I know they say you should never discuss sex, religion, or politics in polite company...
...but that has never seemed to apply here anyways, so I hope no one minds if I ask for a bit of theology.
---------------------------------------------
In the majority of Protestant religions, good works and deeds and even faith are not enough to obtain passage to Heaven. One must accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
The reasoning (as I understand it) goes like this.
1. We all sin. 2. Sin cannot be in the presence of God. 3. God's OT laws demanded a sacrifice for the atonement of sin. 4. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and it atoned for all our sins -- if we accept the sacrifice.
Now, a lot of non-Christians find issue with step four, arguing that Jesus's sacrifice should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not we purposefully and affirmatively accept it.
My issue lies instead with step three.
1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
The reasoning I have heard is thus: God changes his laws. He even changes his mind, as when Moses debated with him over the fate of the Israelis. So, God being a good-natured fellow, he eventually decided to send his Son to earth to die and atone for our sins.
2. If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business? He could have still sent his Son down as a teacher. From what I understand of God, he really wants all people to be with him in heaven, so why not just tweak his own laws a bit?
[ July 11, 2005, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It wouldn't be very much work for people if they had everything handed to them by God would it?
Maybe it was done this way to make life more of a challenge for people. If Heaven were free admittance to all, then there wouldn't be a hell, and thus no real reason for any constraints on behavior while on Earth.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You should get together with BC and have a discussion about the Bible AND the Koran...
Seems to me that you are coming into this with a bit of an attitude right off the bat, but perhaps I am misreading you. Tone is hard to judge on a forum... Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
In all sincerity, how do you feel that my post conveys an attitude?
Really, I am asking a theological question that perplexes me. That's it.
[Edit: I think I may have found a bit that gave that sort of indication. I removed it.]
Lyrhawn:
Alright, so heaven can't be a free-for-all pass. Fine. But then the concept of Jesus and the sacrifice goes pretty much dead against it.
If you truly accept the sacrifice, you will stive to be Christ-like, and even though you are imperfect, you get in.
You didn't answer the questions at hand at all. Why the sacrifice? What kind of 'challenge' is that? Why then, and not earlier?
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
Speaking as a Protestant Christian, I actually have an answer (or at least the deranged meandering of my own thoughts) for this one, but it's very involved and I don't have time to post it right now. Hopefully I'll have time later; I'll try and keep track of this thread, see if someone else comes up with the same answer I have, and if I find the time, I'll post what I can.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
HRE, this question perplexes me as well. I've talked to believers about it and the responses I've gotten were 1) God is above us and we can't hope to understand Him. (A Protestant Christian) 2) God is not all powerful and thus must accept a set of rules Himself. Maybe this is one of those rules. (A Mormon)
I'm curious what others will say.
[Edited to capitalize Him to avoid giving offense.]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>[Edited to capitalize Him to avoid giving offense.]
If anyone gets offended over this, they should just leave Hatrack now, and save themselves the heartache...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Maybe it was done this way to make life more of a challenge for people. If Heaven were free admittance to all, then there wouldn't be a hell, and thus no real reason for any constraints on behavior while on Earth.
The fact that so many people seem to actually believe this faulty logic is terrifying. As if without the promise of eternal damnation there is suddenly no intrinsic value in loving your neighbor and being a good person and upstanding citizen. As if, since I know I'm not gonna rot in hell for eternity I might as well start the raping and pillaging since that's such an otherwise desirable lifestyle.
People who truly believe that need religion to protect the rest of us who don't need daddy standing over us with a belt in his hand to keep us from biting each other.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
Perhaps he was waiting for actual civilizations to be created, so that the teachings of his Son would have a fertile ground to take root in. After the Garden (looking at the Adam/Eve story either metaphorically, or literally) there probably wasn't much in the way of cities, or camps, much less countries. There was no infrastructure, no culture of writing things down. Christ's message of salvation through his merits MAY have been subjected to the same fate as the Noah/Adam stories-- become sort of super-myths even in the minds of those people who take them literally. Because God waited until writing matured as a cultural tool, and civilizations were established, He provided for a faster and more effective disemination of the Gospel.
(Just rambling off the top of my head. . . I may change my mind later this morning to 'I don't have a clue.')
quote:If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business?
In Mormonism, an atonement had to be made-- it was not something God could avoid, not if repentence and forgiveness were also to be instituted. We Mormons believe that a plan was put forth by Lucifer that called for the removal of man's agency-- without his agency, man would be incapable of disobedience, and thus, unable to sin, and thus an atonement would not be required. But our agency also ties in with one of the purposes of this life-- to learn and gain knowledge. If we were forced to do right, rather than allowed to choose right, we would be cut off from the learning process, and our existence would be in vain. God chose man's agency over automatic obedience.
By doing so, He set up a reality in which sin (here, disobedience against God's commandments) could exist. Because of sin, we are kept out of God's presence.
I think about it like this:
If I punch you in the nose, nothing I do or say can ever remove the fact that I punched you. YOU can forgive me; I can make restitution a million times by giving you and all your descendents safety and prosperity. The fact, the history, remains unchanged-- I socked you. I can't do anything about it. Because I've sinned, Justice (Justice, in the Mormon philosophy, cannot be altered, even by God) will not allow me to dwell in Heaven.
From this point of view, because all humanity sins we're all screwed.
Christ was able to work past Justice because he remained sinless throughout his life. Because he was not under Justice's condemnation, He is able to assist us in freeing ourselves from our sins.
I think the debtor allegory works well in this case. We all owe a debt to the universe because of our sins, which none of us can pay. Justice is sharp-- the smallest misdeed bestows an insurmountable debt. Christ, who never sinned, is able to (and has) assumed that debt, (Mormon qualification to follow) on the condition that we meet his standards of repayment.
CS Lewis, I believe, said something interesting about Christ's atonement and the faithful which ties into my intial thoughts on this subject: after final judgement, Christ's atonement will work backwards in time, repairing all the breeches of God's law we've made-- in effect, remaking our history. It's a neat thought, that this is the method or reason why God will 'remember our sins no more;' because, in our history, they do not exist.
But then the question becomes, if the sins did not exist, have we learned anything from this life?
And we're right back to where we started.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:The reasoning I have heard is thus: God changes his laws. He even changes his mind, as when Moses debated with him over the fate of the Israelis. So, God being a good-natured fellow, he eventually decided to send his Son to earth to die and atone for our sins.
God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: 1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
Jesus came to this Earth, among other reasons, to prove that it was possible to live a sinless life. If he came after they left the Garden, he would be living among God's first created beings--people who communed with God and knew him and loved him. Not very hard to live a sinless life there. If he came right after the flood, he's living with Noah and his wife who were pretty upstanding people. Yes, he'd have to deal with their sons, but it's not so hard to live a sinless life there either. He came when he did so that there would actually be a challenge to living right. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take much comfort in the idea that Jesus could only live a sinless life in those situations. I'm stuck in this really sinful world where temptation lies everywhere--so how could I do it if he had to choose a peaceful time?
Read about Christ's trials in the New Testament, and you can see he didn't have it easy.
Also, I think another reason God waited is the same reason he didn't kill Lucifer immediately after he sinned. Lucifer, a beloved angel of heaven, was casting doubt that God's law really was just and necessary. We know that 1/3 of the angels believed his lies and were persuaded by his doubting arguments. He was very persuasive... So, if God smote him down right then and there, there would always be doubt among the angels and other created beings, wouldn't there? Maybe Lucifer was right all along... And I think God would be worshipped only out of fear. So instead, Lucifer, Satan by now, had to be allowed to carry out his ideas. The angels and others had to see what sin, or breaking God's law, really could do. Our Earth is the result. That's also why so many bad things are allowed to happen here. People want to blame God for it, but really, it's all a result of sin. Angels and other beings watch us down here on this Earth and they see what rebellion does--what pain it causes, and they see that yeah... God's law had a purpose. It was to save us all from this.
That's why Job says we are His witnesses.
Well, there's a lot more to it than that...but that's just a little cluster of my thoughts on the subject. I've gotta get back to work...
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Chesterton addresses the question of timing, among other things, in the first half The Everlasting Man, which does a nifty job of discussing Christianity in historical perspective.
Highly recommend it for all Christians and anyone else who wants to understand what Christianity is about.
As for the need for acceptance of the sacrifice, I wrote something in another post which I can't find now... here's a brief summary:
*note* this is not intended as a literal description, but rather an exemplary one... i.e. it's something *like* this... not actually this going on.
Satan, in leading the rebellion against God, covets and wants to obtain as much of God's creation as he can, especially people's souls. Through the fall, he managed to obtain the "rights" (if you will) to men's souls. In both Jewish and pre-christian pagan mythos, everyone goes to the same place when they die, where some sort of justice is meted out, but there is no separation of "wheat and chaff" or what have you. Everyone goes to hades, sheol, or purgatorio, depending on what language you are reading (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, respectively).
Ok... now the supposition begins: it seems to me that Satan's plan in obtaining human souls was to hold us ransom against God Himself. Satan got what he wanted-- the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Unfortunately he seems to have underestimated Jesus's power, and Jesus, having "preached to the souls in prison" (words from the bible) with us, was able to bust out and is offering to take us with him.
Which is why faith in Him, believing in His Benificence, and "accepting His sacrifice" become important, and indeed, the way out. He is leading a jail break... if you don't trust Him, you won't go.
Just my personal thoughts on your questions.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
Jebus,
Lewis explains this aspect of prayer by alluding to God as a teacher talking about an assignment: "this is the approved solution... if you have questions or another solution you think might be valid, come see me and we'll discuss it."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or, of course, you could read this thing for what it is, to wit, a tribal myth with a more sophisticated theology layered on top of it. If you look at the Old Testament, it's quite clear that Yahweh is one of many gods, and by no means all-power or all-wise; he can indeed change his mind, do things he regrets - like the Flood, which incidentally is regretted by the gods in every mythos I'm aware of - and be outwitted. It's only later on that he acquires his modern attributes of omnimaxness.I seem to recall there's archeological evidence for his originally having a consort goddess; go back far enough, and I suspect you'll find him ruling a whole pantheon, much like Zeus or Odin. (Indeed, he seems to do quite a bit of sending 'angels' to do his work in the OT; subordinate gods, perhaps?) Uncompromising monotheism is an invention of the Babylonian captivity. This is speculation, but perhaps, being slaves, the Jews could no longer afford to keep up their whole pantheon, and concentrated on the most important and powerful one.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Or, conversly, KoM, perhaps everything you say is true merely because we've gradually come to a better and clearer understanding of what "God" means just as we have come to a better and clearer understanding of what "Gravity" means.
Which is why you should read The Everlasting Man...
(edit in case the implication wasn't obvious: the book deals directly with what you are discussing)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: If you look at the Old Testament, it's quite clear that Yahweh is one of many gods
Can you clarify? There are other divinities mentioned-- Ba'al, for example, and Asherah, and Molech; however, none of these are understood (in the context of the script) as being actual beings, but rather fictions invented by religions of the day. These fictions do not figure into the Israelites' theology as far as I can see, especially not as part of a pantheon.
While angels and even the devil as a conscious, opposing, evil force may be inherited from the Persians, I'm not convinced at all that the Israelites were appreciably anything other than monotheistic previous to their captivity.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I see prayer as a collaboration with God. He wants us to pray and he teaches us to pray, and he actually takes our prayers into account in ordering things in this universe of space and time. So yes he can "change His mind" based on our input. But what he's really doing, perhaps, is inviting us to connect with him in this way, for our own growth and because it brings us joy, and because it's how it all works, somehow.
God's creating this amazing work of art called the universe. It's like a Dostoyevsky novel or a Van Gogh painting, or like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, maybe, except it's as much better than those things as a sunset compared to a child's drawing on the fridge. We emulate Him any time we create things. The whole cosmos of being and history is His awesome work of art, and we are each of us playing the role of ourselves in this great drama. So we get to ad lib our parts, in collaboration with God in its creation. Praying is another way in which we collaborate, along with everything else that we do, all our choices and actions. That's how I like to think of it.
And it's not just for beauty's sake, but because it all really matters a whole lot. By doing this we are saving something important. We're helping in work that means all the difference for everything.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tatiana,
Nice points... and once God allows us to have the dignity of being able to take actions and cause real events, what difference does it make if we cause them by work or prayer? There's an old saying "labore est orare"-- "work is prayer."
Also call to mind another Lewis saying that I really liked: "I don't pray to change God, I pray to change me."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, quite so. After 3000 years of editing, it is clear that Baal and so on are to be taken as fictions. Now take a good look at the commandments : "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Seems pretty clear that there are other gods that could be worshipped.
Then there's the archeological evidence, to wit
quote:Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Biblical references have been taken to indicate that a goddess Asherah was worshipped in Israel and Judah, as the Queen of Heaven whose worship Jeremiah so vehemently opposed:
"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." —Jeremiah 7:17–18
(...)
Two painted inscriptions "Yahweh of Samaria/the guardian and his Asherah" on fragments of the type of large terracotta pot that archaeologists call a pithos were found in the site of a caravanserai of the 8th century BCE at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Negev.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
As a Protestant Christian, I have definitely wondered this - why was Christ's suffering necessary if God is all-powerful?
My suspicion is that it was not necessary to save our souls, but was a symbolic act, a sort of very real parable to illustrate a point that mankind would remember.
One thing I've concluded... if God does exist as I believe, it's seems that He favors more elaborate ways of getting things done in this world than just zapping them into whatever He knows is right.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
There was a prophet in the book of Mormon who's son had a problem with free love type issues that sound similar to your questions. You might enjoy studying that. Let's see... Alma 39 - 42.
If I have time today I'll check back and see if I can explain what I thought was so great about it.
For now: God is in our presence all the time through his spirit. He has no difficulty being with us in that sense. But wouldn't you agree that he's not really in our presence if we are not in his? If we don't know he exists or care what he thinks, in what way are we in his presence? I think his "psychic" abilities are directly tied to his "righteousness" or rather, his lack of selfishness. The selfish being only sees itself. It's more complicated that simply losing oneself in the lives of others, though since codependency is such a problem for mortals at least.
Maybe that is what constrains God from letting the selfish into his presence. If he does, he would be taken advantage of on a cosmic scale. That is why the Lord has to set limits.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Now take a good look at the commandments : "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Seems pretty clear that there are other gods that could be worshipped.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that in the context of the Old Testament, the God of the Israelites allowed that these competing being were real.
In other words, I can call my car Melangthcanesh the Beatific and worship it, and call it the great creator; that does not mean that Israel's God calls it equal. Or real, even.
For an enlightening view of what the God of Israel thought of other gods, please read the account of Elijah vs. the priests of Ba'al. In it, Elijah mocks the priests for their inability to raise Ba'al's support, telling them, in effect, to pray louder because Ba'al must be sleeping, and doesn't hear them.
I don't deny that Ba'al and Asherah (also called Ashtoreth, or some variant thereof) was worshipped by the Israelites-- but it's clear from the Old Testament writings that they weren't doing so by God's approbation. Again, for evidence, I point out the lives of Ahab and Jezebel, who raised altars to Ba'al, and groves for Ashtoreth, and were condemned by Elijah. (This is pre-captivity, by the way. . .)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Maybe that is what constrains God from letting the selfish into his presence. If he does, he would be taken advantage of on a cosmic scale. That is why the Lord has to set limits.
Mmmm. . . the Book of Mormon states that sinners are in more misery in the presence of God than they are in Hell. From that point, I tend to think that sinners and God are seperated because God is merciful.
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
well see it's simple really
this God fellow is just making everything up as he goes along
(probably going to catch some flack for that)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: In both Jewish and pre-christian pagan mythos, everyone goes to the same place when they die, where some sort of justice is meted out, but there is no separation of "wheat and chaff" or what have you. Everyone goes to hades, sheol, or purgatorio, depending on what language you are reading (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, respectively).
I generally do not post in these threads for obvious reasons. But I have to object to this statement. I couldn't tell you whether that is an accurate assessment of "pre-christian pagan mythos," but it is not correct as regards Jewish thought.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I do agree with the point that someone made that God's "omnimaxness" is a requirement that was added later. Early versions of Judaism and Christianity drew their knowledge of God from the observations of prophets, and did not try to impose further descriptives upon him. It was later, I believe, after the Hellenization of Christianity, that it was decided, by mortals, that in order to "really" be God, one must be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc. Based on nothing but their own fanciful imaginings.
Mormons believe that God is as powerful and wise as a being can be. But we don't push it into the realm of absurdity, because we don't hold up some made-up standard that we randomly think that God should measure up to. We try to observe God for who He is, and not for who we think He ought to be.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka-- can you explain what the Jewish thinking is on that line?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The main notion in Jewish thought boils down to: our concerns should be focused on doing our tasks in this world; the World to Come will take care of itself. This is why there are very few references to the afterlife in the Written Torah (no overt ones in the Five Books). However, there are discussions in the Gemara, and much speculation in the 2000 years since.
I know I have linked to this before; it's a fairly good presentation (if highly allegorical) of some of the more common Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, rivka.
(Maybe an off topic discussion-- when the article says 'Sages,' does it mean . . . um, Prophets (revealing new scripture) or commentators on existing scripture?)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks, Rivka... I certainly meant no offense...
The way I understand it, and was taught in college (admittedly a while ago), the Sadducees were the traditionalists and the Pharisees of Jesus's time were the more "modernist" school of thought.. . that the ideas of a resurrection and the like were developments in Jewish theology, not inherent in it.
I cannot speak to what biases my college professor might have had, personally, but it *was* a secular school and secularly focused class.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: (Maybe an off topic discussion-- when the article says 'Sages,' does it mean . . . um, Prophets (revealing new scripture) or commentators on existing scripture?)
More the latter. Jews believe there has been no prophecy for over 2000 years.
quote: The way I understand it, and was taught in college (admittedly a while ago), the Sadducees were the traditionalists and the Pharisees of Jesus's time were the more "modernist" school of thought.. . that the ideas of a resurrection and the like were developments in Jewish theology, not inherent in it.
*snort* I would debate that very strongly, but I do understand why Christian theologians would prefer that view.
I am not offended, and hope I am giving no offense. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No offense at all...
Except that I suddenly feel a little ignorant Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Jews believe there has been no prophecy for over 2000 years.
Why do you believe this?
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Wow...I hope no one expects me to respond to each post individually...
I'd just like to highlite a few points I caught:
-----------------------------------------------
jebus202:
quote:God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
In the old testament especially, God changes his mind. See Exodus 32:7-14, where God wants to go down and smite all the Israelis, but Moses talks God out of his divine testosterone, as one theologian said.
Then again, the OT also says God is unchanging and invariable. Hmm.
I noticed, also, that you argued this point and neglected to answer any of the actual questions in the OP, which only grow more difficult if you say God does not change his mind.
-----------------------------------------------
Jim-me:
So Satan has our souls, and we need Jesus to ransom them back? Why does Satan have our souls to begin with? What kind of awful deal is that?
-----------------------------------------------
Mothertree:
quote:If we don't know he exists or care what he thinks, in what way are we in his presence?
Alright, so I know he exists and care what he thinks. This still doesn't cover any of the Jesus questions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Jews believe there has been no prophecy for over 2000 years.
Why do you believe this?
I have to get to work, but look here.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by HRE: Jim-me:
So Satan has our souls, and we need Jesus to ransom them back? Why does Satan have our souls to begin with? What kind of awful deal is that?
In Christian Theology this is a result of the fall-- that is, the inherent human abuse of freewill that Christians call "original sin".
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting. So rivka, would it be fair to say that the Jews await a sort of restoration? Might this be in connection with the comming of the Messiah(I can't remember the Jewish term)?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:a lot of non-Christians find issue with step four, arguing that Jesus's sacrifice should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not we purposefully and affirmatively accept it.
This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws. What an interesting thought. I wonder if these same people would welcome me into their home if I used their names as epithets, dumped trash in their front yard, and spent most of my time telling half-truth gossip about them with the intent of ruining their reputation. Somehow, I think not. Nor should they.
quote:2. If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business? He could have still sent his Son down as a teacher. From what I understand of God, he really wants all people to be with him in heaven, so why not just tweak his own laws a bit?
This is essentially saying that when we do bad things, there should be no consequences. It's the response of a 3 yr old who thinks that saying "I'm sowwy." should fix it all. The problem with removing consequence is that "I'm sowwy" become just words, meaningless. Pain teaches, instructing us to stop doing what we're doing. When the ancients sacrificed a lamb, it was a true sacrifice -- that lamb represented a tangible value of loss. There would be no wool in the fall for years to come. Grain sacrifices meant less food to eat. The sacrifices weren't God's attempt to punish -- it was for the people to feel the full burden of their wrongdoing. And in having made the sacrifice, being able to accept forgiveness.
The thing is, if you unjustly hurt someone and know you've hurt them, if you're a decent person, you want to make it up to them and try to undo or fix the wrong thing you've done. If you feel the full burden of what you've done, you may (for yourself) need very much to perform some act of contrition for that person. That's sacrifice and it illustrates your true repentance. If instead you just threw out an offhand casual apology, ("Sorry I poisoned your cat, dude. I just wanted to see what would happen to him.") would you really feel as if you'd made up for what you'd done? Or would you feel lik a bit of a cheat, and then resent the person who forgave you? Don't answer too quickly. People who continually take and take and take without ever giving back almost never feel grateful to their benefactors -- usually they resent them. The sacrifice requirement isn't for God; it's for us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws.
Sure. Why not? Is it possible to save yourself through works, or not?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think it's important to point out that God's laws are not arbitrary. They're there to protect us from harm and pain, and by following them we are able to be our happiest.
Lucifer/Satan said they were arbitrary, that God was just trying to spoil their fun, so to speak. And he's been saying it ever since. Well, look around people. This world is a result of not following God's laws. Being Christian is about saying, Yeah, God's laws were for the best all along and choosing to live under them in heaven. Those who don't want to follow them would just be unhappy in heaven and start the sin problem all over again. Well, sin is having its proving time now. When God comes again, he won't have to tolerate it anymore.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It is not possible to save yourself through works--but that is a belief of some Christian denominations.
And someone can live a sinful life and honestly accept Jesus on their death bed and be saved. The parable about the workers who worked a full day getting paid the same as those who only worked one hour is about this very issue. All of the workers were promised a full-day's wage--how long they worked really didn't matter.
-Katarain
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm sure many of you already know the Mormon view, but I will throw it out there anyway.
We believe that part of the effect of the atonement is enjoyed by all, regardless of belief, deeds, race, gender, etc. That is the restoring of the physical body in resurrection. We believe that were it not for the atonement, that wouldn't come to anyone, and that with it, it is a free gift for all.
But the overcoming of sin, we believe, comes through a combination of faith and works. We believe that faith without works isn't faith at all. Therefore, while we are not saved by works because we still rely on Christ's atonement for it to even be possible, works do have a hand in our salvation. What is wrong is to think that we can be saved by our works *alone*.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:As a Protestant Christian, I have definitely wondered this - why was Christ's suffering necessary if God is all-powerful?
My suspicion is that it was not necessary to save our souls, but was a symbolic act, a sort of very real parable to illustrate a point that mankind would remember.
I definately respect this viewpoint. Is this line of thinking part of your church's doctrine or is it your own personal belief? If the first, what church do you go to?
quote: If I punch you in the nose, nothing I do or say can ever remove the fact that I punched you. YOU can forgive me; I can make restitution a million times by giving you and all your descendents safety and prosperity. The fact, the history, remains unchanged-- I socked you. I can't do anything about it. Because I've sinned, Justice (Justice, in the Mormon philosophy, cannot be altered, even by God) will not allow me to dwell in Heaven.
From this point of view, because all humanity sins we're all screwed.
I can accept the reasoning that it's out of God's hands and in the hands of some eternal ideal of Justice. However, the Justice that you describe sounds nothing like Justice to me. What type of just system sets everybody up to fail? If sinning is inherent in who we are, then being punished for sin is being punished for existing. This is not just.
Instead I think that making restitution, paying for the medical bills of the punched nose and apologizing profusely, is indeed just.
quote: The sacrifice requirement isn't for God; it's for us.
This makes sense for the sheep sacrifice, but I fail to understand the connection to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ's sacrifice is CHRIST'S sacrifice- nobody else's.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I can accept the reasoning that it's out of God's hands and in the hands of some eternal ideal of Justice. However, the Justice that you describe sounds nothing like Justice to me. What type of just system sets everybody up to fail? If sinning is inherent in who we are, then being punished for sin is being punished for existing. This is not just.
Instead I think that making restitution, paying for the medical bills of the punched nose and apologizing profusely, is indeed just.
The following is just my opinion, since I have wondered the same thing myself.
I believe it is a "raising of the bar". The idea here is that God doesn't just want us to live with Him, He wants us to be like Him and have the sorts of responsibilities He has. So the requirement is being trustworthy. So in overcoming sin, it is more than absolution being saught here, but change into the sort of person who wouldn't sin anymore.
It is apparent to me that this change is never complete in this life (for all but Christ Himself.) That this process continues for quite awhile into the next life. But because of the unique nature of mortality, what happens here is particularly telling of our inner strength and choices. The more progress we make in this life, the more advantage we gain along that path of progress. This isn't an advantage over others, it is an advantage for ourselves and how much there is yet to accomplish.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I also believe that Hell is made up of regrets and that it is the result of having True Perspective.
Does anyone remember in Douglas Adams "Hitchhiker" series how the worst punishment possible to inflict on a person was to give them True Perspective? You stick them in a room and they are exposed to the truth of just how insignificant they are in the unimaginably enormous universe. This punishment is inflicted on Zaphod, but since he learns that the universe was actually created solely *for him*, he comes out feeling better than ever!
I imagine that Satan's free will has something to do with it too. Has anyone ever seen Buffy? In the final season, "The First" is a lot how I imagine Satan to be. Incorporial, can't physically harm you, but he can tell you stuff, mess with your mind. If you are burdened with a guilty conscience, he can get a foothold in and really do damage. In order to be compeletly free of those effects, considering having True Perspective, one must have enough faith in Christ and have done what they can to overcome their own sins and weaknesses. The idea here is that Christ's atonement and our requested (by Him) response to it is THE only way to overcome this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>What type of just system sets everybody up to fail?
No one's being set up to fail-- aren't we all (generally speaking) responisble for our own mistakes? Additionally, in the Mormon cosmology, every single being that ever lived knew the price of coming to earth-- and we agreed to come anyway.
I'd like to contrast this:
quote:our agency also ties in with one of the purposes of this life-- to learn and gain knowledge. If we were forced to do right, rather than allowed to choose right, we would be cut off from the learning process, and our existence would be in vain. God chose man's agency over automatic obedience.
with this:
quote:And I think God would be worshipped only out of fear. So instead, Lucifer, Satan by now, had to be allowed to carry out his ideas. The angels and others had to see what sin, or breaking God's law, really could do. Our Earth is the result. That's also why so many bad things are allowed to happen here. People want to blame God for it, but really, it's all a result of sin. Angels and other beings watch us down here on this Earth and they see what rebellion does--what pain it causes, and they see that yeah... God's law had a purpose. It was to save us all from this.
It's an interesting contrast, don't you think?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: It is apparent to me that this change is never complete in this life (for all but Christ Himself.) That this process continues for quite awhile into the next life. But because of the unique nature of mortality, what happens here is particularly telling of our inner strength and choices. The more progress we make in this life, the more advantage we gain along that path of progress. This isn't an advantage over others, it is an advantage for ourselves and how much there is yet to accomplish.
I think that this is a beautiful vision and I have nothing but respect for it. However, I don't think it really explains why the Atonement of Christ is necessary for progression. Couldn't people learn of their strengths and grow without it? Why does this eternal debt need to be paid?
quote: I imagine that Satan's free will has something to do with it too. Has anyone ever seen Buffy? In the final season, "The First" is a lot how I imagine Satan to be. Incorporial, can't physically harm you, but he can tell you stuff, mess with your mind. If you are burdened with a guilty conscience, he can get a foothold in and really do damage. In order to be compeletly free of those effects, considering having True Perspective, one must have enough faith in Christ and have done what they can to overcome their own sins and weaknesses. The idea here is that Christ's atonement and our requested (by Him) response to it is THE only way to overcome this.
Since we're using Buffy analogies... I think that True Perspective as you relate it correlates to the way Angel reacts to getting his soul. He realizes how he's erred and he continually tries to make it better, knowing he never can. In great contrast, Spike gains this True Perspective and after a relatively short period of time he comes to the conclusion that since he didn't have True Perspective when he commited the acts, he wasn't really responsible. He gets over the guilt and simply tries not to "sin" anymore. Personally, I prefer the way that Spike handled the situation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I believe in definite atonement, or particular redemption, as it's sometimes called. It's also referred to as "limited atonement" but that's an unfortunate name, I think, because it gives the wrong impression.
At any rate, here is the nutshell version:
1. The wages of sin are death, so Christ had to die on the cross in order to pay the price of man's sin. He couldn't redeem us by doing 1000 pushups or anything like that.
2. When Christ died, he accomplished definite atonement for those that are saved. In other words, he definitely redeemed those people that are saved, rather than just making redemption available to all.
3. Nothing I or any other man or woman can do will "earn" me redemption. Redemption is a free gift of grace, the gift comes from God to man, and only God can effect salvation.
Here's a good explanation, with scriptural foundations, for those that want to know more in detail.
quote:Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity.(7) It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
quote:The NT makes clearer the fact that Jesus was given a people by the Father. In John 6.37-39 Jesus gives us some insight into His eternal relationship with His Father.
Everyone whom the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one coming to me, I will not cast out...this is the will of the One who sent me, that I shall lose none of everyone whom he has given me, but (instead), I will raise him up on the last day.
The Father has given a people to Jesus to save and resurrect. These people are a gift from the Father to the Son. A gift does not give itself! The Son has come (v.38) to do the Father's will. The Father's will is that none should be lost. Verse 65 intensifies the particularist theme.
...For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him...This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.(32)
Jesus knew those who would apostatize and betray him. Only those given to him by the Father come. The Lord is repeating what he has already said in vs.44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
People are the objects of the Father's drawing work. The people drawn are those whom God has chosen before the foundations of the world. Those whom God has drawn to Christ come to faith. They believe in Jesus. According to vs.65, it is only when we are drawn by God, led by the hand as it were, that we come to faith. It is the work of the Spirit of God to lead blinded sinners to sight and faith, as Jesus made the blind man to see.(33)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws. What an interesting thought. I wonder if these same people would welcome me into their home if I used their names as epithets, dumped trash in their front yard, and spent most of my time telling half-truth gossip about them with the intent of ruining their reputation. Somehow, I think not. Nor should they.
That's because they aren't all-knowing, perfectly compassionate beings. But I believe God is, and I'd expect God loves these people regardless of whatever trash they say about Him. That is Christ's message, no? Celebrating the return of the lost sheep? Why would God turn them away if He could do otherwise?
Hence, I would ask the same question as Tom...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I definately respect this viewpoint. Is this line of thinking part of your church's doctrine or is it your own personal belief? If the first, what church do you go to?
I am a Methodist Christian, but my beliefs are my own and not necessarily my church's. They could be my church's too - I honestly haven't looked into the details. I don't believe any church gets to tell me what I believe, though. I believe it acts more like a shepherd, helping to guide me, even though I still have to decide where I ultimately go.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: However, I don't think it really explains why the Atonement of Christ is necessary for progression. Couldn't people learn of their strengths and grow without it?
Again, I have asked myself the same question. I'm not sure I have a good answer for it. But I'm going to ramble some more and see if I come up with something.
It seems obvious to me that people can grow and progress who have no knowledge of Christ whatsoever. Though my understanding of the gospel is that all mankind will eventually learn about Christ whether in this life or the next, and have the opportunity to accept His atonement and teachings to the extent that they are willing to.
It seems to me that there have been plenty of people on the face of this earth since the beginning of time who have tried to seek out "goodness" and in so doing have followed the principles of what Christ taught without knowing anything about Him.
Our doctrine specifically teaches that every human born possesses the "light of Christ" within him or her, the ability to sense goodness and be drawn to it. But evil is enticing also, so mankind is placed in a position to choose and use agency.
This seems to say that man left to himself may choose the good over the evil and draw closer to God without knowing much about God or even believing in Him for one reason or other.
But if I understand correctly, we cannot on our own merits reach that point of "perfect trustworthiness". We can become decent people, "decent" just isn't "good enough" for these purposes. That is why we believe in different kingdoms in heaven. There will be people who don't make it that far, but certainly don't merit or deserve eternal torment. The judgement determines that.
But at the same time, Mormon doctrine seems clear on the point that if the Atonement was not made, no kingdom in heaven, even the lowest, would be attainable by fallen (having sinned) mankind. This is not something that I fully understand. I take it on faith that I don't understand all of the forces at play.
It seems to suggest that without a hope of attaining a body once more--(and we are taught that we will look upon the time separated from our bodies as a bondage, something else I don't fully understand)--we would eventually become like Satan himself. That basically, we would not progress, but degenerate to become monsters as He is. I don't know why this would be, again, I am taking it on faith.
We don't know what it is like to be without a body post-mortal life. We don't know how we would respond to it over time. Particularly with Satan being free to influence us--perhaps more powerfully when we have no corporeal form to provide an anchor and no hope of ever receiving it again. Perhaps that is the key? Perhaps we underestimate his influence on us in those circumstances over time.
But the real answer is still: I don't know.
quote:Since we're using Buffy analogies... I think that True Perspective as you relate it correlates to the way Angel reacts to getting his soul. He realizes how he's erred and he continually tries to make it better, knowing he never can. In great contrast, Spike gains this True Perspective and after a relatively short period of time he comes to the conclusion that since he didn't have True Perspective when he commited the acts, he wasn't really responsible. He gets over the guilt and simply tries not to "sin" anymore. Personally, I prefer the way that Spike handled the situation.
I don't remember him coming to that conclusion in the series Buffy--maybe it happens in Angel. And yeah, you've definitely got something there. Mormon doctrine teaches in more than one place that those who haven't received law are not responsible for living it. We are judged according to the understanding we've received. But we are also taught that no one can be saved in ignorance. Eternal ignorance isn't an option. Though the understanding may come in the next life. The question is, how will we deal with it when it does come?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have to go both to the store and to take my little one to gymnastics, so if this discussion moves on without me, I'll get back to it. I find it fascinating to discuss and see what other people's views are.
Considering that the doctrine of atonement was one of the reasons we decided to leave our last church (because they're teaching didn't agree with our own beliefs) I've spent a lot of time recently studying it.
It's amazing how many different views can be found even within Protestant Christianity.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:Lucifer/Satan said they were arbitrary, that God was just trying to spoil their fun, so to speak. And he's been saying it ever since.
In Perelandra, Lewis posits a reason for an arbitrary law... that there might be obedience and harmony between Man and God. Kinda like singing an arbitrary song for no other purpose than to have someone harmonize with you... or getting married... or group prayer and worship... or doing anything to be together with someone, wills in accord.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I take it on faith... the real answer is still: I don't know
This is what frustrates me the most about the idea that everybody must follow one path to achieve salvation. Beverly, I continually find your posts extremely thoughtful and intelligent (current ones included). And when even you ultimately answer "I don't know", I don't understand how people can expect others to convert. Unless you already have faith, it's hard to feel compelled to act.
If there is an afterlife, I hope that there is a Mormon waiting room type area like I've heard described at Hatrack, where you're able to obtain complete explanations (and the waiting room itself acts as a type of proof) and THEN act. Requiring somebody to take it on faith strikes me as absurd.
quote: I don't remember him coming to that conclusion in the series Buffy--maybe it happens in Angel.
It's possible it wasn't presented on Buffy.
quote: we are also taught that no one can be saved in ignorance. Eternal ignorance isn't an option. Though the understanding may come in the next life. The question is, how will we deal with it when it does come?
I don't entirely understand what you mean by "no one can be saved in ignorance." I guess my viewpoint is that if you're ignorant of your sin, there's no reason why you need to be saved from it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
See, to me the concepts that everyone goes to some level of heaven and of the rapture are incredibly dangerous. They tell people that it's okay, you don't have to be ready now--you don't have to accept Jesus when you get the chance--you'll have time to do that later.
And what if you're wrong?
I obviously don't believe in either concept, because I believe the Bible clearly doesn't support either.
Of course, I'm not LDS or *whatever religions believe in the rapture*... so they have different interpretations and LDS has additional scriptures.
But the teaching, to me, is still pretty dangerous. I don't think the concept that you can wait to be saved is a good one or a Biblical one. If you're lucky, you'll be able to have that death-bed confessional, but if you turned your back when you were 21, 34, 48, etc., why would you get another chance when all doubt was removed? Faith should stand for something.
-Katarain
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Unless you already have faith, it's hard to feel compelled to act.
Yeah, I imagine any conversion takes faith. But I believe that faith can be acquired if saught, that it is a gift from God since it comes in response to His communication with us. I believe it says in Revelations that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (ah, Rev 19:10), or something like that. From that I get that you can't have faith in these things until you've had that spirit-to-spirit communication. And since many people don't get that in this life, even knowing about the gospel, I think that God takes that into account and is merciful.
quote: It's possible it wasn't presented on Buffy.
We have a lot of Angel to watch yet. I will be thinking about it when it comes.
quote:I don't entirely understand what you mean by "no one can be saved in ignorance." I guess my viewpoint is that if you're ignorant of your sin, there's no reason why you need to be saved from it.
Well, neither do I. It comes straight from Mormon scripture:
quote: Doctrine and Covenants 131: 6
6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.
I assume that this means that knowledge will come. Anything that prevents knowledge from coming to us in this life will not be present in the next--whether learning disability, lack of exposure to knowledge, lack of ability to remember, whatever. All things will be made known. I imagine keeping mankind in ignorance strikes God as just as "evil" as removing mankind's agency. Ignorance is bliss, but it is a temporary state.
Katarin, why do you find it dangerous? In LDS doctrine, there is essentially 2 different types of hell. One is where spirits reside who have not received the gospel before the resurrection comes about. They are given as long as it takes for them to receive as much of the gospel as they will receive. And if they have pushed it away repeatedly, they cannot be part of the highest kingdoms of heaven. This is made clear in scripture. But if they never had a chance and welcome the gospel upon first hearing, or first *understanding* it, truly comprehending it, they will be blessed according to God's justice *and* mercy.
The second hell is only for those who deny all of God's grace and mercy entirely. They are basically monsters that no good can come from anyway. They refuse all good, period.
I find it to be a very beautiful, ballanced teaching. Much easier to swallow than the common Christian belief that most of the world, which tends to be full of relatively decent people, burning in hell for eternity because they didn't accept Christ. So many of those people would accept Christ if they truly understood His doctrine or if they had enough evidence to be able to believe. Having agnostic tendancies myself, I find it repugnant to punish someone so completely because something seemed to ludicrous to trust, even if it seemed perfectly good to them.
So some people will not be able to begin to believe until they are dead and find that they have not ceased to exist entirely. Thomas was told he was blessed for seeing Christ and believing, but that those who don't see Him and believe are yet more blessed. This is true. But those who require more evidence before they can believe ARE STILL BLESSED.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't really understand LDS doctrine, so I was basing my comments on the understanding I got from someone else's post that there would be levels to heaven, and the former impression I had that according to LDS doctrine, everyone goes to Heaven, but they're not all equal and you can work your way up or something like that.
The concept I find dangerous is that someone can do whatever they want on Earth, rejecting God and Salvation, yet still have a chance either after the second coming or the rapture to repent. I don't know about you, but if a bunch of people suddenly went missing, that would be a pretty big sign to me that the rapture was true after all.
So, the problem I have is that people might get the idea that it's not important to repent NOW, since they'll have a chance to later.
I happen to not believe in an eternal hellfire. I believe in eternal punishMENT, not eternal punishing. In that, if you choose not to be on God's side, then you will be consumed in hellfire in the purging of sin from the universe.
-Katarain
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I had that according to LDS doctrine, everyone goes to Heaven, but they're not all equal and you can work your way up or something like that.
From my understanding, you can't. Basically, by the time the final judgement comes around for each individual person (at the right time for them), they are "finished". They have become what they are going to become. They have shown what they are able and willing to do. Basically, we are told in Mormon scripture, that we receive according to our desires.
And Mormon scripture also makes it clear that "deathbed repentance" doesn't work. You have to have time to live righteously. It's the "go and sin no more" idea. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who didn't know better. (Who knows the heart of the man on the cross next to Christ? He may have "sinned" in ignorance.) This applies more heavily the more understanding a person has. Those who procrastinate repenting, are going to be less and less likely to "qualify" for mercy. True repentance will be harder and harder for them, until at some point it simply becomes impossible.
Basically, if you've got knowledge, it is a responsibility.
quote: Doctrine and Covenants 82: 3
3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
So maybe a person "wants" to be in ignorance? That's great. But when you are purposely holding off the removal of that ignorance, you aren't terribly ignorant, are you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sure. But that doesn't mean that in the context of the Old Testament, the God of the Israelites allowed that these competing being were real.
In other words, I can call my car Melangthcanesh the Beatific and worship it, and call it the great creator; that does not mean that Israel's God calls it equal. Or real, even.
In the context of finding out what the original form of Judaism is, I find the opinion of imaginary beings to be remarkably uninteresting. I want to know what the Jews thought of other gods; from the fascinatingly consistent way they kept backsliding, it seems clear they believed in their existence. After all, this is the time when Yahweh was throwing miracles around right and left to help them take their Promised Land; why would they leave a real god, who had demonstrated his power, for something made up by outsiders? You can hardly postulate that they were all really stupid; there must have been something in it for them.
Of course, since the rabbis were the ones keeping the records, only those duels of power where Yahweh happened to win would make it into them. I suspect the priests of Baal might have had an occasion or two to suggest the Jews pray louder, too, but we don't hear about it because they were wiped out by the Jews and later Romans.
Another point to be kept in mind is that the Bible is very much written by the winners, in an era when 'revisionist history' didn't exist as a concept, for the good and simple reason that everybody wrote what would make their side look good. I suspect that what the prophets call 'backsliding' is more likely to be the original customs of the people, which they disliked for some reason. Maybe there was a competing priesthood of Asherah, possibly even female? That would be a splendid reason to suppress them. Only so much offer-gold to go around.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think Scott's point is that God could've been upset at idol worship because it was keeping the Jews from following the only real, living God the way the worship of riches, or a car, or fame, can keep one from God.
It seemed to be the biggest culprit at the time for getting the Jews to disobey God's commandments. Following other gods quite often meant doing things that were against the commandments.
quote: Maybe there was a competing priesthood of Asherah, possibly even female? That would be a splendid reason to suppress them.
Or perhaps the worship of Ashera tended to lead the people to things like ritual sex? Such a thing is distinctively repugnant to the God that I worship. Such things were practiced among the Jews, apparently. Whether you think they were fully approved practices before "Yaweh changed His mind" or they were always disapproved of by God is difficult to prove at best.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Katarain:
I personally put a lot more stock in the injunctions all throughout the scriptures to repent now, in this life. Whether or not we're able to make progress after this life, the greatest blessings and promises seem to depend on our righteousness in this life.
Two scriptures from the Book of Mormon that put a big red warning stamp on the idea that you can just repent and progress in the next life:
quote: 2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
quote: Alma 41:3-6 3 And it is requisite with the ajustice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.
4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to ginherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—
5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.
6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness.
This idea of restoration is much more in line with what gets taught in LDS meetings and conferences. It's not hellfire and damnation, but it isn't a cakewalk either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bev, you're arguing in circles. If the prists of Yahweh wanted to get rid of a fertility goddess, obviously they would suddenly get a 'revelation' that Yahweh really despised ritual sex, even though it had been perfectly acceptable up to then.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That is one explaination. Mine works too.
Prove yours, since you claim it to be the right one. I take mine on faith. You take nothing on faith, right?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:
quote:This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws.
Sure. Why not? Is it possible to save yourself through works, or not?
No, because none of us is capable of working hard enough to make ourselves so perfect we can make up for the mistakes we made in the process. But the process of loving God means you say you're not God and that he is. Omnipotent, he leaves us to make our own decision about it. He won't force you into Heaven. Neither will he let you in without acknowledging that he is God and you are not. The acts of prayer and obedience are practice for the belief.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I didn't offer mine as the absolute truth, though. Also, Occam's razor cuts quite nicely through yours, just from what is known about humans, politics, propaganda, and religion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Nor did I. I never offer anything I believe as anything but what I believe to be true. Note I said "or perhaps" and "mine works too".
quote:After all, this is the time when Yahweh was throwing miracles around right and left to help them take their Promised Land; why would they leave a real god, who had demonstrated his power, for something made up by outsiders?
Easy question to answer. We see this pattern in the Book of Mormon over and over as well. Their *ancestors* saw great miracles, but did they personally? The problem is they didn't see it for themselves.
But as we also see in the Book of Mormon, even when they *do* see the proof with their own eyes, they can still rationalize a way to go against it when "it" isn't an appealing way to go. A la the Israelites making a golden calf after the "cat is away" for a few days.
I'd be interested to see the pile of evidence, though that shows that the Israelites' worship of other gods was fine with Yaweh at any given time. The evidence you have provided so far easily has other explainations that make a lot of sense. I'm sure there is some out there, you just haven't provided any yet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Again, I'm not really interested in the opinions of fictional gods. If the Jews themselves were fine with a given worship, I'm going to assume that the priesthood was finding it impolitic to enforce monotheism at that particular time; therefore, ipso facto, 'Yahweh' was ok with it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
From my perspective, I can see the priesthood being fine with it (ie: corrupt) and Yahweh being even more disturbed at the extent of the corruption, thus sending prophets to preach against it.
And I imagine these prophets would be very unpopular and often imprisoned or killed for their annoyances.
Hmmm, in fact, it seemed this is exactly what happened.
Why would a few, scant, unpopular prophets be interested in subjecting the masses? Why would they risk their lives for it? What would *they* gain from it? It doesn't seem to make sense. Occam's Razor seems to fall in my favor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, what does anyone gain from blowing themselves up to kill infidels? Humans are quite capable of insane acts when they believe themselves in the right. Particularly if a rich priesthood is whispering that it's time to wipe out Cult X so Yahweh's temple can get more gold.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Sorry , someone may have already said this, I havn't read all the replys but what I have a problem with is that a person who has been a good person their whole life and has never done anything that should cause them to go to hell cannot get into heaven if he does not believe in God. But a person who has led a very sinful life like a rapist, murderer etc can get into heaven if at some point in their life has repented and turned to God. How is this fair?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Stacey, the way the protestant answers that is no one can get into heaven with good works. There is no such thing, in the eyes of God, as a "good person who lived a good life and didn't deserve to go to hell." The bible makes it pretty clear that God views all our deeds as sinful, because man has a sinful nature. Even our righteous deeds are as "filthy rags" to God.
So what is not fair, isn't that a so-called "good" person goes to hell, but that anyone is allowed into heaven. Because none of us deserve it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Which incidentally is one of the things I find most repugnant about Christianity, or at any rate its Protestant version.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM: Yeah, I don't like it myself. But that's just me.
KoM, about the Jews worshiping other gods, a lot of this seemed to happen long after Moses' time, and he was the one who first gave the commandment not to worship other gods. In fact, we really don't have any OT writings before Moses, though we have stories about the times before. And those stories don't contain much about idol/other-god worship at all.
Seems to me that these unpopular, scant prophets going out to "reclaim the people for God" were just following commandments already given to all of Israel. In the light of the facts, your explaination just don't make no sense.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Sorry , someone may have already said this, I havn't read all the replys but what I have a problem with is that a person who has been a good person their whole life and has never done anything that should cause them to go to hell cannot get into heaven if he does not believe in God. But a person who has led a very sinful life like a rapist, murderer etc can get into heaven if at some point in their life has repented and turned to God. How is this fair?
Having spent many years trying to find a single element of reality that's fair, I finally realized that "fair" is something we impose on reality, not something that actually exists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When the archeology contradicts the text, I'm inclined to follow the archeology. Moses has some fairly mythological aspects himself. How many historical persons survive a nationwide infanticide (for that matter, how many of these were really ordered?), are found in a basket floating down a river, and live to the ripe old age of 120? And then there's the whole talking to gods thing. The existence of a real, historical Moses is, at best, not proven.
Here's Wiki on the subject (my emphasis) :
quote:Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BC) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Assyria, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G Dever, William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues is The Bible Unearthed, Simon and Schuster, New York (2001).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Foolish Took, I believe that God is fair. If He weren't fair, I wouldn't be inclined to worship Him.
KoM, if you want to discount the existance of Moses, I guess there isn't much point.
But considering how deeply important those stories have been for so long to the Jewish people, I find it amazingly difficult to swallow that they were introduced for the first time so late. That is a lot to swallow for brand, spankin' new history!
At least admit that it had to be based on something! To say, "Oh yeah, we've had these 10 commandments for the last couple millenia," why would the people ever except that, no matter what authority the priesthood claimed? They'd be laughed out of town. Talk about ridiculous.
Might as well say they made up the story about Abraham too. Except that there is another group of people who split off long ago that also believe in him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Another point to be kept in mind is that the Bible is very much written by the winners, in an era when 'revisionist history' didn't exist as a concept, for the good and simple reason that everybody wrote what would make their side look good.
You haven't read the Bible then. Or you have, and are confusing points. Please explain how the above is compatible with
quote:from the fascinatingly consistent way they kept backsliding, it seems clear they believed in their existence.
Not to mention all the warnings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, etc. If the Bible's writers were as revisionist as, say, the Egyptians, Gideon never would have made his medallion, Miriam would not have complained and been cursed, Moses would have entered the promised land, David would have turned away from Bathsheba, and Nebucchadnezzer would have taken Jerusalem by guile rather than through force of arms as the Bible reports (and by the blessing of God, as it also reports).
I don't think you want to accuse the OT God or his priests of only showing the sunny, non-failure filled portions of their histories in their scriptures. The record is definitively against you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh, what? They've been important for several thousand years, and therefore they must be exactly as old as they claim to be? Non sequitur, that-does-not-follow.
As for a sudden introduction, plenty of people have codified laws, and plenty of people have claimed much greater antiquity for their traditions than really existed. Why shouldn't the priests teach the story of Moses to children, and explain it to the parents as a parable of how the laws were given? Not to mention that these were pre-literate peoples, they just didn't think the same as we do. I'm not trying to come off elitist here, just saying they thought differently; critical thought is a technology too, and we've learned something about it over the past two thousand years.
Remember the Ossian hoax? I assure you, in a pre-literate society that one would have slid right on in. Especially if it happened to suit the agenda of the educated class.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, to show any given prophet in a good light, he has to have some reprehensible backsliders to react against. The priestly class, as represented by its prophets, comes out quite well in all the stories you mention. As for Nebuchadnezzar, it seems a fairly obvious variant on 'We are advancing in retrograde to previously prepared positions in order to take advantage of our great victory', in other words, something happened that's so big that it can't be totally ignored, but a positive spin has to be put on it somehow.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I still think that these things would not be well received when there was no prior hint of them. It sounds like you (and others) are the one revising history.
It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't appear to have any evidence backing it up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Could I just point to that stuff they dug out of the earth, again? You know, pots with Yahweh and Ashareth together?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sorry, I missed anything about pots. Go ahead and point.
Out of curiosity, were any of these pots made pre-moses, or even pre-abraham? Or were they around the time when idol-worship was so rampant anyway? And if so, what the heck does it prove?
[ July 11, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ah. Now I understand that I was right-- you really don't have an inkling about any of the stories I've pointed out.
quote:The priestly class, as represented by its prophets, comes out quite well in all the stories you mention.
I use this quote as proof of your ignorance. Moses and Miriam CERTAINLY did not come off well in those stories. Miriam was killed and Moses forbidden from entering the promise land he'd waited all his life to enter. Not positive. Gideon wasn't a priest, he was a war-leader; ditto with David, and neither of them, in the instances I mentioned, would be held up as sterling examples of Judaism.
The 'priest-classes' (whatever that means) are not spared in the Bible when they are unregenerate. I give you Eli as a further example, and encourage you to search out the events of his life. (He's connected to Samuel-- just a hint.) Furthermore, Aaron had his moments of instability, and they are reported as such. So did Solomon.
It takes a very BIG leap of logic to report that the Bible's retelling of the Babylonian captivity is 'spun positively.' It isn't. There is no doubt that the God of the Israelites was completely unhappy with His people, and there is no attempt to soften the record.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, good point. Why would history revisors make the "good leaders" so very, uh, not good?
It don't make no sense!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How much of the myths of Gilgamesh, Hercules, and Buddha would you say were revised?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I can think of no epic heroes who did not at least temporarily possess a tragic flaw of character, and often more than temporarily.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't know the stories well enough. But they are far more likely to have started as stories passed down casually from generation to generation, parent to child, rather than suddenly made up by a priesthood to hoodwink the people. That is just silly. And I have no problem believing that the tales started with actual people and actual events. Stories passed on are far more likely to have "tragic heros". Why? It makes a better story. Not so good propeganda.
If KoM were suggesting that Moses and the other OT prophets were passed down through the generations, changing the story as they go, I would be far more likely to concede the possibility.
But to suggest that these things were suddenly made up out of nowhere, *that's* what don't make no sense.
What is the problem with believing that they started monotheistic with Moses and the other gods were an influence of either pre-Moses "incorrect", and therefore discouraged, traditions, or later influence from the surrounding cultures. You don't have to believe in the God of the OT to see that that is very much possible, and it seems to me, more possible.
Let's just say that I'm an atheist for a minute. A story like Moses--I could see a great leader starting all that, being so impressive that the practices were handed down from generation to generation. Maybe some of the miracles and events were "exaggerated" over time, became embellished.
And when the people got "bored" with the old tales of miracles and boring laws, they went after the "new" and "exciting" gods of the surrounding cultures, or even their own older culture before Moses, or even Abraham, came along. So those who paid attention to the ways Moses introduced would see this as a grave error and would believe themselves called by God to reclaim the people.
Makes sense to me. And you don't need to believe in the actual existance of God for it to hold water. Why come up with this nonsense about it all being introduced cold later?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Who was that question for, Tom? If it was for me, I'd have to say that the existence of a historical Gilgamesh, Hercules, and Buddha is, at best, not proven.
'Positively spun' was an unfortunate choice of words; try 'spun so it makes sense'. Obviously, if Bad Stuff happens to people who worship an all-powerful or even moderately powerful god, it has to be because the god is displeased with them.
Note that I said 'the priestly class as represented by its prophets'. Church versus state, perhaps? Or a power struggle internal to the temple, with a radical monotheist faction opposing a conservative, laissez-faire polytheist faction.
However, we are wandering a bit off the topic. The question was, how old is monotheism in Judaic tradition? Now, I've pointed to these pots with inscriptions :
quote:Two painted inscriptions "Yahweh of Samaria/the guardian and his Asherah" on fragments of the type of large terracotta pot that archaeologists call a pithos were found in the site of a caravanserai of the 8th century BCE at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Negev.
I've also suggested that an old tradition of polytheism, represented in a revised history as backsliding and apostasy, is more likely than a primordial monotheism in total contrast to all the neighbouring peoples. This comes down to interpretation; I think the assumption 'monotheism was a gradual evolution imposed by an increasingly powerful priesthood of Yahweh' more likely than 'monotheism existed from time immemorial, but was often deviated from'.
As an indication of the unlikeliness of the latter assumption, how often have the Jewish people started worshipping other gods since, say, the time of Christ? It seems that once monotheism is established, it sticks. It is not obvious why that should be any different in 750 BCE.
Now, I think we all agree that there is no proof; but why don't you offer an argument for why the primordial-monotheism theory is more likely?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
HRE wrote
quote: Alright, so I know he exists and care what he thinks. This still doesn't cover any of the Jesus questions.
I didn't give you the answers you cited in your first post, so I can't really defend them. Though I can say that when I was discussing the fall with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and their essential view is that the fall was a tragedy. And in their viewpoint I, like you, asked why God didn't use his power and mercy to put it right immediately.
If you aren't interested in checking out the Book of Mormon, I'll have to rely on Matrix Revolutions. For all the flaws of the middle film, I thought it was interesting that they had Neo defeat the Smith entity by becoming one of him. It illustrates in some sense the thinking behind the Mormon doctrine that the Fall was God's will for mankind. It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but I can see how the movie would have been just annoying to anyone who didn't see that. As it was, having the big robot bug cloud say "It is finished" ruined it for me as art.
Anyway, if you really care what God thinks, you have the option of asking him yourself. I wasn't speaking of your questions with that remark, since I think your questions showed you did care. I was speaking more to the idea of recklessly and willfully sinful people (as I have been many times in my life).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Further to the question of making things up; I think we all here agree that Genesis is allegory rather than literal, revealed truth? Then at some point, somebody made that story up, right? And apparently without getting laughed out of town, at that. If somebody decided to codify a bunch of general precepts that had been floating around the community for a while, and make a formal, numbered list of Commandments, he might well decide to make up a nice story about a primordial lawgiver, whose story was very conveniently set down on this clay tablet he'd just found. Again I refer you to the Ossian hoax, and suggest you consider the effect among illiterates. Consider also the legend of George Washington and the cherry tree. Or he might just tell the story straight, without expecting to be believed, just as a wrapper story around the commandments that everyone agreed on - making them easier to remember. There are plenty of possible origins for this kind of thing.
Edit : To be clear, I'm not completely disregarding the historicity of Moses; I was about to compare to the legends of Odin in Norse mythology, and then it hit me that, hey, I don't believe he did magic but I do believe he led a folk-migration from Asia. I may have gotten led a little astray by the heat of the argument. But I do stand by my theory about gradual monotheism; a pre-existing legend of Moses would be a very convenient peg to hang some stone tablets on.
In this context, I want to point out Odin again; I think we all agree that he did not, in fact, hang himself from an oak for nine days and rise again from the dead, so somebody must at some point have told that story for the first time. Perhaps he wasn't expecting to be believed; perhaps he gave a new name to an old story; perhaps he felt that the story of the tribe's origins needed a bit of extra spice, and his audience were willing to allow some artistic licence in the interest of whiling away a dark winter's night. Who knows? The point is, this kind of thing can and does get attached to real, historical figures, of whom perhaps only the name survives of their actual deeds.
Kine die, kith die, and so at last oneself; one thing I know that never dies : How dead men's deeds are deemed.
But whoever said that was probably not aware of how the deeds get twisted and re-interpreted in preliterate societies. Even after writing and printing, how much do we really know about the motivations of, say, Oliver Cromwell? Between him, his friends, and his enemies, there's so much smoke we can't really see the fire.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:As an indication of the unlikeliness of the latter assumption, how often have the Jewish people started worshipping other gods since, say, the time of Christ? It seems that once monotheism is established, it sticks. It is not obvious why that should be any different in 750 BCE
Of all the things you have said, this is one that actually makes a good point.
But why would monothesism win out over polytheism? Is it because it somehow "rings true" to people in general? Or is this a matter of whoever has the power wins out? If I'm right and the monotheistic minority was surrounded by a polytheistic majority, who would have the might? Do you really believe that all the nations trembled at the mighty power of the Hebrews as the Bible teaches, because if anything *that* smacks of propeganda. (Not that that is *my* belief, but I don't see why an atheist wouldn't believe it was propeganda.) How much pressure must there have been on them to adopt the ways of their powerful neighbors? Nobody likes the oddball.
Seems to me it would be difficult to maintain monotheism under those circumstances. They would need to be constantly reminded, constantly urged to return to the ways of their own history and people.
Christianity really "took off" when it was adopted by royalty. It was given worldly power that mounted and mounted resulting in it being spread far and wide. Whether this is God working in mysterious ways or luck, you be the judge. But was it the monotheistic nature that caused it to be picked up by the powerful? The persecuting Romans sure seemed less than impressed.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM, I imagine that the fantastical stories you are talking about happen gradually. I imagine that's how we got our American tall tales as well. Paul Bunyan probably was originally a real man, a very tall, strong, but realistically so, man. As the stories were spread by word of mouth, he got bigger and stronger, till even the differing stories weren't consistent with each other on his size.
Was there some conspiracy behind the telling of Paul Bunyan tales? Heck no! They evolved. I can believe in the OT tales evolving far easier than I can believe in them being suddenly introduced to purposely revise history to make it all look monotheistic. That means whether or not I speak as the believer I am, I think that Moses probably started out with the 10 commandments. Partly because I can't think of a good reason for him not to. Heck, if I put on an atheist hat for a minute, maybe Moses invented a monotheistic religion to unify the people. But I think even with my atheist hat on, I would think it started with Abraham. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." I could see that being passed on down from that first family, something that really set them apart from all their neighbors, giving them a distinct identity that didn't mix well with others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why shouldn't a tale be embellished in a direction that suits the powerful? I mentioned Washington and the cherry tree; I'm sure there were also scurrilous rumours of him having affairs with this, that or the next woman he met on his campaigns. Which survived to the present day? Right, the one that suits the purpose of nation-building. You don't have to consider this a conscious conspiracy, even, though I can see where my posts gave that impression; just that the literate people would write down the tales they liked.
As for Abraham, this seems to me a rather arbitrary starting point. After all, there are two people in the Bible whom all humans are descended from, Adam and Noah; why are they non-historical, while Abraham is real? There's just as much evidence for the one as the other, to wit, they are mentioned in the Bible. If the Israelites could make up two common ancestors, I don't see why they shouldn't make up a third. I think an agnostic 'well, maybe' is the most indicated by the evidence here.
Why would monotheism win out? Well, why not? In Egypt, for example, they lost, despite being backed by the power of Pharaoh - like most 'absolute' monarchs who try to push through really, deeply unpopular projects, he found himself on the sharp end of a rebellion. There may have been lots of peoples where a powerful priesthood attempted to suppress all other religions, and only the Jewish ones succeeded. (And, naturally, in that case we only hear about the polytheistic version of their history.) Throw enough dice, one of them will come up six.
Your points about Christianity seem rather to reinforce what I said about Jewish stubbornness. In the time of the Kingdom of Israel, they had their own army to protect them - at one point, they were even a Great Power and could stand against pretty much anyone trying to convert them by force. (Not to mention that none of the religions of the time were really proselytising ones, except to the extent that dead people no longer worship their gods, and slaves don't have their own temples. Numbers 31 may or may not be real history, but it's pretty indicative of the sort of thing that went on in a conquest at the time. The Jews got off lightly with the exile.)
In contrast, by the time Christianity was powerful, the Jews stood against every attempt to convert them, even in the face of the Inquisition. (Which originally, you'll recall, was instituted to hunt down Jews and Moslems who'd converted publicly, but secretly practiced their faith.) Why would they be so steadfast in the face of modern state power backing a proselytising religion, and backslide so easily when they had their own state protecting their faith against far less aggressive cults? Are we to assume that Jews of the Middle Ages were so much more virtuous than their ancient counterparts?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:at one point, they were even a Great Power and could stand against pretty much anyone trying to convert them by force.
When, exactly, was this?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, well. According to the Bible, that is. Possibly I need to be a little more consistent here. If we accept the United Kingdom under Saul, it was a powerful player in the Fertile Crescent; according to the Wiki
quote:David waged several successful military campaigns, annexing Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram (Syria) known as Aram-Zobah, and Aram-Damascus. Aram itself became a vassal state of Israel under David.
Going to the period of the two kingdoms, which seems to be reasonably well accepted among historians, you should note that even after the fall of Israel, Judah was able to stand off the Assyrians, and remained independent for another century. Even fighting on the defensive, this is not a negligible power we're talking of.
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
Paul Bunyan was created as an advertising gimmick.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, did you or a close relative write that wikki?
Does anyone else see the irony of anyone quoting a wikki to answer questions about a historical validity of a document...particularly a document that someone is alleging was changed multiple times over history, and was used to espouse a particular viewpoint in a biased manner to manipulate what people believed was truth?
HRE, I was really asking if you wanted a discussion, or were just making noise. This thread answers that question pretty well, I think.
Tresopax:
quote: I don't believe any church gets to tell me what I believe, though. I believe it acts more like a shepherd, helping to guide me, even though I still have to decide where I ultimately go.
Oddly enough, I think that is one of the only things you have ever said here that really resounded with me, and is perhaps the wisest thing I have heard in this thread.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM, Abraham was an arbitrary "start of monotheism" if I were to wear my "atheist hat". I imagine that Noah and Adam would be based on actual people as well, but not necessarily think them monotheistic with my "atheist hat" on. Again, it was the phrase "God of Abraham" that seems to be so stressed.
Your point about Pharoah's monotheism not winning out seems to fly in the face of your "monotheism sticks" theory. You seemed to be saying that monotheism is inherently more likely to win out. Did I misunderstand?
And yeah, I don't get this "Jew were a converting people" bit. I think it's more likely that whoever is most powerful, people are most likely to mimick their religion. And if the Jews were the ONLY monotheistic people, there would be a lot of pressure working against them to explain easily the consistent "backsliding".
As to why the Jews would be stubborn against forced attempts at conversion rather than against pressure from polytheistic nations, being persecuted probably served to strengthen their sense of self and stubbornness against being converted. Also, I imagine the pressure of surrounding polytheistic cultures would be more subtle and indirect. It would be more like peer pressure, seducing (that is often how it is described as well) while the inquisition and such was more like a bully, pushing, forcing. I don't imagine these polytheistic cultures did anything so direct. And when they did, (as in the story of Daniel and his friends resisting in Babylon), note the typical Jewish stubbornness.
Human nature. You seduce, you get better results than when you force--especially when the people have a strong sense of identity. When there isn't such a strong sense of unique identity, I imagine it is far easier to convince. (Though other groups resisted similarly, adopting Christianity on the surface, but still embracing their old religions in their daily lives. But there wasn't such a strong force holding them together, so it didn't last.) You still find pretty strong traces of ancient native American customs in Central America in spite of the Christian converting efforts.
It seems that sense of "we are the only ones like this" won out for the Jewish people. The sense of identity was instilled so deeply and so powerfully, strenghtened by scripture and tradition, and intensified by persecution. The Dune series has an interesting concept of them remaining as a group, in secret, not just thousands of years after the earth passed away, but millions. Interesting idea.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Heh, I see your point Kwea, but no, I haven't touched those articles. They seemed fairly neutral to me, and aren't marked with the 'disputed' flag, which on such a sensitive topic seems to indicate they present both sides of the issue.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think it would be a serious stretch to call the United Kingdom a “Great Power,” even using the Bible as your only historical source. Little empire that managed to maintain a great deal of independence while sandwiched between Great Powers would be closer. And once we move into the divided kingdom it’s a mess of shifting alliances, tribute, rebelling against tribute, etc. Yes, Jerusalem managed to remain un-sacked for a century or so after the fall of Samaria, either because of divine intervention or because Sennacherib had bigger fish to fry (uprisings in Babylon, for example). But Judah lost a large chunk of land and paid tribute before Assyria turned away. So again, a player in international politics, but not really one of the big guns.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Summing up the chapters I referred to on the first page. Things get interesting in verse 15 (I'm going to condense it quite a bit) On the coming of Christ (and this is a few years B. C. but the people in the Book of Mormon have had specific prophecies about Jesus since they got to the Americas) "is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming?" I don't know if this seems as relevant to your question as it does to me.
Moving on to the next chapter: resurrection does not occur until after the coming of Christ. This next part is interesting- the prophet/father asked God about the resurrection because of his son's questions (even after the brow beating he gave him at the start of chapter 39) and apparently recieved new knowledge as a result, in part through his son's sinfulness. What happens between death and resurrection?
The Righteous are receieved into a state of happiness, rest and peace. The spirits who were captive of the will of the devil go to outer darkness with weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Fire is used as a metaphor here for their fear of God's wrath.
Well, more tomorrow.
[ July 12, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: KoM, Abraham was an arbitrary "start of monotheism" if I were to wear my "atheist hat". I imagine that Noah and Adam would be based on actual people as well, but not necessarily think them monotheistic with my "atheist hat" on. Again, it was the phrase "God of Abraham" that seems to be so stressed.
Just like 'in God we trust', which it seems many Americans believe was part of the pledge from the word go. Once someone finds a phrase that's good propaganda, it tends to work its way into the psyche.
quote:Your point about Pharoah's monotheism not winning out seems to fly in the face of your "monotheism sticks" theory. You seemed to be saying that monotheism is inherently more likely to win out. Did I misunderstand?
Possibly; I seem to have expressed myself a bit badly. I meant that once the Jewish people had accepted monotheism, they stuck with it come hell or high water. I didn't mean to imply that monotheism in general would stick everywhere as soon as it had been introduced.
quote:And yeah, I don't get this "Jew were a converting people" bit. I think it's more likely that whoever is most powerful, people are most likely to mimick their religion. And if the Jews were the ONLY monotheistic people, there would be a lot of pressure working against them to explain easily the consistent "backsliding".
I have to disagree. People just didn't travel very much in those days, nor did they send missionaries to extol the virtues of their pantheon. Also, you should note that the first reforming King is apparently Josiah, who ruled at a time when the Great Powers were down for the count, with Assyria smashed, Babylon not yet powerful, and Egypt recovering from throwing off Assyrian overlordship. Judah may well have been the most powerful political entity around, at laest in its immediate neighbourhood. Josiah regained parts of the old territories that had belonged to the Kingdom of Israel. But it is at this time that Josiah has Baal and Ashterah removed from the kingdom. (Chronicles 2, 34). Why should the people of Israel be influenced by outsiders with less power than they had themselves? If anything, it should go the other way. Which, incidentally, there's no sign of when Israel is at the height of its power; how do you explain this, in your theory of power-imitation? Surely the Jews would tell us if anybody converted, even by accident?
quote:It seems that sense of "we are the only ones like this" won out for the Jewish people. The sense of identity was instilled so deeply and so powerfully, strenghtened by scripture and tradition, and intensified by persecution. The Dune series has an interesting concept of them remaining as a group, in secret, not just thousands of years after the earth passed away, but millions. Interesting idea.
Well, yes, except that over that kind of timespan, species change, never mind religions.
Off to bed now. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Just like 'in God we trust', which it seems many Americans believe was part of the pledge from the word go.
I don't think any Americans believe that.
Perhaps you meant the phrase "under God."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just a blanket statement to the people at the beginning of the thread that chastised me pretty hard core for my post:
I haven't been to church (except for weddings and funerals) in a decade. Thus, I don't really believe one thing or the other. You don't have to lay the smack down quite so hard. I was just giving a gut reaction to what he said, not professing my personal beliefs on religion, God and Christ.
So. There. Ignore this post or chop it to pieces, your choice.
But you don't have to be so mean. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oops. "Under God", right you are. Note to self : Do not post late at night.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lyrhawn: I didn't see anyone coming down hard on you. Karl was a little extravagant in his critiscism of your viewpoint, but I don't see what he posted as mean.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, I wasn't REALLY wondering if you had written them...I think...but it is fairly obvious that it IS under dispute, and not just by believers. It is a possibility, I suppose, but so are a ton of other things that we have not even considered.
I just really liked the irony of the situation, that's all.
I find discussions on the Bible to be far less interesting when people try to "prove or disprove" the historical validity of it. A lot of things thought to be literal in the bible don't seem to add up, but a lot of other things that were once assumed to have been myths in it have been proved beyond much doubt. Entire cities have been discovered using clues found in the bible, where people insisted there couldn't possibly be a city.
Just keep in mind that no matter how much a theory of yours seems to fit, at least to yourself, most of it has been fairly unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. Just because something makes plausible sense doesn't mean it is true, which is why Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
To be honest, OR is one of the least accurate ways of judging the validity of an argument. It was used to maintain that the world was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, and the racial inequality was due to inherent weakness in inherited "lesser" races.
All of which fit the criteria of OR at the time, but none of which turns out to be true. OR is better used to show how people can be intellectually lazy as a group rather than as a tool to judge the validity of any specific information.
Particularity this type of discussion, IMO.
Kwea
[ July 12, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Junkman (Member # 8076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The main notion in Jewish thought boils down to: our concerns should be focused on doing our tasks in this world; the World to Come will take care of itself. This is why there are very few references to the afterlife in the Written Torah (no overt ones in the Five Books). However, there are discussions in the Gemara, and much speculation in the 2000 years since.
I know I have linked to this before; it's a fairly good presentation (if highly allegorical) of some of the more common Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
don't think that's the belief of all Jews. Just like christianty we have our own divisions, of orthadox, conservitive, reform and reconstructionist jews.
being a reform jew i was taught our thoughts on the afterlife are sketchy at best. like stated before, we should do good deeds and fufill our covenant rather then worry about being dead.
Posted by Junkman (Member # 8076) on :
Okay i'm going to go over things discussed here based on what I've been taught and discussed.
First, the Torah, please note that the Torah and the Christian Old Testament are infact different and are not the same. I'm going to use the Torah for this since I've read that more
Now as to why the the Jews worshiped the golden calf. First off the people in the Torah are not perfect. Infact even by old standards what some of them did was stupid or wrong. The Torah is there to teach. Back to the calf.
The Jews are a race and religion. We are a people, we were forced to split up during the Diaspera but that's another story. I can get into that later with the question of Jews converting but again another story. I mention this because while Abraham is the first Jew they do not have much of a religion at the time of the wandering. Yes they believe in one G-d, but its not orginized.
So we've been travling for some time and we stop at Mt Sinia. Moses goes up the mountain, while the Jews make camp. Moses goes up for 40 days and then comes back down to find the calf. First off not everyone in the camp is worshiping the idol. In fact not many at all, however its enough to piss off Moses and G-d. Moses breaks our first set of commandments and some of the worshippers and excuted.
Anyways the Jewish people in this story are human, if they can't see it, if its not performing miricles 24/7 it doesn't exist.
When you think about it most of the Torah, except the laws and rituals, is people screwing up and G-d telling them their stupid.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
If we accept the United Kingdom under Saul, it was a powerful player in the Fertile Crescent; according to the Wiki![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)