. I'm far, far from familiar with Egyptian culture at that point, I just know that there was a lot stacked against Abraham's descendents.

Third, considering cultural and attitude factors, what God did may have been the least destructive way to go about freeing His people. It's possible that to make Pharaoh relent all at once, God would have had to wipe out most of Egypt.

Fourth, while not directly applicable to hardening Pharaoh's heart, God wanted to make it clear that He would protect His people. My familiarity with the exodus and conquest of Caanan isn't what it used to be, but I seem to remember that there were several times when the events that transpired in Egypt caused several cities to lay down arms.

Anyway, that's the problem with "what if's." There's no way to know if there's truly a better way for some event to occur.

SF, I'm glad to hear you're not specifically antagonistic to Christianity, but why do you dislike God?

[jimkatai]

Well, see, I wouldn't call them religious experts as much as political experts that knew Jewish law pretty good. Also, Jesus never said that all Jews were hypocritical in their beliefs and practices (sorry if I misunderstand, but if you just meant the pharisees then this comment and any other comment in reaction to yours would be moot), he actually still considered himself a Jew. The only time he embarks on hypocrisy and people losing their way is when he talks to the pharisees or saducees which are more government than religion, and in the temple, which, by that point, most of the common jews had turned their backs on the temples or fulfilled these trips to the temple out of duty, so he was only stating what the common jew already believed.

And about Pilate's decision- Luke 22:66 At Daybreak the nation's leaders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the Law of Moses got together and brought Jesus before their council.
Shortly after this, (meaning one question later) they take him to Pilate. This all happened during the Passover. During this time, it is against Jewish Law to conduct business, like the Sabbath, and people are busy with the festival. Not to mention that this is happening in the city, where a very small portion of Jews live, and the ones that do are under the influence and power of the Chief Priests, so it is essentially a stacked trial.

Now about the Niceans rewriting the Bible. http://www.gnosticchristianity.com/frameset_CH4.htm

Also for proof that it actually happened from a non Gnostic view.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Arc Orion]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="684822"]Well obviously its towards the end, but the NT is still a thick book.[/quote]The New Testament may be thick, but each book is rather thin. It doesn't take much to skim for a specific part. It only took a minute to find the passage in Matthew, and I didn't look up the other ones simply because it was easier just to search for "Barabbas".

[Deacon]

Arc Orion just called you out, SF. Called you OUT.

jimkatai is right about one thing: Jesus was a Jew, his family and disciples were Jews, and he spoke to and ate with and generally was involved with nearly all Jews. He never condemned the Jews. In fact, some of his disciples were sent to work with the Greeks (Gentiles, any non-Jew), while others were focused primarily on their fellow Jews. There's no religious basis for Christian antisemitism. Any religious connection is either raw ignorance or otherwise using very selective bits of the Bible out of context as additional fodder for a broader antisemitic feeling or movement.

[JudgeMental]

Exactly. I seriously do not understand why people say Christianity is anti-semetic. It's my best guess that those who say that simply haven't bothered actually READING the New Testament. It's been bad enough that I've heard of Jews who wouldn't read the New Testament because they thought it was essentially an instruction manual for persecution.

[Sophira]

JudgeMental, I'm not sure that it's true so much now, but in the past, many, many Christians actually were anti-semitic and attempted to use the Bible to justify their position. The idea that Christianity is anti-semitic is a holdover from such a time.

Naturally, it's about the same ridiculous thing as assuming that all Southern Baptists hate black people.

[JudgeMental]

I suppose that's true. The idea is ludicrious, though. It completely boggles my mind. Not that boggling my mind is too big of a feat...

[Sophira]

Naturally, it's about the same ridiculous thing as assuming that all Southern Baptists hate black people.

Bad analogy. The Southern Baptists broke off from mainstream Baptists around the time of the Civil War, because the northern Baptists condemned slavery, while the Baptists in the south, obviously, were convinced that the practice of slavery was condoned by the Bible (and iirc, there were many who felt it was "right" to enslave the black people).

So, not the same thing, as afaik, no such thing happened with Christianity as a whole regarding the general Christian take on Jews.

Still idiotic, however.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Arc Orion";p="685046"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="684822"]Well obviously its towards the end, but the NT is still a thick book.[/quote]The New Testament may be thick, but each book is rather thin. It doesn't take much to skim for a specific part. It only took a minute to find the passage in Matthew, and I didn't look up the other ones simply because it was easier just to search for "Barabbas".[/quote]

Fair enough. I suck/fail at finding stuff, its been established. That and I'm just lazy and could have sworn I was right (up until the other day I would have sworn that was part of it from The Readings from back when I did go to church), so it was almost to me like checking every day or at least every day I say, that the earth goes around the sun or that hamlet said "there is nothing good nor bad, but thinking makes it so".

Granted, that is a poor way to behave, and I'll cop to that. You're right (in this instance).

And Decon, typically, calling someone out involves putting forth a challenge, not just pointing out how someone's wrong. Either way, meh, he was right to do so.



[quote="JudgeMental";p="684900"]SF, I'm glad to hear you're not specifically antagonistic to Christianity, but why do you dislike God?[/quote]

Several reasons, the primary three of which are as follows:

First: This one mostly only holds true if you believe it takes belief in and worship of God to make it into heaven, but also and/or if you believe it takes doing Good (by His definition) to make it in... and also the concept of eternal damnation (in any form). This, I resent. Its about that simple: to me, it seems like he demands faith at more or less gunpoint. Belief is an exchange. If you follow his rules and are faithful to him you are saved, and if you deviate, you are damned. Forcing people through coercive threats to confrom to your standard, and/or using the same threats to demand their regard, respect, and tribute, is something I can feel nothing but antagonism towards.

Second: This one can be a bit hard to explain, but ... it can best be summed up by a line someone who was once a houseguest included in his saying grace: "lord, without you we are nothing". I can't quite explain how much this galls me. God, as a concept, is degrading and inimical to human dignity. In requiring God to give life meaning, to give life worth, we become incapable, on our own, of living a meaningful and worthwhile life. I believe in something fairly existentialist, that it is our power (and our neccessity) to give our own life meaning and to create our own sense of self worth .... which is utterly incompatable with the idea of God, and all told I am hostile to any concept that seeks to so degrade the worth and value of humanity by stealing it's capacity for self-genesis of meaning.

Third: This one is closely related to #2, and could almost be called point 2.5: I dislike anything that teaches reliance on an external messiah. According to God, we need God to improve our lot and to be saved, our own efforts will never be enough. This is not so much an antagonistic objection as it is it simply strongly runs counter to what I believe in. I find it impossible to at once hold to a concpet of a Redemptive Force with exclusive rights to said redemption / salvation, and my own beliefs, and thus I cannot believe in God - or even if I believed, I would by neccessity be a heretic.

[Deacon]

JudgeMental, with Fuggle, it basically boils down to the world he lives in not matching up to the ideals of a world he would make if he were God, and the idea that he could possibly need anyone or anything else to be whole runs smack into the wall of fierce--nearly militant--independence he's built around his thoughts. His utter disdain for the autonomous product is multiplied manyfold and focused into an intense beam of loathing toward the Manufacturer that would allow anything to exist or transpire that he considers imperfect or less than ideal.

I guess that's the paradox of freedom and perfection. If one is free to choose, one may choose imperfection. And the perception of perfection differs from person to person. Perfection cannot be realized in a world with any freedom, but a world with no freedom is imperfect in the eyes of many.