Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[element771]

Meaning what exactly? One of the arguments I hear all the time from believers is that if we are not created by a god, if we exist just because, for no reason, that's just the way it is, then there is no purpose to our existence and that existing without any ultimate reason for existing is unfathomable to them. My point was that so what, the same would be true of god!

You are still confusing the created with the creator.

[firstfloor]

God created physics so I think it is fair to say that he is not subject to the laws that he created. That is like saying that the author of the book is constrained by the story he is writing. It isn't a wild assertion, it is basic logic.

I would be interested to see how many Christians feel that the painting of God in the Sistine Chapel is an accurate representation of the God we worship.

Why is it that atheists all have childish ideas of God (old man, white beard, robe, sandals, etc) yet get mad when they find out that we have a more complex view of God? We don't believe in your cartoonish version of God either...no wonder why you are an atheist.

So how do your reconcile your modern God with the ancient scriptures. How can they be referring to your God?

[element771]

So how do your reconcile your modern God with the ancient scriptures. How can they be referring to your God?

I am not a literalist. This view has only been popular for 200 years or so and it predominantly found in the US.

[InspectorG]

1.

It makes my existence seem more special(to me), that i can look into the vast and random universe, and have the steel to forge my own meaning. I have limited time and resources and none other than myself to use them, in alignment with my own inspiration, wisely.

[Doug Shaver]

1. To be created by amoral, non-rational forces of nature, or...

2. To be created by a rational, morally good Being?

Of what relevance is my personal preference?

[Doug Shaver]

I find a lot of atheists arguments start with the premise of "if I was God, I would have done it..."

I've never seen one of those. You must have looked for atheist arguments in places where I have never been.

[Cerebrum123]

I am not a literalist. This view has only been popular for 200 years or so and it predominantly found in the US.

This just isn't true. I've been reading the Early Church Fathers, and people like Thomas Aquinas recently, "literalism" goes all the way back to the time of Christ, and most likely further. For someone to say it's just now something people take issue with is a denial of history.

[element771]

This just isn't true. I've been reading the Early Church Fathers, and people like Thomas Aquinas recently, "literalism" goes all the way back to the time of Christ, and most likely further. For someone to say it's just now something people take issue with is a denial of history.

Maybe I misspoke about what I call literalism and it applies to more than I meant to.

I don't think that God literally walked around the Garden of Eden.

I don't think that God created the universe in 7 literal days.

etc.

[element771]

I've never seen one of those. You must have looked for atheist arguments in places where I have never been.

You are here so you must be mistaken.

[Cerebrum123]

Maybe I misspoke about what I call literalism and it applies to more than I meant to.

I don't think that God literally walked around the Garden of Eden.

This was often explained as the pre-incarnate Word of God, and still is by many. It's not new, and goes back a long way. The same is said of the "Angel of the Lord", and the individual alongside the angels that met with Abraham just before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Irenaeus of Lyons talks about it in his Against Heresies Volume IV.

"1. Wherefore also John does appropriately relate that the Lord said to the Jews: "Ye search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And ye are not willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life." How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him, unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? "For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also have believed Me; for he wrote of Me; " [saying this, ] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another; inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgment upon the Sodomites; and again, when He becomes visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush. And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. "

The underlined is a reference to Genesis 3.

I don't think that God created the universe in 7 literal days.

etc.

This was the most common view until the past 200 years or so. Thomas Aquinas only accepted Augustine's instant creation days because he thought it was less vulnerable to being mocked. Here is St. Basil the Great in HexaemeronI take all in the literal sense. For I am not ashamed of the gospel. Romans 1:16 "

I keep seeing people say "literalism is just a new thing in the USA", which is downright false. It's as old as mankind, and knows no geography. At this point I see it as certain people distance themselves from "those people". Snobby arrogance* doesn't look good on anyone, but sadly seems to be more common lately.

*Also likely going back to mankind's beginning

[element771]

This was often explained as the pre-incarnate Word of God, and still is by many. It's not new, and goes back a long way. The same is said of the "Angel of the Lord", and the individual alongside the angels that met with Abraham just before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Irenaeus of Lyons talks about it in his Against Heresies Volume IV.

"1. Wherefore also John does appropriately relate that the Lord said to the Jews: "Ye search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And ye are not willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life." How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him, unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? "For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also have believed Me; for he wrote of Me; " [saying this, ] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another; inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgment upon the Sodomites; and again, when He becomes visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush. And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. "

The underlined is a reference to Genesis 3.



This was the most common view until the past 200 years or so. Thomas Aquinas only accepted Augustine's instant creation days because he thought it was less vulnerable to being mocked. Here is St. Basil the Great in HexaemeronI take all in the literal sense. For I am not ashamed of the gospel. Romans 1:16 "

I keep seeing people say "literalism is just a new thing in the USA", which is downright false. It's as old as mankind, and knows no geography. At this point I see it as certain people distance themselves from "those people". Snobby arrogance* doesn't look good on anyone, but sadly seems to be more common lately.

*Also likely going back to mankind's beginning

Are you a YEC?

Romans 1:16 Says he is not ashamed of the good news about Christ (i.e. the Gospel).

I am not sure how not believing in God literally walking around the Garden of Eden means I am ashamed of Jesus.

[JimL]

You are still confusing the created with the creator.

No, the point being made by christians, particularly seer, is that unless we are created for a specific purpose, then we have no specific purpose and that therefore our existence is meaningless or something to that effect. If god exists, then obviously he isn't created for any specific purpose, he exists just because, for no reason, that's just the way it is, thus he too would have no purpose for his existence, and his existence would also be meaningless.
I think that what christians, theists in general, are really concerned with is continued existence, not necessarily meaningful existence.

[element771]

No, the point being made by christians, particularly seer, is that unless we are created for a specific purpose, then we have no specific purpose and that therefore our existence is meaningless or something to that effect. If god exists, then obviously he isn't created for any specific purpose, he exists just because, for no reason, that's just the way it is, thus he too would have no purpose for his existence, and his existence would also be meaningless.
I think that what christians, theists in general, are really concerned with is continued existence, not necessarily meaningful existence.

Yes, you are still confusing the two...

God isn't created, we are.

[Cerebrum123]

Are you a YEC?

Romans 1:16 Says he is not ashamed of the good news about Christ (i.e. the Gospel).

I am not sure how not believing in God literally walking around the Garden of Eden means I am ashamed of Jesus.

Yes, I am. So? Your claim about those particular teachings was false regardless of what I happen to believe.

If you look at the quote he's saying he takes the all of the Bible literally because he is "not ashamed of the Gospel". He applies the same principle that that Romans 1 speaks of to the whole of scripture. Remember, you stated that "literalism" is both new, and limited mostly to the USA, but as I've shown, it is old, and knows no geography. I did so especially with respect to the issues you explicitly claimed to be "literalism".

Irenaeus is speaking of Jesus being the one who walked in Eden with Adam and Eve, and Basil the Great speaks of Genesis meaning 7 literal days. Even Augustine explicitly declares that the earth is not even 6,000 years old, and we know this because of Scripture.

City of God Book 12 Chapter 10: Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past. "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. "

[JimL]

Yes, you are still confusing the two...

God isn't created, we are.

No, we are not created, we begin to exist, as opposed to a god, who would not have begun to exist. So what is the purpose for gods existence?