Bible scholars; Help me out with this one.

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Thu May 12, 2005 1:57 pm

Try to find free will in the Bible mentioned outside of an offering; you can't find it. Our will is bound to God if we are truly Christians, but if not, then our will is bound to satan. Satan is only allowed to tempt so much, and man is inheritley wicked, so we are held accountable, but we do not have our own free will.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 12, 2005 2:28 pm

Satan's a punk, I kick his ass every day!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu May 12, 2005 2:59 pm

1ACE1 wrote:Try to find free will in the Bible mentioned outside of an offering; you can't find it. Our will is bound to God if we are truly Christians, but if not, then our will is bound to satan. Satan is only allowed to tempt so much, and man is inheritley wicked, so we are held accountable, but we do not have our own free will.

If we have no free will, then faith is meaningless; if we cannot make the conscious choice every day of our lives to reject sin and devote our lives to God, then we are nothing more than automata. The very fact that we do face temptation in our lives reinforces the existence of free will; it is our decision whether or not to give into said temptation. Why would the fact that the specific phrase "free will" is or is not mentioned in the Bible deny its existence?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 12, 2005 3:29 pm

1ACE1 wrote:Try to find free will in the Bible mentioned outside of an offering; you can't find it.

Try to find "trinity" mentioned in the Bible. It's not.

That doesn't mean it's not true, it just means it's not explicitly stated in those terms.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:06 pm

Top Gun - X2!

Just another example of why Scripture alone is insufficient to define God in the world. Scripture lived through the constant witness of the Church is how we manage to continually come to a better understanding of God for us. In fact, that's how the New Testament was created in the first place; teaching documents were written for the members of the churches and over time the Church decided what was canon.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri May 13, 2005 9:04 am

dissent wrote:Just another example of why Scripture alone is insufficient to define God in the world.

The "Scripture alone" is the very Word of God, and that's all you have to define God in the world. You need to know the author, but his Word is how you get to know him. Anything else is in your (or the "Church"'s) imagination.

dissent wrote:Scripture lived through the constant witness of the Church is how we manage to continually come to a better understanding of God for us.

Where is that happening? It looks to me like people are just getting more and more confused. The more you/they "continually come to a better understanding of God" ("for us"? o_O), the more you contradict the Scriptures!

dissent wrote:In fact, that's how the New Testament was created in the first place; teaching documents were written for the members of the churches and over time the Church decided what was canon.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (literally, Theopneustos (english rendering of the greek word)--"God-breathed") ", and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

You make it out to be merely a creation of religious man. You contradict the Scriptures--it's the Word of God.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:24 pm

................thread officially derailed ..........

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word.

So how then was the New Testament crafted. Did a bound volume just show up on Paul's shelf one day? Are you really saying that you don't believe the Spirit of God is active in the world today, and always has been, i.e. inspiration? The historical fact is that the New Testament canon was selected from amongst a large collection of early Christian era writings. (When 2 Timothy was written, what "Scripture" was he talking about; not the NT you are holding in your hand) Inspired - certainly! A simple creation of man - not what I meant to imply; existence of inspiration was implicit in my first comment. Now explicit.

God is capable of working through his creation, and in cooperation with it, among the other things God is capable of. We're not puppets. We have free will.

Don't think we'll solve this one here - see the last 500 years of world history for reference.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:20 pm

dissent wrote:So how then was the New Testament crafted. Did a bound volume just show up on Paul's shelf one day? Are you really saying that you don't believe the Spirit of God is active in the world today, and always has been, i.e. inspiration? The historical fact is that the New Testament canon was selected from amongst a large collection of early Christian era writings. (When 2 Timothy was written, what "Scripture" was he talking about; not the NT you are holding in your hand) Inspired - certainly! A simple creation of man - not what I meant to imply; existence of inspiration was implicit in my first comment. Now explicit.

Your last post just came off wrong, then, I guess (or I could have misunderstood it).

dissent wrote:(When 2 Timothy was written, what "Scripture" was he talking about; not the NT you are holding in your hand)

Chronologically, you're right, but I don't we can separate the NT from the rest of Scripture in that statement. It's still Scripture, so it's applicable.

I do believe in both the Holy Spirit, and inspiration. I'm not perfect, and I don't know everything, but if the Bible says it I believe it. I guess maybe I came off wrong too. I'm just not impressed with a lot of what modern-day churches consider inspiration. If it's inspired by God, it will line up with his word (should that be capitalized?). When people are "inspired" to throw aside doctrine and just gather around "jesus", for instance--that goes against Scripture, so it's clearly not inspired by God.

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:53 pm

I was speaking of predestination. The trinity is implied as a doctorine. You can't find man's freewill in the bible. We are predestined to belief in God:
(Eph 1:4) "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

God predestined us to salvation.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:01 pm

1ACE1 wrote:I was speaking of predestination. The trinity is implied as a doctorine. You can't find man's freewill in the bible. We are predestined to belief in God:
(Eph 1:4) "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

God predestined us to salvation.

I know I asked the big question from bible scholars: Free Will? But could you please make it more accessible to non-Christians?

As expected, Lothar and Drakona have supplied sufficient opinions. But the way you other guys are responding to one another alienates people. This is not some corporate America diversity initiative complaint. I really have no idea what you are typing about.

I know you are believers, and it is central to you. But an interesting topic has been ruined with your attitude that what you are quoting is indeed fact. It isnâ??t to me. I am trying to learn about your faith. Faith based statements (fill in religion) are completely useless to me.

Not trying to be a dick.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:23 pm

I fully agree with you, TheCope, and I also have a sneaking suspicion that I've met you before.

I'm sorry if my posts came across in that fashion. I don't think that prosletyzing or quoting Bible verses at someone is any way to get them to learn about your beliefs; I know that I would feel either completely confused or somewhat insulted if I were in your position. At any rate, I think this thread has just about been completely derailed at this point; we're teetering on the brink of a Reformation-style argument. Might be a good idea for a lock.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:42 pm

I'm not the Mod. There is no reason to lock it. All I was asking for was personal opinions on "free will". The world will go on without your or my opinions.

P.S. This is my new name, if you don't like it you can eat my caulk. jbomb made me aware of it (internet guy that changed my life). It was a perfect discovery, and I thank him.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:46 pm

"TheCope", oh no! LOL

I'm sorry for derailing your topic.

TheCope wrote:I am trying to learn about your faith. Faith based statements (fill in religion) are completely useless to me.

Is it just me, or are those two sentences contradictory?

(Not trying to be a dick either)

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:50 pm

Cops - you are not a dick.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse or exclusionary, just responding to a few comments as they came up. from my perspective. You asked an important question; whole books have been written about it and it has been argued for centuries. We may never understand it - that idea is humbling! As for further derailing the topic, I'll just wait til later and see what happens when Luther and Bellarmine duke it out in the afterlife ...

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:53 pm

Yes Thorne,

That is a contradiction. What I meant was... can you answer a question about free will without quoting your religious text?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat May 14, 2005 1:55 pm

Since your original question was about free will v. God's plan; I'm thinking I'll have trouble talking about it without referring to some religious discussion. I am unfamiliar with discussion of "free will" outside of a religious context. Anyone else?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat May 14, 2005 3:31 pm

Well, just in case you would like an agnostics pov, I can state that the term "free will" was coined by the christians in "explaining away" why little girls get stolen off front porches, raped and murdered instead of using "Gods plan". Or, why is there so much hatred in the world. Thats why its not in the bible. When I was little, and had questions like that, the term "God gave man free will" was used often. It "answered" all those questions.

As I got older, I began to understand why the bible is so contradictory and in constant need of interpretation. Its needed, for example, to make them look less wrong after each scientific discovery...The theologists are very well trained in biblical interpretation to counter something new. No matter what comes up, they can interpret a new meaning.

Bettina

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sat May 14, 2005 6:37 pm

Iâ??m the president of the functioning mentally ill club of Minneapolis. Game over. Unless you want to discuss how your book is bound. Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Anybody else?

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Sat May 14, 2005 7:46 pm

bet51987 wrote:Well, just in case you would like an agnostics pov, I can state that the term "free will" was coined by the christians in "explaining away" why little girls get stolen off front porches, raped and murdered instead of using "Gods plan". Or, why is there so much hatred in the world. Thats why its not in the bible. When I was little, and had questions like that, the term "God gave man free will" was used often. It "answered" all those questions.

As I got older, I began to understand why the bible is so contradictory and in constant need of interpretation. Its needed, for example, to make them look less wrong after each scientific discovery...The theologists are very well trained in biblical interpretation to counter something new. No matter what comes up, they can interpret a new meaning.

Bettina

Every part of the Bible only has one correct interpritation, those who come up with new ones are wrong either in their 'new' interpretations, or they becom right. Your experience with Christianity has obviously been of the most liberal, and probably wrong interpretation of the Bible. God doesn't change, the Bible says that; to say that you can interpret it in different ways is a contradiction in itself. It would be like taking a phrase like: "The sky is blue" and saying there are many interpretations of it. A given text means one thing, and in the case of the Bible there can only be on truth. While many passages in the Bible aren't so easy as that, there is still only one true conclusion to arrive at.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:30 pm

Bettina wrote:The theologists are very well trained in biblical interpretation to counter something new. No matter what comes up, they can interpret a new meaning.

Bravo. Boy does that ever ring true.

Bettina wrote:As I got older, I began to understand why the bible is so contradictory and in constant need of interpretation. Its needed, for example, to make them look less wrong after each scientific discovery...

I would dare to assume that you haven't really read a whole lot of the Bible. Be careful about making assumptions about something so vast, based largely on impressions (this is applicable to a lot more in life than just the Bible). I think a lot of people here would agree with me that this is a common fault in the area of politics.

Also, in my experience, well-researched scientific discoveries tend to prove, not disprove the Bible. I'm sorry I can't provide any references on that, but you may want to look into it sometime to see which it really is.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 15, 2005 12:16 am

While many passages in the Bible aren't so easy as that, there is still only one true conclusion to arrive at.

Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Adventist, Christian, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, Episcopal, Pentecostal/Foursquare, Mormon, Protestant, Church of Christ, Evangelical, African Methodist Episcopal, Church of God, Reformed, non-denominational.

Do any of the above interpret the correct and only conclusions? If so, who? And if we can't determine the correct conclusions, then doesn't Bet's point still stand?

Some of the above allow and will encourage you to pray to saints, some of them view that as a sin! Some believe the eucharist really is the blood and body of christ, others believe it just represents it. Some allow priests to marry, others don't. Some allow for gay bishops, others don't. You could write essay upon essay of these different "interpretations."

Maybe the Bible does only have one "correct" interpretation, but if mankind can't figure out what it is, then doesn't that kind of put us at square one? And if we can figure it out, who has or why havn't we? Do you think there will be a day where all religious debate on the Bible just....stops (without God comming in to clarify himself)?

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Sun May 15, 2005 2:47 pm

That leaves you to take the Bible literally when you study it, and not let people make your beliefs. There is only one interpretation--Take the Bible literally, and never subject its interpretation to your own experience or presupositions. Many wrong interpretations result in abuse of and not knowing the original languages (Greek, and Hebrew). Others are just tainted by wanting to make people simply come, and gather a crowd for money or popularity. There are some good books I could recomend to anyone who wants to know which explain these things better than I can; the only things I can tackle are one point at a time.

Mormons and Catholics don't even use the Bible anyway, so they are not even comparable.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:49 pm

Mormons and Catholics don't even use the Bible anyway, so they are not even comparable.

heh...

Sometimes it may certaintly appear so.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:36 pm

1ACE1 wrote:Mormons and Catholics don't even use the Bible anyway, so they are not even comparable.

The Mormons use the Bible along with 3 other books; "The Pearl of great Price", "Book of Mormon", and "Doctrine and Convenants".

The Catholics Church certainly DOES use the bible? Where did you get that?

The Jehova Witnesses use thier own translation only and revise it regularly.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:56 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Bettina wrote:The theologists are very well trained in biblical interpretation to counter something new. No matter what comes up, they can interpret a new meaning.
Bravo. Boy does that ever ring true.

Bettina wrote:As I got older, I began to understand why the bible is so contradictory and in constant need of interpretation. Its needed, for example, to make them look less wrong after each scientific discovery...
I would dare to assume that you haven't really read a whole lot of the Bible. Be careful about making assumptions about something so vast, based largely on impressions (this is applicable to a lot more in life than just the Bible). I think a lot of people here would agree with me that this is a common fault in the area of politics.

Also, in my experience, well-researched scientific discoveries tend to prove, not disprove the Bible. I'm sorry I can't provide any references on that, but you may want to look into it sometime to see which it really is.

Believe me, I can make the assumptions. When I was younger, I had a reason to read the bible....all of it. I was desperately in need of an answer to something that troubled me deeply.

What I found, was that the god in the bible was not the god I wanted to know. I've read the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. I read mini-bibles, condensed bibles, etc etc etc. I needed an answer, but never found it. I found them all be confusing, contradictory, and with the ability to be interpreted to fit any challenge or problems except mine.

When the term "Free will" was told to me by a priest, it was supposed to cover it all. It was a godsend to the biblical scholars. But it didn't cut it for me. It helps to explain for example why the attacker killed the little girl, and why god doesnt intervene, but what about her free will. What happened to that.

Sorry, but I refused to become brainwashed and soon found out what the bible really is...fiction.

Anyway, someone wanted an opinion of "free will", and I gave it as what I believe to be the truth.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:01 pm

I postulate that you do not really know the God of the bible. ..you have made a lot of assumtions based on your observations steered by adolecent emotion.

speaking of which. "When I was younger" You still have a long ways to go. Just about anyone here can vouch for that. You will be a different person in 5 years.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun May 15, 2005 6:06 pm

It seems as though you have a lot of misconceptions about Catholicism, Ace. I'd be happy to correct them for you if you like. I can more than assure you, though, that Catholics consider the Bible as critical to our faith.

As for taking every word of the Bible literally, how can you do this when many parts of the Bible were not meant to be taken literally when they were originally written? Genesis was written as a Hebrew creation myth, and Revelations is full of symbolism and allegory, but neither were meant as factual accounts; the importance of them is the underlying message, not the literal text. Other parts of the Bible, such as much of the Gospels, were written in narrative form and are meant to be literal accounts. Reading the text of the Bible literally, without taking into account the situations it was written in or the intentions of the people who wrote different parts of it, is a misrepresentation.

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Sun May 15, 2005 6:52 pm

The Catholics Church certainly DOES use the bible? Where did you get that? wrote:

I disagree, I grew up Catholic. And i can definitly say, they that not only do they use thier own translation of the bible... Catholics believe that the pope is christ on earth('VICARIUS FILII DEI' The title on the popes miter) and what he says is above what the bible says.....
Because of this, the catholic church has many beliefs that are found no where in the bible,like being able to pay for forgiveness(indulgences) and even there beliefs in death(that you go straight to heaven or hell when you die) or even that there is a place called purgatory !

Genesis was written as a Hebrew creation myth, and Revelations is full of symbolism and allegory, but neither were meant as factual accounts wrote:

relevation is full of symbolism because it tells the future! As stated in this thread, God knows the end from the beginning, and the future of the world from 79Ad(the time that John wrote it) till the end of the world is laid out in there. Relevation and the book of Daniel are both very good examples of how exact God is in telling the future..

In the book of Daniel you will see that God used a dream fortelling the future of the world to get Daniel promoted to the head advisor over all wise men in babylon. the dream was of a statue of a man made of several metals(head of gold, chest of silver, thighs of broze, legs of iron and feet of iron/clay) Daniel lived through 2 of these world govenments, the first of them being Babylon of course(head of gold) the second was Mede-persia(chest of silver) next came Greece(bronze) and lastly rome which was the legs of iron which was rome, fell broke into 10 diffrent states never to rejoin (feet of clay which had 10 toes)

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun May 15, 2005 7:10 pm

Duper wrote:The Jehova Witnesses use thier own translation only and revise it regularly.

(bolded by me)

not true, they easily switch to using whatever translation is available. growing up in the religion i saw this many times first hand - and i heard many sermons encouraging use of other bibles.
they generally prefer to use their NWT, but as i said, will use any bible - especially if someone accuses their points being null & void because they are "using their own bible". they are trained to do this.

one JW friend of mine is a collector of ancient bibles, his pride and joy of his collection atm being a GENEVA BIBLE from the 1500s.

in 2 decades i never noticed a major NWT bible revision, only small inconsequential gramatical changes.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun May 15, 2005 7:48 pm

Bettina - Read C. S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". Also Peter Kreeft's "Making Sense out of Suffering". Maybe it will help your understanding better.

Ted -
That would be purgatory , I take it?
btw; I know lots of folk who were "raised Catholic", where for them that meant they went to church and Sunday school as children, but never advanced their religious study much beyond that. Can't speak for you, though. However, their gripes with Catholicism are on occasion based on their childhood understanding of the faith. There are plenty of good adult books and web sites out there where you can get better than a childhood discussion.

Ace -
Catholics don't use the Bible? Please, but this is a plainly ignorant comment. Catholics are read to from the Bible every Sunday; and encouraged to read it on their own.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sun May 15, 2005 8:32 pm

Hey, all. I've been mostly gone from the DBB for a couple of months (mainly because I no longer have access from work), but I wanted to get in and add a bit to the discussion here, for a couple of reasons:
(1.) Lothar and Drakona mentioned their seemingly contradictory "philosophical deterministic free-will" position in a thread from a few months back, and I was pretty intrigued. This thread must be the "debate" Drakona mentioned...

(2.) I've missed you all, and the lively discussion here!

I took the time to carefully read through all the posts here (whew!), and want to respond as best I can:

Lothar, Drakona, I think I understand at least the basics of your position:
(1.) First, that everything is determined, as well as completely foreknown by God.
(2.) But second, that free will exists because real choices can still be made, and that those choices are pre-determined by one's character (the moral nature which we can see most clearly when we are free from constraints). You see freedom in the sense that this pre-determined character "...can express itself...", although that expression can be constrained by the situation. You even provide some rationale for a change of one's character, given the "change-ability" of that character.
(3.) To the question of "Well, if things are predetermined, why should it matter what I do?" (and similar questions), you point out that choices do have inherent moral value, and that God still desires good over evil.
(4.) To the question of "Why does God pre-determine some to be saved, and some not?", you point out that we are all hopelessly fallen, but God is uncomprehendingly good, and that we can only be saved by His mercy (not any good works or human nature), so it depends completely and utterly on God, who knew what we would choose from the beginning.

Am I at least close?

I have to admit, that position is a new one to me; most people I've discussed this with lean either toward complete determinism or complete free-will, but never a blend of both. It's interesting, fairly comprehensive, and you both expressed it well. I'm sure we could go on for pages about the nuances of this view, but the general idea is intriguing.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I can't say that I completely concur, either. Here are some of the questions/issues I have with that position:

- "God pre-determines our character Our character determines our choices God pre-determines our choices."
It may seem like I'm quabbling semantics here, but using "pre-determined" and "choice" together like that makes me question the definitions. If you're talking about perceived choices (i.e. we don't know what people are going to choose, so the choices don't seem pre-determined), then there's not really any true free will, at least by the definition I adhere to.
(Note: I know, your next question is, "So if choices are not pre-determined, where does the choice come from? Are you suggesting that choices are just completely random acts of will?" Absolutely not. In fact, I actually agree with you that the choices we make are determined by our character; I just don't agree that God has chosen to pre-determine our character.)

- "God's pre-destination is complete and unchanging."
There are a number of places in scripture where God changes His mind about something or someone, and places where He waits to see how a specific person or nation will respond to him (see Job for a couple good examples of this). If everything is pre-determined, then this apparent dynamic, responsive nature of God must be just human perception, right? But in that case, why does God make it appear that He is changing and responding to us? Is He being intentionally deceptive?

- "God completely pre-determines some to be saved, and some to not be saved." For me, this one is the crux of the matter. It just doesn't fit. Not because "It doesn't seem right!"; that argument presumes we know what's best, which we don't. God revealed Himself to us most closely in the earthly life of Christ, who called everyone (men & women & children, rich & poor, Jews & gentiles, slaves & citizens, the healthy & the lepers, religious leaders & sinners of every kind... everyone) to Himself. Is the God who calls everyone back to Him the same God who pre-destines some of them to hell?

To contrast, let me see if I can summarize my own view as an alternate position for you to consider, Cops/Cope:

(Note: like Drakona noted, some of this is borne out of my philosophical world-view, and not anything specifically theological, as I am still trying to wrap my head around some of the inherent paradoxes.)

(1.) God created the universe and humankind out of His infinitely loving nature (He actually is love itself, per I John). But true love, by nature, demands that the other be free to respond. Thus God, because of His nature, made us with a free will to respond to Him. In contrast, in a deterministic universe, there would not be any true freedom to choose; whether we respond to God's call or not would depend completely upon whether He designed us to or not, so the response would not really be ours, even if we weren't aware of it. To me, if we were pre-'programmed' to be a certain way, it makes the relationship we have with God (and with each other) into just the acting out of some cosmic screenplay.
(2.) To the logical next question, "God is omniscient, so isn't this all moot because He knew from the beginning how it will all work out?", I believe God chose a design where His over-arching plan will come to pass, but the details are not pre-set. After all, if God can choose to leave his omniscience and omnipresence out of the human mind and body of Jesus, he can surely choose to create a universe with some room for the undetermined.
(3.) Man is still 100% dependent on God. It may seem like I'm describing a universe where humankind can 'will' its own salvation; quite the contrary, I still maintain that salvation is a gift, no one can ever "earn" or "deserve" it. I believe that we all have an undetermined free will, but other than accepting the grace (undeserved gift) of God, we can never do anything of our own to be 'saved'.

I wish I could give a better summary of my own view, but that will have to do for now, since my brain is starting to tire... Drakona, you're completely right about theology being tougher in many ways than theoretical mathematics. I don't think my view is completely 'right', by any means. It's just the best I can currently do to reconcile my understanding of God with my understanding of human will; so please feel free to blow my ideas to bits. Good dialogue on the subject is always helpful, especially in any of my weak areas (of which I have plenty).

Also, I want to respond to Bettina's post, if I can do so quickly (this is getting much longer than I thought it would):

Bettina, my guess is that the concept of free will was first shown to you simply as a way to answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" (or more accurately, "Why do bad things happen?"). If that seems like a shallow way to "explain away" a painful event, I understand.

This issue of pre-destination vs. free will is not an easy one; as you can see, it's a very complex and ethereal subject, and there are difficult issues on either side, especially when one considers the "Why do bad things..." question. After all, if God has not pre-determined everything, then He can seem feeble or uncaring when something painful happens to us. But then again, if God has pre-determined it all, it seems cruel of Him to have caused it.

It's hard, I know. But the idea of free will was not just construed by Christians too lazy to tackle the tough "Why?" questions. It has to do with life purpose, the meaning and consequence of our choices, and most of all... what it means to be alive.

[Edit: Bettina, I just read that most recent post. It sounds like the "Why do bad things happen (when God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-good)?" is a critical one for you. It was for me, too.

My wife and I still talk about it sometimes.
The C.S. Lewis' book, The Problem of Pain is a good one, but I personally found that the best thing was for me to speak with people who have suffered in their lives, and how it affected their relationship with God.
The way I've finally come to see it is that God values our freedom so much that to deny us free will (even to force us to be completely kind to one another, sparing us all pain) would be to take away what it means to be created in His image (remember, God feels pain, too...).]

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun May 15, 2005 8:53 pm

Teddy, I don't want to drive this thread completely into the ground, but as I said about Ace, you have some misconceptions about Catholic beliefs. I'm not sure if dissent's post is true or not regarding your experience with Catholicism, but regardless, I can at least fill you in on a few of the details.

The phrase you quoted from the Pope's staff translates to "the vicar of the Son of God." That's a very far cry from calling the Pope "Christ on Earth," which is a complete fallacy. (Technically, since all Christians are called to "be Christ for others," you could apply that phrase to any Christian, but I don't think that's the sense you were implying.) The Pope is viewed as the successor of Peter, who was appointed by Christ to lead his Church; he is the head of the physical Church on Earth. Once again, that's eons away from equating him with Christ.

Also, I don't know where you got this idea, but the Pope's decrees are by no means above the text of the Bible. In fact, papal encyclicals and declarations are at their core based on the teachings of Christ. The Church places Tradition, the combined teachings of the popes and the decrees of Church councils considered inspired by the Holy Spirit, at the same level as the direct text of the Bible, but it is by no means placed above it.

Catholics do not use any special or specific Bible translation; in fact, there are several that I've been exposed to in the US, including the New American Version (which I've encountered the most), the Jerusalem Version, and even the Latin Vulgate. Nothing discourages Catholics from reading other translations, such as the King James Version. The Catholic Bible does contain seven books in the Old Testament, named the Apocrypha, that some Protestant denominations do not recognize as canon, but these are not recent additions or revisions; they are of the same period as many other Old Testament books. I'm sure you could find a lot of information on this subject.

The ability to purchase indulgences for money is a practice from the Middle Ages; it's not practiced anymore. As for the idea of going directly to heaven or hell after death, I don't see how that's contradictory to the Bible. As for purgatory, I'm not sure of the specific origins of the doctrine, but I'm almost positive that it is based in biblical texts; once again, I'd encourage you to look into it.

Regarding Revelations or Daniel's visions, how do you know that they were meant to be a specific or literal account of the end days? The exact items you mentioned were symbols for past or present world empires. God has set the time for the end, but in Christ's own words, "No one knows the day or the hour when the Son of Man will return." To me, the idea that people believe that they know when the world will end shows disdain for God, as if these people can second-guess God. I get that same feeling when people try to take Revelations and apply it to current events; it's not meant to be a checklist for the end of the world.

Once again, I apologize to everyone for turning this into a religious debate; I promise to shut up now.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:00 am

omG .. ~@!# ,,must resist, ... but can't hold it in.!.. biblical threads cause me to get cramps if I hold it all in... ! forgive my blasphemy, but I gotta .. #*!

! Wholly Sheet there 1ACE1.. ! you must be saying things just to get a rise outta me.. !..since it's my contention that those who literally interpret the bible will have natural selection pick them off (and out of the gene pool) for being a little slow off the mark... Our consciousness has evolved much since the Bible was written, and so has our experience of being conscious and alive !

.. what else can I sputter out in convulsive surge..

btw... IF god has a sex, then GOD IS A WOMAN ! .. She created everything we know and she accepts us all for what and who we are, she has us here to fulfill our free wills to experience life, and then we die.

.. I can't wait until the Biblical scholars can get their chance to "interpret" new scientific data we'll soon have for the first evidence of extra terrestrial life ... God's Plan included that, and those aliens' have the free will to evolve and be conscious is just like us...

... let's see if this post get's yanked.. for it's pagan Blasphemy !

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:05 pm

...yeah ..

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:55 pm

Top Gun wrote:It seems as though you have a lot of misconceptions about Catholicism, Ace. I'd be happy to correct them for you if you like. I can more than assure you, though, that Catholics consider the Bible as critical to our faith.

As for taking every word of the Bible literally, how can you do this when many parts of the Bible were not meant to be taken literally when they were originally written? Genesis was written as a Hebrew creation myth, and Revelations is full of symbolism and allegory, but neither were meant as factual accounts; the importance of them is the underlying message, not the literal text. Other parts of the Bible, such as much of the Gospels, were written in narrative form and are meant to be literal accounts. Reading the text of the Bible literally, without taking into account the situations it was written in or the intentions of the people who wrote different parts of it, is a misrepresentation.

Trust me, I know a lot of Catholicism. They bend and twist the Bible to their own view, sorry, but they are not brothers. Revalation is meant to be taken literally in that what is metaphorically prophesied will happen that way. I have studied Hebrew, and while I don't know it really well, no scolar in his right mind would ever call the creation account to be metaphorical, or legend. Things like the Psalms have totally different structure, and prophecy as well. The things in the Bible really happened or will. Some are spoken in a metaphorical sense, but it is obvious when it is. Genesis wasn't written as a legend, but as a fact of how it happened. As someone who claims to know God, you really should take the foundation of your faith more seriously. Catholicism has always bent things, and yes what they rule is considered to be more important than the Bible. Where did they get celebacy? Why do they wink at their molestation of boys? Study the things that went on during the reformation era, find out about all the people that were burned at the stake.Many Catholics are simply made to believe that they are serving God, and many do believe that. I'm finding that Top Gun is asking more postulous questions than answering anything. Please, just bring facts; don't start bringing stuff up and saying things like go find out if this is right.

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:59 pm

El Ka Bong wrote:omG .. ~@!# ,,must resist, ... but can't hold it in.!.. biblical threads cause me to get cramps if I hold it all in... ! forgive my blasphemy, but I gotta .. #*!

! Wholly Sheet there 1ACE1.. ! you must be saying things just to get a rise outta me.. !..since it's my contention that those who literally interpret the bible will have natural selection pick them off (and out of the gene pool) for being a little slow off the mark... Our consciousness has evolved much since the Bible was written, and so has our experience of being conscious and alive !

.. what else can I sputter out in convulsive surge..

btw... IF god has a sex, then GOD IS A WOMAN ! .. She created everything we know and she accepts us all for what and who we are, she has us here to fulfill our free wills to experience life, and then we die.

.. I can't wait until the Biblical scholars can get their chance to "interpret" new scientific data we'll soon have for the first evidence of extra terrestrial life ... God's Plan included that, and those aliens' have the free will to evolve and be conscious is just like us...

... let's see if this post get's yanked.. for it's pagan Blasphemy !

God never had sex, thats only mormons who believe that, and its not in the Bible. If you have specific correct data to bring, then bring it. Don't bring up randomn things that never happened, and most likely won't. If they do, you have no idea what will happen. If you have a fact against the Bible that makes you think it has erroneous data, then lets see it. Right now you're just detracting from a discussion, and doing more flaming and muddying up waters than anything.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:57 pm

I apologize in advance for the length of this, and for taking so long to get back to the thread. I'm going to try to answer a whole lot of questions, so get some popcorn or read this in sections or something. I'll at least try to gather responses on similar topics together, and I'll bold any names I mention (but remember, sometimes more than one person asked the same question, so I may answer your question without mentioning your name. In light of this, don't skim too much!) Also, remember, I'm not the final authority on most things -- I'm just saying what I think; I might be wrong, and you can certainly disagree with me and argue with me if you want to (but, please, no Mobi-style trolling! Be civil when you disagree.)

The Nature of Choice / Free Will

Let me start out by trying to convince you of something. Most of you already believe what Drakona said about choices, namely, "you choose what you do based on who you are." I'm going to do so by quoting someone you probably don't expect...

When Flabby Chick wrote "Not like you to be condescending Lothar! Or did i miss your invisible smilie?", how many of you thought that was a strange thing to say? I'll venture a guess not a single one of you batted an eye at that statement. But think about what he's implying. My response wasn't the response he expected -- given what he knows about my character, and the situation, he expected a certain response out of me, and many of the rest of you did as well. To say a particular type of behavior is "not like me" is to imply that some other type of behavior is "like me", in other words, that who I am determines how I'll choose to behave and that it's reasonably predictable.

Now, in this case, we can chalk up the unpredictability to incomplete knowledge -- I wasn't actually being condescending, but because I didn't write very clearly, FC got the wrong idea from my post. Woodchip pointed out something similar, saying "There are always unforseen variables that preclude knowing 100% how a person may react in a certain circumstance." And I totally agree -- that's why we can't perfectly predict each others' behavior. We don't have perfect knowledge of the circumstances. I'm coming from a perspective that says God does have perfect knowledge of the present, though. That means if somebody did slip LSD into Drakona's food (out of their own free will) He'd know about it and be able to predict her response based on that situation. There are things *we* don't know that make people's behavior unpredictable, but that doesn't really hurt my philosophical position any, because God doesn't have that limitation on knowledge.

Now, 1ACE1 questioned why I even believe in Free Will, saying "Try to find free will in the Bible mentioned outside of an offering." I mentioned that you also can't find the Trinity in the Bible. Both "Free Will" and "Trinity" are technical terms somebody invented in order to be able to reference complicated concepts more easily -- the terms themselves aren't in the Bible, but the concepts are. In particular, as Drakona said, the concept of "choice" is all over the Bible, and that's where we get the idea of Free Will. As she said in this post:

Drakona wrote:the Bible absolutely teaches that people make real choices, and those choices have moral value. God continually judges people for their wrong choices, celebrates their right choices, admonishes them and gives them advice, tells them how much he wishes they would do one thing or another. Very obviously, our choices are real to God and have real moral value.

As was mentioned before, I consider myself a 5-point Calvinist. I also believe in Free Will. They're not contradictory if you use the right definitions -- they're only contradictory if you think "free will" makes your actions unpredictable. But, as I said above, your actions are based on your character, so even though you (sometimes) freely choose them, they're entirely predictable.

Foil questioned the above definition of choice, saying "If you're talking about perceived choices, then there's not really any true free will, at least by the definition I adhere to." That's kind of the point

. My previous model of choice, along with other things I knew, led me to an apparent contradiction, so I re-evaluated all of the models. In the end, my model of choice was the weak link, so I changed it based on the evidence. (My wife and I talked a little about the philosophy of changing models in this Chicago Boyz post.) Foil, being a mathematician, should be entirely comfortable with this process. It's not the definition of choice you're used to -- but I think it's a more accurate representation of what we really mean when we talk about choice or free will. If I have a meaningful choice, it means I'm able to do what I want to do (and express myself), rather than being forced to do something I'd rather not do.

Foil also asked "If everything is pre-determined, then this apparent dynamic, responsive nature of God must be just human perception, right?" No, not really -- remember, being predetermined does not make something static, it only makes the dynamics predictable. When God makes a statement based on the current circumstances, He's acting entirely within His character -- and when His statement causes certain reactions that lead to a change of circumstances and He changes His response, He's still acting entirely within His character. He knows He will eventually change -- but not until after people respond to His original statement in certain ways. It doesn't work to shortcut the process. (One could argue similarly for the whole of eternity -- God knows what's going to happen and who's going to end up where at the end of time, but it doesn't work for Him to just skip history and poof us all into heaven; the process of getting there is important.)

Foil goes on to state a limited model of predestination, wherein God pre-determines many things, but "I just don't agree that God has chosen to pre-determine our character." My question in this case is, what does determine our character? We know DNA, brain chemistry, environment, and circumstances all contribute. These are all things it seems reasonable to say God has complete control over. If He didn't choose what our character is going to be, where could it possibly come from? I just don't see it.

Abuse of the Philosophy of Free Will

bettina argued against "free will", saying "When I was little, and had [hard questions], the term "God gave man free will" was used often." That's probably true -- people often misuse concepts they don't understand in order to explain away things they're uncomfortable with. It's especially common to hear people cite "free will" as an answer to all of the pain in the world, or claim "you must have faith" as the reason you should trust their strange interpretations of the Bible. But one should not take the misuse of an idea as an excuse to discard the concept. Many Christians make the mistake of rejecting evolution simply because the theory has been misused to "disprove" Christianity, and bettina rightly criticizes them for it. Rejecting "free will" because the idea has been misused is exactly the same error. The idea should stand or fall on its own merits, not based on who's misused it in the past.

Similarly, Will Robinson states that "The quality of my childrens life and our society as a whole will be affected by accepting these kind of philosophies". I agree -- as I said before, most philosophies are dangerous, especially when they're only partly understood. But that doesn't make them any more or less true -- it only means we should exercise caution in teaching them. I don't think I'd even try to teach this to children -- I'd perhaps teach them God has power over everything, but I'd wait until they were adult-ish before I even tried to teach them about predestination, and I'd make sure to really hammer home the point that what you do *still matters* even if God already knew you were going to do that. One only needs to point to the story of Peter denying Jesus 3 times after Jesus told him "you'll deny me 3 times", and notice that Peter still wept when he realized what he'd done.

Many people, including Will, woodchip, and roid, pointed out an obvious abuse of this philosophy: "if it's already determined what I'm going to do, why don't I just do whatever the heck I want to?" Let me simply remind everyone: doing whatever the heck you want to is a reflection of your character, and your character is what matters. If, upon hearing this philosophy, you're tempted to go do really bad things and use this as a convenient excuse, that reveals a lot about what sort of person you are. Whether or not God already knew you'd behave that way, the fact still remains, if that's how you behave it reflects poorly on you.

Why is there so much evil and pain?

roid, bettina, and others all brought this issue up, and it's a really good question. In bettina's experience, the traditional answer to this is "free will", and that really bugs her. That really bugs me, too -- because I don't think it's the right answer. Did humans, acting out of free will, really cause all the pain in the history of the universe? I seriously doubt it! Ultimately, the responsibility for all pain goes back to God -- He created the universe, He set up the laws, He made it possible to *have* pain, and He created all of us, so the finger points right back to Him. I don't think there's any avoiding that.

So, why did God make a universe in which there was so much evil and pain, and in which people could be so bad? roid argues that "surely [God] would KNOW the guarenteed best way to effect some outcome... if it is within god's power, why arn't we ALL created with personalitys and characters predestined to lead us into a happy afterlife?" The short answer is, I don't think it's within God's power to do that and still accomplish what He intended to accomplish with this universe.

When people claim a universe could be "better", they're implying some sort of measurement of "goodness". For each different measure, you get a different "ideal" universe -- if I say the best universe is one in which there's no pain, an empty universe would be ideal (if nobody ever exists, there's no pain.) If I say the best universe is one in which there's the maximum possible amount of pleasure, I'd picture some other universe in my head -- perhaps I'd picture what people often think heaven will be like. If I decide the meaning of life is to be useful, then the best universe is one in which everyone is useful, and I might picture a universe in which everything would fall apart unless everybody helped out. Whatever your philosophy of the "meaning of life" or "goodness" is, you can come up with a corresponding idea of a universe that will match it.

This means the question I ask is "what did God want out of this universe that made Him willing to allow so much evil and pain?" That is, what does He consider a "good" universe, and why is this the best He could do? That's a hard question, and I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I at least have some thoughts on the subject. I think God intended to make creatures who were like Him and could be His companions. I think He wanted them to have to really depend on Him, and to have real ability to choose not to depend on Him. I think He wanted to teach them to be truly good, and that meant they had to at least be exposed to some serious evil so that they could honestly reject it. I don't know if He could have done it with less evil, though I suspect a world with less evil and less pain would also produce fewer, or less fit, companions for Him; I think perhaps He could have made a world where everyone in it was predestined for a happy afterlife, but "everyone" would be a smaller number than "part of" this one. And I do know this world isn't the end, and that much greater pleasure (namely, the pleasure of eternal companionship with God) awaits for at least some who come out of this world (and I don't even pretend to know how many "some" is.) That might not be a satisfying answer to a lot of you -- like I said, it's a hard question, and I don't have all the answers. But everything I know of God, in the way He's treated me personally, tells me He's good, and that means I'm willing to trust that He knew what He was doing when He made a world full of pain.

Interpreting the Bible; Additional Sources

A number of people, including Goob, Bettina, 1ACE1, dissent, Thorne, Teddy, and Top Gun touched on the topic of Biblical interpretation. This is a really big topic -- so big that my wife taught a six-week class on it for our church, and barely had time to cover the major topics. She created some pretty serious notes for the class, which are available on our webpage. (The notes are original material, expanded from a section of this DBB post -- from the line "Here's how to do it right" until the Matthew 22 quote.) If anyone is seriously interested in Biblical interpretation -- or general interpretation, for that matter -- I'd recommend taking a few hours and reading that post, or taking a couple days and reading over the notes. Let me just briefly mention (since 1ACE1 brought it up) that the Bible doesn't always communicate things in a literal way -- there are a lot of parables, poems, analogies, and many other literary genres in the Bible.

The (relatively) short summary of week 1 of the class is this: in the Bible, like any other communication (written, spoken, etc.), the original author had some message they intended to communicate. As readers, it's our job to get as much of that message out as we possibly can, but without inventing things the author didn't really say. That is, we want the thought in our brain to match up with the thought in the author's brain as closely as possible. But unless we're telepathic, information will get lost along the way, so we can only get an approximate match. There are 3 steps from one brain to another -- first, the thought is compressed down into words (and information is usually lost, though how much depends on the quality and length of writing.) Second, the words are transmitted from wherever they were originally written or spoken to us (the transmission of this post will probably involve no information loss; a game of telephone involves a lot. Historically, the Bible has had surprisingly little information loss, as I explained here and Drakona clarified down the page.) Finally, we take the words given (written or heard) and we try to extract meaning out of them (the amount of information lost here depends primarily on what methods the reader is using and how careful they are; weeks 2-6 covered what information a reader needs to know in order to develop good methods of interpretation.)

bettina pointed out that the Bible is "in constant need of interpretation." This is pretty obvious, and it's true of any communication of any sort. The words on the page don't magically tell us what they mean; we have to read and interpret them in order to get at what the author originally meant to communicate. That's just the way communication works, unless you're a telepath.

Gooberman asked who has the right interpretation. I'd say, first off, that pretty much every non-cult Christian group has it 99% in agreement with each other, and that they're probably right about most of it. They have some differences, but as Drakona wrote in one of the threads linked above, "In my experience, for the vast majority of doctrinal disputes, a responsible, humble, careful reading of the scriptures either entirely dissolves the debate, or else makes it clear that the Bible doesn't speak on the subject--or at least that it doesn't speak as loudly as some people think it does." For the 1% on which modern groups differ, it's usually because of one of these reasons:

1) the Bible doesn't actually say very much about the subject at hand, so we're basically disagreeing on philosophy, not Bible interpretation

2) groups are using different external sources (for example, Catholics place a lot of weight on tradition, and some groups place more or less weight on letters written by early church fathers) that color their interpretation (for better or for worse.)

3) a group isn't reading very carefully, and really needs to take Catherine's class on Biblical interpretation

4) a group has an agenda they're trying to make scripture fit, so they're not really trying to get at what the original author meant, they're just trying to make the words say what they already believe.

To repeat: a responsible, humble, careful reading of the scriptures usually settles the dispute by either showing what the Bible says or showing that it doesn't say much (thereby making it into a philosophy debate rather than an interpretation question.)

Gooberman asked "if mankind can't figure out what [the right interpretation] is, then doesn't that kind of put us at square one?" As mentioned above, 99% of the time we do know pretty clearly what the right interpretation is, and the remaining times, the dispute falls into one of the above categories. #3 is easily corrected (which is why there's so much more agreement now than there was 500 years ago), and #4 dissolves when the agenda does. Disagreements arising from #1 are the sort most of us can live with -- if Foil disagrees with me over predestination, that's fine; he's well within the theological boundaries of what the Bible says, and I don't mind the fact that he differs on philosophy. Duper spoke of external sources (#2) in more detail. The short answer for Goob is, those who use reasonable external sources come to reasonable conclusions, and those who don't... don't. I can live with disagreements with those who use reasonable external sources, even if I don't think their sources are that good. Here are the 3 groups Duper mentioned:

Mormons use 3 other books (book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price), each of which is a bit whack (Living Hope has videos detailing the historical unreliability of the Book of Mormon in particular, but really, just read it if you're wondering.) Furthermore, they're told only to read the Bible according to a particular schedule they're given by their tabernacle. This, combined with the fact that their doctrine says God is a space alien (seriously!) makes me not trust them as a whole (though some individuals are quite reasonable.)

Jehovah's Witnesses are another group I don't trust much -- they do have their own translation of the Bible, and while they'll use any old translation for most passages, there are a select few passages they'll only read in NWT, where they've inserted a word ("the Word was a God") in order to match up with their doctrine (that Jesus was a lesser god.) They also think Jesus came back in 1914, which they later revised to "came back in spirit" because he didn't come visibly.

Catholics use the Bible, though with some variations to the Bibles protestants and Orthodox believers use. In particular, they have a section called the Apocrypha, which contains old-testament-era writings the Jews never accepted as scripture. A few of the more distinct Catholic doctrines (purgatory?) come out of these books. They also trust church history a lot more than I'm comfortable with. But really, the distinctive Catholic doctrines are mostly not a big deal (at least not in their modern forms) so I don't worry too much about them.

Miscellaneous

In response to various statements, woodchip asked the question "So we are all just dirty peasants with no hope for redemption?" That's almost, but not quite, true. We have no hope for redemption on the strength of our own actions (see this post, point (3).) Redemption requires a restored relationship, and that can only happen if God chooses to forgive us -- and nothing we can do can make us good enough that He has to; it's a gift He can give us, not something we can earn. It's also a gift He's offered to anyone who will accept it (Drakona explained this in the middle section of this post.) So we do have hope for redemption -- not hope to earn it, but hope because God has offered it to us as a gift.

Bettina made the claim that "the bible is ... contradictory." Perhaps that should be clarified: people often interpret the Bible in ways that are contradictory to science or to nature or to their interpretations of other parts of the Bible. The text itself is fine; it's the readers who create contradictions out of it. That's not to say it's easy to understand or that it never says anything confusing -- if you're going to describe a complex God, you're going to have to say some complex and sometimes confusing things.

1ACE1 claimed that "no scolar in his right mind would ever call the creation account to be metaphorical, or legend." I suggest he should take the time to read this massive post by Drakona (originally from another board; they've deleted most of their archives) about Genesis 1. She's not exactly a professional Bible scholar, but she knows what she's talking about. If you have questions about it, feel free to ask.

TigerRaptor · Post by **TigerRaptor** » Mon May 16, 2005 10:47 pm

Damn. o_0 Some ones been very busy.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:52 pm

TigerRaptorFX wrote:Damn. o_0 Some ones been very busy.

LOL X2

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue May 17, 2005 2:27 am

Very nice post, Lothar. I'm always relieved when you step into the middle of these types of debates and bring some order into what usually descends into chaos.

1ACE1, I'd hope that you take a look at the arguments that Lothar made and the posts that he linked to regarding Biblical interpretation; they make a lot of points that I couldn't even begin to come up with on my own. You claim to know a great deal about Catholicism, but as someone who was raised as Catholic from the time I was born and has taken many theology courses over the years, I can say that you do not seem to have a firm grasp on what Catholics believe, particularly by your repeated use of the phrase "bend and twist the Bible." Do you have any concrete examples of that that you'd like me to address? You complained about me not answering you, but you haven't given me any actual questions to answer, as far as I can tell. By telling you to look up information, I was attempting to provide you with some answers; if you'd prefer to ask the questions, then I'll give you the best answers I can.

I'm also rather offended at your implication of the Catholic Church "winking" at the molestation of children; I've known several caring, compassionate, dedicated priests during my lifetime, and the implication that any of them, or any good priest, would brush aside the abuse of children is just wrong. I take the foundation of my faith very seriously; implying that I'm being "made to believe" that I'm serving God is an insult not only to my intelligence, but to my status as a human being. The way I see it, one doesn't have to even believe in God in order to do something that pleases God. And what exactly do you mean by the term "brothers"?

I'm perfectly willing to have an intelligent and rational discussion about what I believe, but if you're going to do nothing more than insult my personal beliefs, I'm not interested. Regardless of what you decide, I suggest that we both stop filling up this thread with material that is off-topic; if you want to continue this discussion, we can do it elsewhere.

My apologies to everyone for posting this argument here; as I said, I'll take any further discussion on the topic elsewhere.

Bible scholars; Help me out with this one.

If you can read this in one sitting, I'll be surprised...