I went through a similar crisis of faith. I would say the reason I am still a theist is because I found that 1) the order underlying the cosmos, as well as things like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, points toward there being an ultimate purpose to the universe, 2) a rational and moral worldview makes more sense in the scenario that morality is objective and that our brains were created (albeit via evolution and natural selection) to be capable of reason than a scenario where both human morality and human reason are the result of an unguided evolutionary process, the goal of which is mere survival not to make us capable of understanding truth or morality necessarily, and 3) I find the historical case for the Resurrection and the Christian narrative of justice and reconciliation to be compelling. Another more subjective reason is that I have experienced the Christian God working in my life. I have also realized that constructing a rational framework to support Christianity as a belief system is really the easy part. The harder part is making the personal choice to commit to the Christian God. Becoming a Christian at the end of the day is more like falling in love than simply arriving at verdict based on evidence. I am guessing it is similar for other theistic religions.
Yes, of course, if one of your tutors said it must be true.
You take ad hominum to a new level.
It has nothing to do with science or reality , it has everything to do with the view of god at the time and the vanity of humanity.
Why can you not see what your views say about God?
A doctrine stands or falls on its own merit, it does not rely on whether it was said by Peter, Paul or Mary!
Adam and Eve tried to deny or divert the blame. That is the “crime”, fair enough, but the punishemnt? Are you serious/?Birthing pains? Weeds? Work?
It is a rant against the unfairness of this world and you are trying to lay the blame on Adam! It has nothing to do with Adam. Death has nothing to do with Adam. My sin has nothing to do with Adam. The capacity to sin has nothnig to do with Adam. If it did them we have an excuse! Why can’t you see than Original Sin is self defeating. It offers up the excsue that the Garden story is trying to condemn.
Blame it all on Adam. Wrong. Take responsibilty for your own actions and let others be resonsible fr theirs instaed of just dismissing them out of hand as FALLEN
No, it relies on you insisting that it exists. it does not. Go out and smell the roses…
*It also relies on one other premis.
That God wants us to be perfect.
I]ll give you a clue. Why forgive sins if they matter so much to you?
Redeemer?
Redeemed from what? and for what?
and before you jump in with a stock answer…
DId God create man to be eternal? Or does man want to be eternal.
If God wanted us to be eternal He would have made it so, and nothing we could do would change that!. Humanity could not change God’smind or do something He could not forsee and allow for… Conversly, if God did know what would happen, then you are making Him into a dishonest schemer, putting the blame on Adam instead of Himself! Yeah, right.
He becomes like McCaffee, creating a virus that only He can clean off again.
Richard
That can only be said if you think that your own worldview is the true one. All doctrines rest on postulates, and the postulates of Christian doctrine rest on the postulates in the scriptures.
Get off your fascination with law!
If I tell a kid that if he stays up all night watching movies he will be too tired to do well at school, is his failing the test the next day a punishment?
What a shallow and cruel God you portray!
Get off the “original sin” kick! It warps your thinking. Adam is to blame for his own screw-up, and only he is to blame.
More of the fixation on law.
Figures you chop off the scripture references. Or do you continue to deny that the theme runs throughout the Bible?
Your clue is bad theology: I’ll give you a hint – it isn’t about the sins.
According to Jesus, Peter, David, Paul, and John – yes.
I guess then in your view God doesn’t want us to be mature, loving adults – or else He would have just made us that way, no need for childhood.
Huh – according to Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, David, Isaiah, Jonah, and Amos that is incorrect.
For someone who dares to preach, your knowledge of scripture is sorely lacking.
It depends on what hell is. Perhaps the “hardline” doctrine considers a fire, an actual fire. Yet fire can be a metaphor too. To some of us, this world seems like hell already. Maybe it is just a hell hole where selfish and grasping people can take from others, including you, and you have your chance to take from them. Maybe some people want that sort of world. This is closer to the “hell” that CS Lewis describes in “The Great Divorce”. In that scene, a bus comes down every day and you can get on it if you want. Yet some want their hell. It does seem like there are people like that [in this world], though it is hard to understand.
As I point out above, it seems some people seem to want the rotten world. I can’t say I understand why, but I guess they don’t see it as in their interest to submit to God and repent. That doesn’t mean “all atheists” and blah blah blah. Some of them have become atheists because of so-called Christians. At least they [those atheists] understand what is important, unlike some people who call themselves Christians. What you are buying into when you join in the Lord’s happiness is that you want to do better, you want to do what is meaningful and you want to do right. It seems not everyone does, not really, when given a choice between power or goodness.
by Grace we proceed
You have a point, particularly when talking about typical tropes from fundamentalists.
Even listening to the fundamentalists I know, it seems more nuanced and the real issue is one’s own tendencies, though of course they will assert that Adam, the 6-24h day creation, Noah, etc are true(C)(R)™. Yet whether Adam is a genuinely historical individual, or a metaphor, or something in between, my understanding of the point about Adam is that we all have this character in us. We inherit this quality by our personality, propensities, the (bad) examples of the behavior of others around us, and the situations of our private experiences. You’re right that it would be silly to blame Adam for my tendency to be a jerk. These are my own choices.
… and maybe even your point about so much pounding on sin … Yes, this can result in a blind spot where hypocrisy reigns. Every time we point that finger, we have three pointing back.
The point of following Jesus is to see that hypocrisy in ourselves and by the Grace of God, to find a way to root it out. The point is that we cannot do it entirely on our own. We cannot forgive unless we realize that it matters to forgive, to know that we too have been forgiven. The things Jesus calls us to do in the Sermon on the Mount are not easy things to do. Yet I see them as a way I would rather hope I would live. I would grant you the benefit of a doubt, I’d respect you rather than judge you. We live hectic lives, we get distracted and we fail, but that is what I see being a Christian as what it is about.
By Grace we proceed
I am sorry but you appear to bre reaching.
Jesus claimed that n Hell there would anguish and gnashing of teeth. I hell is indeed physical then there is little doubt that it will be tortuous to the nth degree.
Having said that, if Heaven and Hell are in the realm of God and He is outside time then time will be meaningless. Hell wil be an instant of horror and Heaven an instant of Joy.
One thing Scripture seems to disagree on is whether the Dead know nothing or everything.Paul says that now we see dimly and then we will know and be known which imples complete knowledge whereas in Ecclesisated 9 it states inequivically that the Dead know nothing. If they know nothing then pain or joy is irrelevant.
I think it is because they do not see it as rotten or have a Scripture that tells them it is.
Insisting on repentance and submission would make God an Ogre who must be appeased., or else!
The net result of all this is that we should not be concentrating on the next life, good or bad as the net result of anytiing that happens here. It seems a little ambiguous to say on one hand that our actions cannot buy us a way to Heaven, but they can send us to Hell.
Of course our mental attitude and morality may be a different thing altogether.
Richard
Without realizing that an ancient Israelite would have agreed those were true while disagreeing that “true” means “literally happened”.
Well, sure, for those of us who don’t enjoy this world and the ugliness here, it would be a place of anguish and gnashing of teeth. But the CS Lewis picture wouldn’t change that even though the only difference is separation from God.
If genuine goodness, empathy, treating others with respect, and valuing good relations rather than seeing people as meat makes God an Ogre, well, sign me up.
You sound like a politician who rejects the ideas of an opposing political party simply because it is not your party. Compliment what is good, and criticize what is bad. Yet if submitting to God because I know that I am weak and I can do far better by following Jesus, and this is what you see as “bad”, well, I don’t see your point anymore.
By Grace we proceed.
That is interesting. The ANE (ancient Near East) model appears to fit the description of an earth with a firmament and waters above and below (flat, but held up on pillars), and heaven somehow above all this. On the other hand, some (like the Greeks) did recognize that the earth was spheroidal. That heaven is outside all this is something we still accept too, but the most ancient of Babylonian models is not. At the same time, the central theme is still (metaphorically speaking) rock solid and at the center of the universe. Clearly, Augustine in his confessions points out that the earth could not have been made in 6 terrestrial days. So even by the time of the ancient world around Jesus’ time, the understanding was changing. Nevertheless, I am open to other possibilities. The ancients were not stupid and just believed every bit of bunkum they got fed. We may think we are so smart, but so were they.
by Grace we proceed.
But you are claiing that only those who have “signed up” are good empathy etc. That may have backing in Scripture but it is not true in reality., therefore if God only accepts those who “sign up” He is anepotistic Orgre punishon those who refuse to “sign up”.
I have no idea why you thin this. I am a Christian, but it is not me who is rejecting "other pertys.
I have never said such a thing.
Whether you or I think that we need God (and I do) does not change that everyone doesnot think it. You are dismissing people for either ignorance (they do not know they need God) or denial (They do no think they n (Aieed God). And, whehter yoy like it or not, it is quite possible to live without God nd still have a basic acceptable moral code and behavioour). Perhaps I am just being lazy to rely on God so much.
IOW You are claiming God only accepts (Blesses) those who “sign up” . However that blessing does not seem to occur until agter this life has finished, at least in terms of how lifetrests us, I am (Convenienty) ignoring any help or strength God gives in this life (And He does).
The point being, Scrioture set Israel up as God’s favourites and then includes anny Gentile who "signs up (Your termiology) and claoms God does not love the rest? If you have read Jonah yiu will know that is not true. God loves all and does not reject people who either cannot see Him or refuse to accept Him. (For that reason alone) Plus, you are assuming tht other religions have nothing to do with (the real) God., and that God ignored them when they came looking, and allowed them to worship other things (Or gods) to fill that void, but then punished them for His rejection of them rather than their rejection of God (HIm)
Richard
I said nothing of the sort that know of. I think you are just reading too fast, or reading what you think I am saying when I talk about being a Christian. I mentioned in another post that atheists sometimes have understood this point about empathy better than some Christians. How then can I be saying that this is only conferred on people who join up with God’s plan.
Since above you say twice that I think only Christians can have empathy – a notion that flys in the face of the obnoxious behavior of some evangelicals in recent years – you are saying just that.
Get straight about what I am saying first and don’t apply so much eisegesis at me.
By Grace we proceed
If I have read you wrong I apologise. It is difficult to distinguish the hard and orthodox view from the more liberal and less exclusive view thst I take and perhaps you do also.
It seems that some here and I will exclude you, seem to be ubable to distinguish between personal belief, even need and freedom of choice not to agree even have that need.
I find myself often on the fringe whereby I am considered ok and “saved” and am pleading for those who are deemed lost or depraved.
Richard
Edit.
And in doing so I become one of them
Dear Richard,
Thank you for the polite reply. Understood. There have been times in my life like that too.
Maybe this points to problems with the language we typically use when discussing salvation, repentance, faith, etc. Interpretation often depends on a person’s experience. … and I notice that some people say these words but their actions appear to betray (at least my understanding of) them.
I haven’t been so online at Biologos for some time because of all the craziness in the political spectrum in the US. Living in Japan, but from the US, I feel like Urashima Taro. In the fairytale, he save a turtle that turns out to be a princess under the sea, so he gets invited to stay in the castle in the sea. Eventually, he has longings to see his home again. However, he has been away so long that when he returns, the place is completely different and everything he remembered is gone. That’s how I feel sometimes.
by Grace, we proceed.
fulfilled in the incarnation?
So let me get this right…
you claim that the order of service in the yearly tabernacle calender is consistent with the belief that the incarnation points to the feast of Tabernacles which is 5 days AFTER the cross?
I’m just trying to get my head around the idea that your claim there is that 1+1=3
The Feast of Tabernacles is 5 DAYS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION. If the fulfilling of the law was completed at the crucifixion…what happened 5 days later and what does that event refer to biblically? Can you show us with bible references what it represents please?
Whilst you are attempting to conjur up a rational answer to the above question…might i suggest you first take a look at the image below…my assumption is that after looking at the image below (particularly the “prophecies” section of the illustration) that you are going to sidestep my question
St Roymond i have to seriously question where it is your theological beliefs stem from…honestly, given the very obvious meaning of the prophetic nature of the Sanctuary, and the fact that almost all scholars know it, how the heck do you manage to consistently come up with these errant beliefs? Who teaches you this stuff?
What you do here reminds me of a line in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie series - At Worlds End… where a subordinate sailor turns to a senior officer and exclaims “do you think he [Jack Sparrow] plans this all out or just makes it up as he goes along”
If can google the above illustration in a few moments…how do you manage to ignore that and blindly carry on with your error anyway?
At the very least, you should have the google illustration, criticise the illustration in your own post, then explain why it is wrong and yours is the more likely interpretation (with bible support). You have done none of that…your claim has not even offered any credible supporting references.
hang on a minute…“RESTORED” you say???
Do you recognise the huge huge can of worms you just opened there?
Where is the evolutionary consistency with the notion of restored? Dont you claim in your world view that we evolved from a primitive state into where we are today?
Restoration means something is being returned to its former state…usually “like new”!
If you believe the evolutionary model, please explain where “religious restoration” fits that belief!
The bible theology is as follows:
Creation - In six days the lord created the heavens and the earth (Exodus 20:8-11)
The Fall - Ate the forbidden fruit and enterred into sin
Salvation - The crucifixion and Resurrection
Redemption - The Second Coming (although we know salvation starts with belief obviously, however the final act is the second advent)
Restoration - New Heavens and a New Earth (Isaiah 65 & Rev 21)
Again i have to quote Pirates of the Caribbean…“do you think he plans all this out or just makes it up as he goes along?”
- Meddling in someone else’s internet conversation with a third person is, IMO, risky business, but at the moment I have the time and inclination to do so.
- If I’m correct, it seems to me that, in your current conversation with Roymond, you’re challenging his apparent lack of belief in a Heavenly Sanctuary Investigative Judgement. My guess, given what little I know about Roymond, is that he doesn’t believe in the SDA doctrine of Heavenly Sanctuary Investigative Judgement.
- My question is: “Why would a Seventh Day Adventist challenge a non-SDA’s lack of understanding and/or acceptance of that doctrine and appear to be amazed?”
I get that! When I first moved back to my hometown to help with care of my dad, only a few of the businesses I’d known were still there, the town was bigger, even the parks have changed. What’s a bit disturbing is that now I’ve been back so long I can’t remember what it was like before.
Every type of Christ as prophet and priest was fulfilled at the Cross – calendars are irrelevant. “It is finished” meant just that.
Huh? Nothing happened five days later – it was fulfilled, which means “filled full”, no more need to repeat anything.
“The Messiah’s arrival” was the Incarnation when Christ tabernacled among us. Jesus is the Tabernacle, in both the senses of the term.
“The establishment of His kingdom” was on the Cross where and when Jesus overcame the powers of darkness, establishing that He alone holds the title “Lord”.
I don’t know what your “AI Overview” is drawing on, but it has bad theology. It sets Jewish ritual above Christ, which is idolatry.
Easy – from the Cross. That’s the center of all theology for Christians.
“All scholars know it”? I studied under dozens of biblical and theological scholars, and not one of them exalted the sanctuary above Christ as your view does – they all put Christ at the center and showed (as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus) that all the types point to Him and that they were all fulfilled in the Incarnation and on the Cross, in accord with τετέλεσται (teh-TEH-less-tie), “It is (now and forevermore completely and utterly) finished”.
If Jesus’ own words from the Cross isn’t good enough for you, tough.
If John’s statement in the first chapter of his Gospel isn’t good enough for you, tough.
If Christian theology for two millennia isn’t good enough for you, tough.
If the fact that it was at the Tabernacle that God set His presence amidst His people, and that the Incarnation was He Himself present amidst His people isn’t enough for you, tough.
Just BTW, many Christians have believed, based on John’s statement, that Jesus was born on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Please stop trying to mix science and theology. It doesn’t work.
You’re right – I don’t. The whole idea of making everything conform to symbolism of the OT sanctuary puts the Sanctuary above Christ, which is idolatry, and if that’s what the SDA believe then by definition their doctrine is idolatrous.
Christ is not patterned after the sanctuary whether in the Temple or Tabernacle, the sanctuary is patterned after Christ, Who is the sanctuary, God dwelling in our midst.
AND just BTW, the only scholars I could find who hold to Adam’s stated position with that AI business were SDA with a few Pentecostal outliers.
That’s a non sequitur.
The Garden story may have been written in reaction to that. But I’d interject that the Fall in the Garden story is a misnomer. Traditional interpretations assumed a state of perfection at the beginning, and a regression to a state of sinfulness after ha’adam. We now know there was never a state of perfection – sinlessness and death. There are fossil skulls that suffered obvious fatal blows from stone axes hundreds of thousands of years ago. Murder isn’t a recent phenomenon, and neither is death. Animals do things we consider “immoral” on a regular basis. Evil has been with us from the beginning. We only recently (in evolutionary terms) learned to name it and recognize we should reject it (even if we don’t).