A Place Called Sheol: Jesus & His Kingdom, II
Posted in Jesus & His Kingdom, Religion on | 8 minutes | 48 Comments →
This is the third installment of my review on Mike Gantt’s Jesus and His Kingdom: The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven.
Chapter 2 is on the Hebrew concept of Sheol found primarily in the Old Testament. The chapter essentially serves as an extended introduction to the concept, exploring its various uses throughout the Old Testament and cross-referencing them with one another. My review itself is rather short, but I suggest you read it anyways, especially the addendum.
Mike writes:
We could wish that the Bible had a section where you could turn and look up a dictionary definition of Sheol. Then we wouldn’t have to look at all these different passages. But the lack of such a section and the frequent use of the term without explanation, is itself of great value. First of all, since the term is used in consistent fashion we can easily determine its meaning. Pre-schoolers learn a multitude of words without benefit of a dictionary. When parents and siblings use words consistently, the meanings are eventually recognized. Secondly, the lack of specific explanation shows that “Sheol” was widely known and used. That is, it was part of the common understanding. The writer would no more have to stop and define his term than he would if using the terms “heaven” or ”earth.”
I found this a rather salient point. Often in (a)theist debate, critics bemoan the fact that the Bible isn’t 100% explicit about this or that. As Mike seems to imply above, I tend to see this as an invitation to think critically. After all, my experience has ironically taught me that we’re often liable to miss a point when stated authoritatively. When we’re forced to examine different instances of a term, I believe we’re more prone to critically consider it.
After a substantial introduction of the word and its various occurrences in scripture, Mike transitions into the question of whether Sheol is simply a metaphor for death or an actual place. Mike points to Psalm 139 and Job 7 to reinforce his point that the biblical writers considered Sheol more than metaphor, i.e., an actual place:
When a cloud vanishes, it is gone, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. He will not return again to his house, nor will his place know him anymore.” Job 7:9-10 NASB
Clearly, the writer of Job seems to believe 1) that Sheol is an actual place, and 2) that those who go to Sheol transition to a place from which they cannot return. As you’ll see in the addendum to this post, the Bible writers aren’t the only ones with this belief. Aside from the divine intervention of God, transitioning to Sheol irreversible. We read in 1 & 2 Kings that Elijah and Elisha prayed for children who had died, and that their souls came back from Sheol. Mike points out that this type of “resurrection” was only temporal, and not the resurrection unto eternal life alluded to elsewhere in the Bible. After all, despite the fact that these children apparently got a second chance, they were still eventually going to die and inhabit Sheol again.
Moving along, Mike points out a distinction between modern and Hebrew ideas concerning the afterlife:
In our day we sometimes contemplate the moral quality of a deceased person’s life and thereby try to make a judgment as to the destination of their soul. As you have probably already begun to see, this sort of thinking is out of place given the Bible’s description of death and Sheol. The Hebrew mind saw Sheol as the place of the dead. All the dead. It was the inevitable destination of all who lived.
When I was young, I remember people alluding to our postmortem destination as either going “up” or “down,” where “up” referred to heaven, and “down” referred to hell. Does everyone go to Sheol until final judgment? Mike seems to think so:
Everyone who was born, was born into the earth. Everyone who dies, dies into Sheol.
Personally, I don’t have a fixed opinion on this. Although I tend to agree with Mike, I’m not aware of any New Testament verses that would reliably corroborate this idea. Other questions that arise: Do we have conscious experience in Sheol? Or, is it “lights out” until the final judgment? The Bible seems to imply the former, provided the various verses aren’t intended metaphorically.
In closing, Mike ponders why Sheol exists:
Sheol existed because God did not want our lives to to cease at death. He never wanted death for us in the first place. He had warned Adam and Eve to keep that one simple commandment so that they would not die. Only when they disobeyed did death makes its entrance into human experience. But God in His mercy provided a resting place for their unseen beings. Sheol was a place to be thankful for. It meant the dead were somewhere, even though we could no longer enjoy them.
All in all, the chapter was a bit long, but on the other hand, it was also one of the more in-depth treatments of the subject I’ve come across. As I was contemplating my closing remarks for this installment, I had a bit of an a-ha moment, perhaps even an epiphany: the work of Gregory L. Little immediately flashed to mind, and I’d like to cite some of it as an appropriate addendum.
ADDENDUM
If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend Gregory L. Little’s Grand Illusions, on the subject of UFO phenomena. Trust me, it’s not your average “pro-UFO” book, and neither is it your average “UFO’s debunked” book. It stands alone as the only book of its kind on the subject, and, again… I highly recommend it. Without getting too far into it, like myself, Little rejects the “extraterrestrial hypothesis” of UFO phenomena, proposing instead that UFO’s are actually spiritual entities intruding into our reality from higher and lower electromagnetic frequencies. He proposes something he calls the “EMF “Spectrum of Heaven and Hell,” directly referring to hell as Sheol:
Heaven lies on the far end of the electromagnetic energy spectrum extending above cosmic rays. It represents the essence of creation, light, and vibration. It is invisible, is the source of all other energy and matter in the universe, and has intelligence as well as intelligent life forms populating its various levels. Sheol, or hell, represents the opposite end of the EM spectrum where movement and energy vibration cease. There is no light there, no sound, no movement, and no apparent escape. It is enfolded into itself, densely packed like a black hole. UFO’s, “angelic beings,” and other paranormal manifestations can enter the visible light range of the EM spectrum from either end depending on their source. Sheol, in a symbolic vision, takes the appearance of a bottomless pit. [Little 1994, p. 226]
Can you see why I called it an a-ha moment? It seems to me that everything Little theorizes receives direct corroboration from scripture. While I wish I could reproduce Chapter 12 in its entirety, I’ll have to settle for a few snippets:
[commenting on the Book of Enoch] … Earth lies at the base of the heavens. In heaven is a “chamber of souls,” also known as the “chamber of creation,” where souls are prepared to go from heaven to earthly bodies. This chamber is called the “Guf” or “Guph” in some spellings. The guf is the basis of the movie “The Seventh Sign,” wherein it is asserted that once all the souls are incarnated on earth, God ends this cycle of life. This aspect of the guf is not in Enoch, but is found in other ancient Hebrew writings. [ibid. p. 241] … I was stunned when I read Chapter XLIV of the 1928 translation of the book. There it gave a detailed physical description of the “watchmen” who oversee the gates into Sheol. It states that the angels who take the wicked to Sheol are gray in color, short like children, and take on a somewhat human-like appearance. [ibid. p. 243]
[commenting on the Apocryphal New Testament] … Bartholomew 3:4-9 says the even viewing the abyss that is Sheol is not a good thing for people. Looking into the abyss strikes fear into our hearts and minds. Sheol is “rolled up” and “enfolded” under the earth. Bartholomew 4:37-44 calls it a bottomless pit where “wheels” with “pipes” carry wicked and evil souls after their death. [ibid. p. 241]
What Little says over the course of Chapter 12 is no less than fascinating, and I now realize that a review of his book is definitely in order. If you have even a passing interest in the overlap between UFO’s and the Bible, I cannot overemphasize my recommendation of Grand Illusions. It is without a doubt one of the most important books I’ve ever read.
therealadaam
says...cl,
The more I read your blog, the more confused I get. It’s interesting that you start bringing up the correlation between UFO’s and the Bible, I’ve been looking into that a lot. Actually a lot of old mythology seems to imply UFO’s, or maybe something else.
While I like to stick with evidence, it does make me wonder.
cl
says...Hmmm… confused in a good way, confused in a bad way… or both? Whichever way, I’m always willing to clarify, and thanks for stopping by. :)
therealadaam
says...I get confused about your purpose and what you are trying to prove/say.
cl
says...therealadaam,
As in, this post? Or, in general?
If the former, this series merely represents me thinking my way through Christian universalism. If the latter, well… it’s hard to identify a singular point or purpose. I believe God exists as the Bible describes, I don’t believe in naturalism / physicalism / atheism. I wouldn’t say I’m trying to “prove” those things; I simply put forth arguments in hopes the reader will come to their own conclusion. As far as purpose, I’d like believers to know that there are good rebuttals to naturalist / physicalist / atheist arguments. I’d like naturalists, physicalists and atheists to know this, too. I’d also like to demonstrate that one need not abandon intelligence or critical thinking to believe the gospel. Further, I’d like to demonstrate that religion and science are not the enemies they’re made out to be, and that science doesn’t have all the answers; that science can never have all the answers. Of course, sometimes I just post things for the sheer fun of it, without necessarily trying to say anything, in the same way an artist paints a picture and lets the viewer fill in the blanks.
Hopefully that helps, at least a little.
Grev
says...May I suggest a very good study published in the 1980’s.
Death
and the Afterlife
Dr Robert A Morey
Bethnay House Publishers
Minneapolis, Minnestoa. 55438
1984
I have the book in a PDF copy.
cl
says...Hi Grev. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for the reading suggestion. If I can get my hands on the book I will certainly peruse it. Though I found about 5 sites promising a free download of the PDF, none of them were able to make good on the claim. I Googled around a bit, and stumbled across this review, which is mostly unfavorable but does include some praise at the end. I also stumbled across Hell: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation? by Jeremy K. Moritz. So far, everything I’ve found deals with the traditionalist / conditionalist debate, but I’m guessing you suggested Morey’s book because he made arguments against universalism that you found persuasive?
Personally, I lean towards the conditionalist or annihilationist view, but I am very interested in learning more. What about you? Do you hold the traditionalist view, i.e., never-ending torment for the wicked?
Grev
says...cl:
I hope I can behave and not get an F.
If I were to depart from a traditionalist view it would be towards the annihilationist position. I am sympathetic to the arguments but not persuaded.
I believe that a traditionalist position must be construed to account also for the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15 and 18. Not enough place is given to that promise.
Christians are inheritors of that promise — Galatians 3:28-29.
I adhere to the tradtionalist position because I believe it accounts better for the Perfection of God as opposed to other positions which focus on a central demand that God be Fair.
And I guess I adhere to this position because I accept the idea that God as Creator is able to do with His Creation what God as Creator desires to do. If we are by nature, deserving of wrath then grace becomes all the more amazing.
More could be said but enough for now.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...>>> …and that science doesn’t have all the answers; that science can never have all the answers.
So your reasoning is that religion/supernaturalism/transcendentalism fills in the blanks and/or expands on what cannot be known by science? From what I’ve been reading, you seem to definitely be a rather strong believer in the paranormal (e.g. the video game incident, the invisible upstairs neighbor).
Not trying to strawman you, but whatever you happen to be purporting is always ambivalent. You never come out and say, “x/y/z is incoherent and I prefer to believe in a/b/c because reasons d/e/f/g.”
Basically, I am really beginning to wonder what your *stances* are. Reasoning, facts, data, and mysterious anecdotes are all VERY interesting (I mean this with utmost sincerity) but they don’t corroborate much unless cohesively applied into a bigger picture of some sort. I bet you would have been famous by now had you opted to be a Christian apologist rather than a “freethinker.” ;)
You stated earlier that you reject atheism. I do as well, but I have not come to the conclusion you have, it would seem. The more I learn about Christian theology, the less plausibility the God of Christianity has for me. As for
However, I *do* like your stance on religion and science. They are most certainly not mutually exclusive, although they should be inextricable (i.e. religion x should corroborate science and vice versa; there shouldn’t be anything such as inconsistencies or blatant contradictions). I am not attempting to disprove one or the other here, but I do not think we should disregard science for obvious reasons.
I am sorry if this was off-topic. My most ardent regards to you, cl. Your blog is excellent, whether we end up in the same division of belief or not.
cl
says...Grev,
Sorry about the delay. I read the portions of Genesis you cited. Can you elaborate a bit, on what you see as their connection to the traditionalist / annihilationist debate?
DoubtfulAtheist,
In part, but there’s also more to it. For example, I can’t reconcile my experiences in life with atheism / materialism / naturalism, and I’m persuaded by others who also cannot. Further, for me at least, logic leads to theism, though not without mystery.
Guilty as charged. Like I said, especially in the case of the games, reconciliation with the atheist / naturalist / materialist paradigm eludes me.
Hey, fair enough. I’ll definitely take that into consideration. I’m still working on my “About” page, but now the problem is that it’s too long! Although, to me, it should be obvious that I reject atheism because I can’t reconcile my experiences in life with it, I think logic leads to theism, and I think the majority of atheist arguments are incoherent; that I prefer to believe God exists and agents more intelligent than us can interact with us, either with or without physical bodies, because of the many reasons stated across this blog–of them a few you just mentioned. Although, this is only obvious to me because I have a mental overview of this entire blog, whereas a new visitor lacks that luxury. So, yeah: I’ll do my best to make the “whole case” a bit more streamlined. Thanks.
By all means, I’d love to hear a few examples. Perhaps I can help clarify, or, perhaps I’ve missed a good argument ;)
I mostly agree, with one “more than minor” point of difference: Combined with the fact that science proceeds by failure, the idea that the spiritual realm actually informs matter leads me to expect inconsistencies and blatant contradictions. The only way we wouldn’t expect inconsistencies and contradictions is on the assumption that human knowledge is complete, such that we could accurately identify a genuinely false claim. Unfortunately, even if we arrived at that position, we could not reliably know we had. IOW, it would always have to be assumed.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...Well, you answered my question. :) Essentially, the reason you believe the way you do is due to your life experiences. Correct? I hate to follow up your answer with more questions, but you make me curious. My next question is: were you ever an atheist? If so, why did you adopt faith in God?
A big problem of mine with Christian theology is reconciling free will and sin; it does not make sense and quite frankly, it is not reasonable of God to expect us to even make an effort to restrain from sin due to our free will. That is my fundamental reasoning. Another good question is that since we’re given free will, we could theoretically live a life without sin. Why is this *really* not possible, then? It’s as if we were set for failure.
If it is indeed possible to not sin, then we could cognitively choose not to sin. Good luck to any wishing to achieve this. Likewise, if it were impossible to not avoid sin, then we cannot cognitively choose to avoid sin. This would make sin inevitable. If that is the nature of sin, why is it spiritually commendable (presumably to God, but in general, I guess) to make an effort to avoid sin?
Also, as you have probably guessed at this point, I’m talking about the sins that I feel are petty (e.g. lust, arguing, anxiety, cursing, foolish or filthy conversation, despising authority/government; the list goes on, unfortunately).
Logically following, I feel that eternal damnation (Hell) is too great a punishment for basically any crime. I do not see how there can be any ethical justification of eternal punishment as there is no reprehension within it. I should also note that the harm of not believing in God while we are on Earth is nonexistent. Jaywalking is a much bigger problem than “typical atheism.” Since we live in, for lack of a better phrase, the “[mostly] physical realm,” how can we be expected to know the harm of a spiritual crime (atheism)? Are we reasonable to believe that there is any harm based on insufficient evidence? Faith cannot dispel this problem, either; that’s extremely disquieting for me.
All that being said, I have a huge problem with the idea of sin. Also, digressing for a moment, but God openly calls himself jealous. Are you kidding me? Jealousy is a despicable human trait, and envy is a sin. Give me a break.
Aggregate/key question for you: >>Can you blame me for not consenting to believe in God on these grounds?<<
I have no troubles believing in that of a spiritual God or a an indifferent metaphysical being (like that of deism), but I have a hard time accepting the Christian God.
Finally (this is more aimed at you than theology), why would you expect people who have NOT had any spiritual experiences to believe in God?
That ends my (logically flawed) rambling. There is also the obvious problem of just assuming a (likely or not isn't the question here) metaphysical being where there are gaps in our reasoning and understanding of subjective experience.
I apologize for the lack of eloquence or proper thought, but I wanted to get this out there (my sleep habits have been awful lately and as a result, I'm horribly exhausted at the moment). I'd REALLY appreciate a complete response from you, so take as long as you'd like to respond.
Ronin
says...D. A.,
I am not cl, but you wrote:
(emphasis mine)
I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. The only people who had been “sin free” were Adam and Eve. So, every descendant thereafter was/is infused with sin (according to the fall). We can either take the account literally (as above) or symbolically. In the event one takes the account symbolically—one could propose something occurred in the past where the relationship between God and man was severed.
You also wrote:
In Christian theology “free will” does not give us the presumption we can live without sin. On the contrary, Christian theology assumes the position that man is a slave to sin without God.
As far as hell goes, it’s an issue I am open to, but personally, I don’t think “hell” is a place where the non-believer literally burns ad infinitum. Rather, I believe the individual(s) will forever be without a relationship without God because either: he/she will be put in a place where the presence of God is not present or will be annihilated.
My 2 cents.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...@Ronin
>>I am not exactly sure what you mean by [reconciling free will and sin].
Why are we permitted to commit sins? The fact that we have the free will isn’t what bothers me; it’s the fact that sin exists in the first place. Clearly, Adam and Eve demonstrated that it is possible to live without sin with free will (up until the encounter with the forbidden fruit).
Also, strangely enough, God created the tree with the forbidden fruit. A father leaves his gun out, fully loaded, with the safety off — in the presence of his two kids but tells them not to play with it or dire consequences will occur — one of the little kids grabs the gun and fires a bullet which nicks the father’s shoulder. Who is the irresponsible one here? The blissfully ignorant children with no perception of good and evil or the wise father that played a role in their existence?
See, at least in my metaphor, the only harm done is a bullet grazing the skin. However, in the case of Adam and Eve, a far more egregious consequence results (i.e. the fall). This leaves the contentious question of the culprit, and it’s another debate entirely. As for the interpretation of the story, I do not think there is any that doesn’t present the problem of my metaphor.
>> In Christian theology “free will” does not give us the presumption we can live without sin.
Okay, thank you, that makes more sense. However, isn’t that directly related to the fall?
Even if I grant the justifiability of the fall, I have a problem with a God that essentially punishes **every other human being to ever exist** after disobedience that he is largely responsible for. Tell me, do we blame little kids for doing bad things under supervision of their parents? No, we blame bad parents.
>> On the contrary, Christian theology assumes the position that man is a slave to sin without God.
There’s a problem of language here. Can’t one technically be a believer, a putative “with-God” person, and still be a slave to sin?
Also, if sin is in our very nature, we are all slaves to it with or without God; assuming the former, we now have an uphill battle to please the Creator since sin disgusts him.
>> As far as hell goes…
Yeah, as far as it goes, why are you dodging the issue I presented? God is not a moderate. If his word claims suffering, you can bet he *means* suffering of the most intense variety. Random webpage about hell, seeming to verify its “hellish” nature.
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
cl
says...DoubtfulAtheist,
Can’t chime in now, but I just wanted to let you know that WordPress flagged your last two comments as spam for some reason. I’m pretty sure I cleared the most recent one, but let me know if the comment published is not the one you wanted.
As for the convo, great questions, I will jump back in soon.. :)
cl
says...DoubtfulAtheist / Ronin / anyone interested:
The Genetics Of Sin, Pt. II goes into at least perfunctory detail about the issues you’re addressing here. Pt. I does, too, and you can find a link to it in Pt. II. In fact, I think Pt. I is more related to the questions you two are discussing, so… might want to start there.
Ronin
says...D.A.,
Again, if we are descendants of Adam sin is in our “DNA.”
Suppose concepts are potential sins in my mind, and only when I act out these “bad” concepts do I sin. The only way NOT to sin would be to be programmed not to do anything “sinful.” But, if you think there is sort of “free will” were one would be programmed to do good without having the choice to do bad—it would be great if you were explain how that would be “free will.” For more information see:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H4
Yeah, your “metaphor” does not work, actually. You attempt to use “kids” in your metaphor to put some sort of innocence towards Adam and Eve, I suppose. But, in fact, Adam and Eve were warned NOT to eat of the fruit. In other words, they disobeyed God and because of it they are not “innocent.”
Well, I do not think your metaphor proves what you think it does. However, you seem to be saying God punished Adam and Eve’s descendants when it was actually Adam and Eve who sent us into the abyss.
No, a believer may be affected by sin but not a slave to it—at least according to Christian theology, I think.
If one does not believe in the Holy Spirit, I guess so.
I am not dodging anything. First of all, as far as I can tell the Bible has allegorical, metaphorical, symbolical, poetic, etc. writings in it. To complicate things further you have Hebrew and Greek languages to deal with. Moreover, to understand a Biblical context of a certain Bible verse one could also learn more by studying the culture [customs and such] of the time. So, please refrain from giving me some hyper-fundamentalist one-liners. It is true that some Christians believe in an eternal torment in hell but not every Christian does. For example, I could just as easily cite Matthew 10:28 and Ezekiel 18:4 as examples for my view. So, do not accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously as you seem to be doing, thanks.
Ronin
says...cl,
Thanks for the link. I will read them as soon as I can…
DoubtfulAtheist
says...@Ronin
>> Suppose concepts are potential sins in my mind, and only when I act out these “bad” concepts do I sin. The only way NOT to sin would be to be programmed not to do anything “sinful.”
So you’re telling me sin is genetic material? That does not make sense from a biological standpoint, and it’s obviously nothing God couldn’t undo. I apologize if I seem obstinate — I am arguing this to the best of my knowledge and ability. I fail to see how what you’re proposing would spread to offspring in a sense that wasn’t metaphysical (i.e. controlled by God himself).
>> Yeah, your “metaphor” does not work, actually. You attempt to use “kids” in your metaphor to put some sort of innocence towards Adam and Eve, I suppose. But, in fact, Adam and Eve were warned NOT to eat of the fruit. In other words, they disobeyed God and because of it they are not “innocent.”
My “metaphor” (perhaps analogy would be a more precise term in this context) blatantly works and your adamant denial has shocked me. The father clearly tells his children **not to touch the gun.** Also, Adam and Eve were relatively innocent. Most interpretations that I’ve read or heard of imply that they were kind of like little kids. Hey, even the Wikipedia article on the Fall of Man says that Adam and Eve were in a “state of innocence prior to eating the fruit.” So, don’t take my word for it, but I do not think the validity of my metaphor is questionable. It’s a matter of tackling the obvious problem(s) that arise(s) from the conclusion of it: why is God so extremely bitter toward his species? Even in real life, we do not tend to chastise our close friends for mistakes or we at least attempt to preclude them from happening. Not only did God punish mankind severely, but he made no attempt to stop it or keep it from happening. His direction to not touch the fruit doesn’t count — he is still irresponsible for putting it there.
In other words, my metaphor is BULLETPROOF, as far as I know (what a bad pun). :)
>> However, you seem to be saying God punished Adam and Eve’s descendants…
Yes, because that’s precisely what happened. Let’s be honest: God is responsible for the fall. Sure, Adam and Eve played a role, but the blame should belong with God.
>> It is true that some Christians believe in an eternal torment in hell but not every Christian does. For example, I could just as easily cite Matthew 10:28 and Ezekiel 18:4 as examples for my view. So, do not accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously as you seem to be doing, thanks.
My sincerest apologies for attacking you like that. You’re right, I was out of line for assuming so quickly.
However, my arguments do not concern what Christians believe but rather the reality of it. That was my perspective. I mean, some people believe (gasp) believe that God is not real! ;) I would like to convert, but I must learn more of God if I really plan on worshiping him.
So, I suppose nothing is written in stone about the nature of hell. If it is a place of eternal torture, though, I have a hard time swallowing that.
>> If one does not believe in the Holy Spirit, I guess so.
Could you clarify your assertion here? I don’t want to attack you via strawman again, but I think some reading of the Holy Trinity is due on my part.
Thank you for your time in engaging me in this debate thus far. I really appreciate your responses, Ronin.
Ronin
says...D. A.,
If by genetic material you mean inherent negative information, yes. In other words, I think sin is something that affects the brain and mind. Can you elaborate on what you mean in your last sentence above? Because God is quoted as saying the following:
The NET Bible Notes state:
Thus, you now have an immediate spiritual separation from God. Meaning, things are no longer the same as they were. Of course, all this takes into account the idea of a soul and such. Please note the last sentence of the NET Notes; the separation of the soul is immediate, but the physical separation is gradual and continues to happen. God is considered the Ultimate Goodness, but Adam as well as Eve became separated from God as a result of their disobedience.
Um, if I instruct my child to look both ways before he/she crosses the street, but he/she does not look both ways and an accident occurs, you would blame such an event on me? I am assuming that you understand my child was/is able enough to comprehend what I explained to him/her but he/she failed to heed my warning. From my observations of him/her he/she still seems to show sings of innocence, but the fact that in some sense he/she is somehow innocent does not wipe out the fact that he/she should be responsible for his/her action(s). Sure, I would be an emotional basket case if something like that was to happen, but it is logical to presume my kid is the one responsible for his/her blunder. It is as if you are saying I should have made my town take out the road in front of my house, because I have kid(s) in my home and it poses a possible danger to them. I think you are conflating God’s sovereignty with mercy, goodness, etc. since you are claiming God is “irresponsible for putting it there.”
You can keep regurgitating the same thing over and over, but you have not “proven” your point as far as I can tell.
Sure, you are correct that sin displeases God, but a believer is deemed righteous if he/she believes in Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior. Further, the Holy Spirit is the Comforter and thus helps the believer in his/her walk towards “sanctification.”
Thanks. FYI, I am not trying to debate but probe and give you insight into what others believe, as well as learn from you in anyway possible.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...@Ronin
>> If by genetic material you mean inherent negative information, yes. In other words, I think sin is something that affects the brain and mind.
I have a hard time with the juxtaposition of these claims. I suppose bad genetic material could mean, in a genetic sense, “inherent negative information.” So, you’re basically saying that sin is akin to a mental disorder? Except, obviously, it’s more of a spiritual defect than a mental one.
I do not see how this would spread via genes because there’s no real neurological evidence to support this. It does not make sense to believe that “sin” spreads via “inherent negative information” in the brain. Simply put, it seems unfounded to believe that claim.
This is where I derived the sin being spiritual element; that was what the last sentence was referring to. If sin was a spiritual defect, then God orchestrated the metaphysics of it affecting Adam and Eve. He chose to keep sin within Adam and Eve despite knowing it would separate man from God forever.
Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with doing that. It just doesn’t seem reasonable of such an otherwise intelligent and gifted designer to do such a thing.
>> Um, if I instruct my child to look both ways before he/she crosses the street, but he/she does not look both ways and an accident occurs, you would blame such an event on me?
There is something severely wrong with your analogy. My analogy is accurate because the gun within reach of children is a *gratuitous* danger. Guns fire bullets, and bullets are dangerous when fired from a gun, much like eating the fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge was dangerous. Although roads can be dangerous, they serve a rather fundamental and vital task to all of us — transportation. There was simply no good reason for the tree to be there, hence gratuitous danger. Roads, however, have a multitude of purposes. What did the tree of knowledge do other than provide the dangerous fruit to Adam and Eve?
See, it would be different if God had no control over the tree being there, but he did; he had complete and total control over its existence. In fact, he *chose* to create it. Since the tree was serving no other purpose other than a potential danger, whoever put it there is irresponsible. The tree served no other purposes other than being an instigator in the fall.
Again, yet another analogy: you and your wife are going away for the weekend, but you’re leaving the kids at home. They are teenagers. You and your wife enjoy wine. Instead of leaving the wine out in plain sight among other beverages and just instructing the kids not to drink it, you would likely lock it up in the pantry or take it with you.
I don’t know how I could clarify this any more, to be honest with you. I find something prima facie wrong about God creating that tree.
cl
says...Ronin / DoubtfulAtheist,
I still intend to get in on this thread. For now, one thing caught my attention:
Yes, precisely because human children already possess the inclination towards sin that resulted from the fall. Adam and Eve did not possess this inclination until after the fall. You’re comparing post-fall children to pre-fall adults. Also of note is that God *DID* lock up the Garden after the first offense.
Gotta run, carry on! I’m enjoying your dialog even if I’m not giving as much input as I’d like.
Ronin
says...D. A.,
I have to be brief.
I believe there have been studies that conclude the mind can affect the body in a negative manner. I don’t think the mind can affect the body by giving “non-information.” Therefore, some sort of information is being received and processed.
I have yet to read a naturalistic account regarding what the essence of intentionality really is, so, I am rather intrigued in what you mean by “spiritual.” If you want to confine sin to the “spiritual,” fine by me, let’s do so.
Several things: 1.) I agree the text implies there was a spiritual death. 2.) The text also presupposes there was some sort of physical disconnection.
Yeah, you keep writing about this idea that God “orchestrated,” but not quantifying it with anything but a mere assertion. Look, did God warn Adam about what would happen if he ate of the fruit? The right answer is, “Yes!” Okay? Now, instead of continuing to bypass the fact that Adam and Eve were guilty of doing exactly what God told them NOT to do, perhaps, you can explain to me how they were NOT guilty? However, to indulge you, when God decided to create Adam God entered in a relationship with him. What does a relationship entail? I would assume that honesty and faithfulness are part of a relationship. Were Adam and Eve faithful and honest with God? No! Let us look at what Genesis 3:4 [NIV] states:
It seems to me they bought into the idea they could be like God, and so, they chose to eat of the fruit. Yet, you want to keep proposing that Adam and Eve were somehow innocent? Besides, since God cannot do things that are logically impossible and He gave Adam and Eve free will—the actions of Adam and Eve could not be stopped by God. Hence, the label of free will, else, it would no longer be free will. Oh but there is more, because God queries Adam but Adam blames Eve, thus, you now have a total rupture in the relationship between God, man, and woman. So, your “analogy” can’t even get off the ground, but hey, I could be totally off.
Sorry for the short reply but I have to go, because I am busy at work, plus I also have to write essays for my class, and I have a family to tend to. I will check in every now and then, but will not be able to post as much as I did before. I do hope you have a great week, though.
cl,
I think your posts regarding sin are dead on. Good job!
Ronin
says...Thanks for the reference. I got the book and I am currently reading it. So far, I have found the book to be fascinating and informative. I might have to check out Little’s other books and/or writings.
cl
says...Right on. I’m glad you took my word for it. Of course, had you been a rational skeptic, you would have never got the book, because rational skeptics demand evidence for everything, and refuse to take somebody’s word for anything. ;)
Ronin
says...Heh! I agree with you whole-heartedly.
This is off topic regarding your post (Universalism & Sheol), but it deals with the book Grand Illusions and “evidence.”
About a 1-year ½ ago or more I was taking a class on the Holy Spirit. The professor invited a guest speaker to the class for that specific day. Anyways, she proceeded to lead the class, which eventually led to the lights being dimmed and relaxing music. At this point I was skeptical, because it seemed more like a relaxation class instead of a theological discourse of higher learning, or so I thought. At some point I decided to play along and attempted to be in a relaxed state. I eventually closed my eyes, and to my surprise I felt some energy that I have never felt before. Later, several class members had their hands on me and were praying over me. Towards the end of the class time some people shared about what they experienced. The people who had their hands on me stated they felt an overwhelming energy out of me while they were praying. Now, I am not sure what to make of the event or how to even put such an event to the test. What I do know is that I felt something that has not been part of my normal life, and other people acknowledged feeling something out of the ordinary without me leading them to believe in the affair. In other words, I know I had some sort of [subjective] phenomena occurred, but it was also experienced [though it might have been in a different way] by other people. However, I have had mixed feeling and felt sort of uncomfortable about what happened that day until I read this:
&
Grand Illusions by Dr. Gregory L. Little
I am also especially thinking about Chapter 4 (Creatures of Illusion: Out of the Looking Glass), because in that chapter I believe he talks about turning of lights amongst other things. It is as you wrote I had an “a-ha moment.”
cl
says...I’m really glad to see that you’ve gotten something worthwhile out of the book. As I said, it’s on my “must-keep” shelf, where only very few books remain.
May I ask what caused your initial discomfort, and why reading the excerpts you cited apparently dispensed with that discomfort?
Ronin
says...cl,
Sure. Good question, BTW. I think the discomfort I allude to comes from my ego more than anything. If I am being honest with myself, I would not like to be stereotyped as “wacky,” which certain type of “phenomena” seem to entail, but the more I think about it–such behavior was/is premature labeling on my part.
My actually relief comes from more than those two quotes, but the quotes partially explain why I could not totally grasp the totality of the event. In a sense, I think we as humans feel out of place with events we cannot explain and/or seem “unnatural.” They might just feel “unnatural” because we are limited, but that does not give is a skeptic free card to assume people who experience such events as “wacky” and/or are “being irrational.” Because, I would be forced to posit I imagined (or come up with some other form of explanation) the event and so did my other classmates. At this point, do I have a good reason to doubt the event ever happened? I do not think so.
To get back to your question, I think not knowing put me in a hard place (or so I thought) to explain myself without seeming “wacky.”
Did I answer your question?
P.S. Sorry for the typos on my posts. I just did not take the time to proofread very well since I am sort of busy today.
cl
says...Ronin,
I hope you don’t mind the apparently random questions. I really am building up to a point:
What did you mean by that? That you weren’t sure how to test if something veridical actually occurred? Or, did you mean something more?
Ronin
says...cl,
You wrote:
Well, as I wrote before I was not expecting things to happen the way they did. I was expecting the class to be as it had been, which was, theological discussions, examination of church history, etc. Again, the event was not something that I experience prior to the incident nor has it happened again that I know of (conscious). So, after it happened I had a hard time pinpointing what transpired other than what I described above. I’ve tried to think of ways to explain the phenomena away. For example, I reasoned; well maybe I wanted to feel something to that effect in order to strengthen my beliefs. However, I have doubts about this, because for part of my life I tended to have deistic inclinations about God. And, why should that day be any different from any other day? I became more agnostic about the event as time passed, but when I read Grand Illusions the event made a little (pun not intended) more sense to me. Because, darkening the room and setting the mood for such an occurrence is exactly what Little alludes to in the book.* Now, if you were to ask me if the “energy” was the Holy Spirit I would say, “I don’t know!” But, it could be that I am less open to those sort of events, and so, I could have sort of missed the boat sort of speak.**
____________________
* I have not finished the book, so, there might be more “enlightenment,” or it might lead me to be confused.
** For all I know God could have been trying to give me a sign.
cl
says...Ronin,
Sorry to lose focus here, there’s been quite a flurry of discussion on other threads lately. Another question, I hope you don’t mind: can recall your train of thought before, during, and immediately after this event? Did other thoughts seem to impose themselves upon your mind to override your own thinking at all? How would you describe your consciousness before, during, and after this event?
Ronin
says...cl,
No worries, I realize you’re a busy dude. You wrote:
This happened several years ago; so, there might be some stuff that is not entirely accurate, but I would say the general idea was imprinted in my memories good enough to keep basic concepts of the event.
(A) Before: I would say my mind was in a relaxed peaceful state (not thinking about my personal problems and such).
(B) During: This, I would say is the hardest thing to clarify, quantify, elucidate, what-have-you. Hmm, best I can say is, “It was an overwhelming energy that was undeniable, and something that was not normal to my life.” At some point in time as I had my eyes closed I remember seeing colors (Sort of like this one chapter in The Shack (if I remember correctly), but this happened before we had to read that specific book for another class.). So, I would say my train of thought was, “What is this? It feels so overwhelming!”
(C) After: Numb. Surreal. Did this really happen? It must’ve happened, because some of my other class members confirmed part of the experience!
I don’t think so.
(A) Fine. Nothing seemed “unusual,” but I did feel relaxed.
(B) My awareness was there, but there was a point where I felt I could not move my body. In fact, it is possible that around the time the colors popped into my mind was at that time (I could not move).
(C) As with A and B I would say that I was consciously aware, but I was trying to decipher what just occurred.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...Ronin,
>> Look, did God warn Adam about what would happen if he ate of the fruit? The right answer is, “Yes!” Okay? Now, instead of continuing to bypass the fact that Adam and Eve were guilty of doing exactly what God told them NOT to do, perhaps, you can explain to me how they were NOT guilty? However, to indulge you, when God decided to create Adam God entered in a relationship with him. What does a relationship entail? I would assume that honesty and faithfulness are part of a relationship. Were Adam and Eve faithful and honest with God? No!
You keep overlooking my point. This response would be fine if God hadn’t put the tree there, but he did. Now, it’s obvious that Adam and Eve *shouldn’t* have eaten the fruit. However, that doesn’t eliminate us from holding God accountable for putting it there. The tree served no purpose other than to play a role in the fall. Why didn’t God, in all his divine wisdom, cross this off his blueprint pre-genesis?
You know, I have very limited knowledge as a human, but if I were designing a world, I would most certainly NOT put some mankind ruining tree in the middle of it.
>> It seems to me they bought into the idea they could be like God, and so, they chose to eat of the fruit. Yet, you want to keep proposing that Adam and Eve were somehow innocent?
If God really didn’t want them to mess everything up for later humans by eating the fruit, he just would not have put the fruit there. Also, conscious and crafty snakes, like the one in Eden, would make snakes on a plane seem like a vacation.
Sorry I took so long to respond, but I sort of grew tired of this debate. I’m curious to see if Cl can throw anything that totally damns my argument.
Ronin
says...D.A.,
Hello again! You wrote:
Are you not putting the carriage before the horse? Did you miss the part where I alluded to the fact that they wanted to be like God? These emotions and/or thoughts are actually before they ate the fruit. I think what you mean to question here is, how did they come to the point where they wanted to be like God? That is, didn’t God make them? Well, since He did, isn’t it His fault they chose to want to be like Him? Aside from God programming Adam and Eve to not have the liberty to be like Him—I am not sure how we could get around such “objection(s).”
For the record, I do not hold to a literal reading of what we are discussing here.
(emphasis mine)
And you know this how?
Unlike you, I cannot conclude the “tree” served the only purpose of causing man’s fall. I would say that is a premature conjecture on your part. More below.
The very fact that you realize you have limited knowledge should cause you to pause for a bit. Nevertheless, I think there is also something about God being sovereign that we don’t like. ;)
Yeah, perhaps you need to do a study on what “snakes and serpents” meant and/or symbolized to the ancients. In other words, I would be cautious of making statements, which purport things that might actually not be relevant to our discussion; instead, these comments would be an attempt to ridicule things that were never there to begin with. For, when did I make such an emphasis on the “conscious and crafty snake”? Please, point it out for me.
Lastly, you wrote:
No problem. I believe I am tired of this as well. Perhaps cl or some new blood will move the thread forward.
Take care.
Ronin
says...cl,
I had written:
I just the read in Grand Illusions the part about colors! Weird. However, mine was a mental image; whereas, what is described in the book appeared to be seen with eyes opened.
DoubtfulAtheist
says...Ronin, will you at least admit that you are making an argument from ignorance here? I mean, I’ll happily admit that God *could* have had valid reasons for placing the tree of knowledge in reach of Adam and Eve, but it doesn’t seem he does. At least, he didn’t bother explaining them to us tiny humans in Genesis. I agree that humans (atheists in particular) do not like the fact that God is sovereign, as you put it. Heck, I’ll even go a step further and state I do not like that either.
Lately I’ve wandered back into my state of confusion about the existence of God, even though it appears I’ve been staunchly denigrating him throughout this argument. I guess I really just need some guidance, but I’ve no clue where to acquire honest, intellectual guidance from a reasonable Christian. It’s discouraging, to be honest.
I try hard not to fight against the current of Christianity or God himself. My pretenses as an inexorable atheist (at least, that’s how I think I’m appearing here) are mere expressions of my insecure position.
On a progressive note, I’ve officially given up the view of physicalism, and I now consider myself a substance dualist. After all, how can something non-physical arise from something physical? I never realized how fundamentally flawed the physicalist account of consciousness was before this blog. Then again, it’s arguable that I hardly have an exhaustive, if even basic, understanding of it.
Oh my, I just rambled up a storm! Forgive me, folks.
cl
says...DA,
What exactly are you looking for? Do you think Ronin, myself and other “Christian” commenters here are neither reasonable nor honest?
May I ask what persuaded you?
DoubtfulAtheist
says...Cl,
>> What exactly are you looking for? Do you think Ronin, myself and other “Christian” commenters here are neither reasonable nor honest?
Oh jeez, I hope you didn’t take it like that! I think both of you are honest, wise intellectuals. I was not trying to imply anything negative with that comment. The theists here are by far the most open-minded and intelligent, and definitely the least judgmental.
I just have tons of (mostly idiotic) questions regarding Christianity, God, what it means to be a Christian, what exactly is sin and how does one commit it vs. not committing it, etc. Having faith is totally foreign to me.
Believe me, I am not looking for reasons to reject Christianity. I just have tons of questions.
>> May I ask what persuaded you?
Sure, I genuinely appreciate that. Your post regarding Pam Reynold’s NDE was very persuasive as far as the actual survival of consciousness after death is concerned. Purportedly it’s “inconclusive,” but it presents some rather powerful facts itself that, say if physicalism were true, would probably not have been present. I’ve also read the descriptions on Wikipedia and I find them convincing enough to at least doubt physicalism.
Then, I read up on substance dualism. It didn’t seem that unlikely. The most salient point is that something non-physical (mind) arises from something physical (brain). Physicalism simply can’t reconcile this without major implications. I don’t deny the imperative mind/brain connection, but I am beginning to believe there is more to consciousness than the brain. I’ve noticed, for me at least, that life is 90% mental.
Also, I prefer the idea of spirituality to religion; most atheists likely share that predilection. I also have a psychological problem called depersonalization disorder which causes me to feel out of my body/unreal and to contemplate the reality of my surroundings and how accurate my perceptions are. There are no psychological explanations for this condition and there are no clinically proven psychiatric treatments. For those worried or concerned about my mental health, I have seen a general doctor, a psychiatrist, and a psychologist for this. They all told me I’d be okay; I was just going through a very rough time. During that time, I was also diagnosed with depression and mild social anxiety. I’ve done a good job escaping from all three ailments, and DPD only interrupts intermittently. It is far less severe and I have learned to cope with it. To tie that in with spirituality and substance dualism, I am curious if my condition or perhaps even the condition in general may involve something deeper than a psychological disruption. Even if I’m totally off the point, at least I was considering new possibilities.
I’m sorry to give such a long and overly detailed post about myself. I’m rather self absorbed and always off-topic on here. For those guessing, yeah, I’m fairly young. I’m only 17, almost 18 (number one way *not* to be taken seriously on the internet). I have a lot to learn, and there’s still a lot I wish to learn. This blog is helpful for me, to say the least.
Also, I was reading some of your earlier posts, cl. I thought your abiogenesis and geology/fossil entries were educational and incredibly neutral in their presentation. I also read your Mrs. Piety story and found it thought-provoking.
Anyway, this is enough saturation for one post. I feel bad enough already about clogging up your blog with this irrelevant nonsense, but not bad enough to keep me from clicking ‘Post Comment,’ however.
Have a good one, cl. I appreciate the discussion we had, Ronin; even if you felt you were talking past me. :P
Ronin
says...Hello D.A., or should I write Thinking Emotions? :P
Anyways you wrote:
Hmm, given that I am what one would label as a Skeptical Theist I suppose you could call it such, but I am not entirely sure it is in the sense you seem to be using “ignorance.” Since you wrote the following in your blog:
But before that you wrote:
(emphasis mine)
Did you really mean that, or what? Because, here is part of the definition of a skeptical theist:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/
If there is a God, and God is malevolent as you seem to be arguing for; I might as well get a jar of KY and bend over. However, it appears I am not alone in thinking that the central doctrines of theism might still remain “logical” in regards to the problem of evil.
But who knows? Perhaps Mackie and other philosophers have changed their minds.
You wrote:
Um, well given that I already told you I don’t hold to a literal account I hope you understand I don’t think it’s a real tree (as in an oak wood tree and such). I had to pause for a moment with your last line in that quote, and I even had a smile. I mean, I did not know that not having a full explanation or account was a slam dunk for your case. Like I wrote, “I think there is also something about God being sovereign that we don’t like.”
cl
says...Hey guys. More to say later, for sure, but I just want to point out that an argument from ignorance occurs when we accept X because ~X has not been proven / falsified. I don’t see that Ronin has made any argument from ignorance here. Rather, I think we’re just having difficulty persuading each other.
Thinking Emotions
says...Oh, hey there, Ronin. You can call me whichever you please; I am often thinking and I have emotions, and I am also an atheist who is doubtful of atheism. :P You could say I am seeking answers/truth.
Yeah, I think I’m going to drop the argument about the tree of knowledge for now. The more salient issue I want to focus on is skeptical theism. Now, it is possible I used the term “argument from ignorance” improperly. However, that doesn’t eliminate the ignorance present in the proposition of skeptical theism. Skeptical theism is essentially saying, “We as humans cannot find a way to justify this, but perhaps God can.” That statement is basically equivalent to, “I can’t justify it, but I don’t know that God can’t justify it.” Would you agree? There’s ignorance in both of those statements, and although maybe not a textbook argument from ignorance, I feel ignorance plays the power card for skeptical theism. IIRC, Luke over at CSA calls it a retreat to the possible. Sure, it’s possible God has a good reason for allowing the Holocaust to happen, but is it reasonable to think so?
I am not suggesting humans will ever be able to know everything, or be able to have perfectly calibrated moral scruples, or anything of that nature. I just think skeptical theism is rather strange because such a big element of belief in God is faith, yet many of the strongly faithful who are intelligent seem to label themselves “skeptical theists.” It’s like saying, “Yeah, I trust my wife and I love her so much, but I’m skeptical of her reasons for doing certain things.” Seems contradictory to me.
Of course, but I may not be expressing it clearly. My problem here is that both the theist and atheist engaging in a debate are assuming something while both are ultimately ignorant. The atheist can’t find a reason to justify what he deems gratuitous evils. So, the theist says humans are not omniscient as God is and therefore are not going to be capable of justifying certain acts. It would be like me debating a physics student in college and saying, “Well, I don’t have a good response to that argument, but Ed Witten might, therefore your argument is invalid.” It’s a facile appeal to ignorance indeed, but that doesn’t change the presence of ignorance itself.
cl
says...ThinkingEmotions,
Today’s scientists cannot currently unify the four fundamental forces under Einstein’s theory, but we don’t know that tomorrow’s scientists can’t. Is ignorance playing the power card for skeptical science? Are today’s scientists retreating to the possible?
Who’s the arbiter of what’s “reasonable,” and how do we know? If you can provide your criteria, I’ll try my best.
I’m not a fan of the label myself, but I wouldn’t get too hung up on labels as much as the concepts they attempt to convey. In my experience, a skeptical theist is simply someone who grants the skeptic that X is an apparent discrepancy, yet holds that it is in fact resolvable. We see this state of affairs in virtually every field of knowledge, don’t we?
Thing is, in the context of this thread, Ronin hasn’t used any ignorance to conclude that your argument is invalid. In fact, if anything, it seems to be the opposite. Regardless, I don’t see an appeal to ignorance here. If you wish to have a canned response to skeptical theism, I suggest “retreat to the possible,” — but you’d better watch out, because that’s a double-edged sword, sharp indeed.
Crude
says...It’s like saying, “Yeah, I trust my wife and I love her so much, but I’m skeptical of her reasons for doing certain things.” Seems contradictory to me.
I think it’s closer to saying, “I trust this quantum physicist to have a reason for what he’s doing in the lab. Damned if I know what those reasons are, though.”
Ronin
says...Thinking Emotions,
Where to start? Let me give this one more whirl.
You wrote:
Let me get this straight, you want to drop the issue, which you think is a no brainer—to give me your general impressions about what you think of skeptical theism? Get real. I don’t care what you or Luke* think of skeptical theism, really, because even if you have any sort of validity about skeptical theism; you sure as hell have missed the mark on what we were discussing.
You wrote:
No, it’s actually a fact and not a possibility at this point, because you have yet to commit to any sort of systematic theology, and I have not even begun to explain to you what I think the meaning of the “tree” is. Not that I will bother going into anymore details now, since you have totally equivocated this discussion into something entirely different, and now you have totally gone on a skeptical theism witch hunt without warrant. For I specifically wrote to you: “Aside from God programming Adam and Eve to not have the liberty to be like Him—I am not sure how we could get around such “objection(s).” Meaning, aside from God predisposing Adam and Even to not have the ability to want to be like God—I am not sure how your argument(s) would hold water. Of course, you didn’t even engage it or even write, “Ronin that objection is total crap.” Instead, you went on some tangent about skeptical theism.
Ahem, you really want to argue about how the Holocaust was wrong? Um, I have often wondered how atheists get to ask those sorts of questions. I mean really. The problem of evil is a problem for theists since assuming “evil” itself purports some sort of good. Q.E.D.
At best, you can parrot some sort of law of the jungle or herd morality. Better yet, you might want to get on board with desirism. I believe I am all done now…
I do hope you have a great rest of the weekend, though. Cheers!
_________________________________
* BTW, isn’t Luke all about “friendly AI” now? Well, let me quote you from the article from TIME magazine titled The Singularity Is Near, which states: “…Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness…page 44.” It appears to me that AI requires a maker or a programmer sort of speak. Seems reasonable, I would say AI affirms the existence of God by way of inference.
cl
says...Ronin,
About the earlier part of this discussion–I’m not telling you what to do, but I’d be very skeptical of the experience. Everything you’ve described–the details about the lights being dimmed, the candles, the encouraging of a passive mindset, the music–all those things strike me as directly contrary to the experiences of the Holy Spirit given in Scripture, and they honestly seem more consistent with types of experiences Little describes in his book.
Did you ask the others to lay hands on you? Or, did they just suddenly do so, without asking your permission? Do you think they might have violated 1 Timothy 5:22? Did you notice any untoward effects in your spiritual life after the incident?
I agree. I also argue that scientists creating life in the laboratory affirms the necessity of intelligence in design [not necessarily “ID” ala the Discovery Institute].
Ronin
says...cl,
I could not say it was the Holy Spirit for sure, and you are right, it appears similar to what Little talks about in his book.
No, I did not ask them to lay hands on me.
In regards to 1 Timothy 5:22 it is possible.
Yes, initially after the incident I felt “different,” but it could have been superficial. I believe ever since I started seminary there has been an internal struggle. As it stands, I struggle very much with patience as evident in some of my posts. But, yes there has been positive strides in my spiritual life; though, I would say it is more like baby steps. I cannot say it has been directly from the “event,” though.
Thinking Emotions
says...Ronin,
Well, I wasn’t expecting that.
Wow, that seriously hurt my feelings! Here, I’ll set it straight for you right now.
Also, let’s clear two things up: 1), I don’t think this is a no-brainer and 2), it’s simply wrong to pretend this issue has no relation to skeptical theism whatsoever.
Maybe you should try being more skeptical about my reasons for doing things. I dropped the issue because you didn’t take it literally, and you did not seem interested in discussing it any further. I then brought up skeptical theism because I recently blogged about it, and felt it was connected to the case I was making (what reason did God have for putting the tree there, if we were to take the story literally?).
To respond:
So, you’re essentially saying it is their (Adam & Eve’s) fault for wanting to be like God? No offense, but aren’t you the one putting the horse before the carriage? God designed Adam & Eve, and although the specific function you’re prescribing is silly, it shouldn’t have been necessary since God created them without sin.
Who would you blame in the following scenario… let’s say a group of scientists design robots with AI that exceeds human intelligence. The robots declare war on humanity and try to “become” humanity and overcome their creators. Would you blame the scientists or the robots?
I’d really appreciate a little politer of a response and less presumptuous stabbing next time. I’m sincerely sorry if I’m offending you or making pitifully stupid arguments, but if you do not wish to discuss this with me anymore, just say so and we can stop. You appear to be getting frustrated by my responses, and I’m not going to lie, your last response was rude.
BTW, you can stop pretending I’m a typical atheist who associates with CSA, worships Dawkins, thinks Jesus never existed, etc. I dropped my presumptions about you — would it kill to pay me the same respect?
cl
says...Thinking Emotions,
I’d be interested in hearing your responses to my comment May 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, next time you’ve got a few moments….
Ronin
says...Thinking Emotions,
Sorry for offending you.
I need to expand on certain things you wrote in your last reply to me. For example,
1.) If I do not take those verses literally, and we had yet to discuss the matter in depth (my interpretation(s)); it seems to me you have an ax to grind.
2.) The second part of your sentence is a tad misleading, since you had written:
So, don’t pretend “I” was not interested in the discussion.
BTW, the following comment from you was what did it for me:
For some reason your response to cl’s question regarding your statement above did not seem genuine to me.
I think it is best that the discussion between you and I be over.
Thinking Emotions
says...Ronin,
I really apologize if my statement did not seem sincere. I would like to suggest to you that connotation is often poorly conveyed via text and I was mostly speaking in general. That comment was not aimed at you or cl. Even if I didn’t think you were a reasonable Christian before (which is untrue!), I most certainly do now.
I promise I have no ax to grind. On the contrary, I was interested in hearing your interpretation. I am sorry I got a little bit caught up in arguing; I could have been more polite by asking for your interpretation instead of presupposing your view time after time. Not only was that rude, but it was poor sportsmanship on my part.
I agree that this discussion should end now, and I am glad it has at least ended on a nice(r) note. I really appreciate your apology, by the way. :)
cl,
Hey, that’s a valid point. The thing about science is that one day we very well could have the answers, while no living human being is going to be able to understand God’s reasons for doing things. Within science, one can conduct more experiments, one can think more, subject previous experiments to harsher scrutiny, etc. I think ignorance is more of a power card for skeptical theism than for skeptical science.
This is quite the heavy demand! When it comes to what is “reasonable,” we should look to logic specifically and philosophy in general, IMO. If those are too broad of parameters, I apologize, but those are my preferred tools of “truth seeking,” so to speak.
Referring to the Holocaust again, I simply do not see how any immediate good could come from such an atrocity. It has made us more weary of a similar catastrophe, I imagine, but by that reasoning, should we rape women as a caveat for rape?
To answer your question, of course. However, I didn’t think I was relying too heavily upon the label for my objections. After all, I could have derived them from the proposition of skeptical theism itself, and that is exactly what I’m questioning.