If God Has A Plan For Everyone, Then Why Is It Planned For Some People To Be Non-Believers?

We will have to disagree fundamentally on this point. You do not convince me that christian scripture is a work of genius; you merely assert it, and name-drop Kierkegaard and Jung. Those are two people, just like we are two people. They too, will have to have proved their point, like any point.

Textual analysis is a comically slippery field; consider the vagaries that pass for art in any high school english class. You are given a short story and asked to write an essay about the use of metaphors; I remember my first high school english essay, I was ecstatic writing it, because my mind is able to make many connections throughout the art world, and I remember comparing the tone of the story to Au Claire du Lune by Debussy; in one sense, I totally nailed it, and my teacher game me a big smiley face for my advanced use of connection-making abilities. But in another, very valid sense, that connection was completely fabricated; it was merely insinuated by me, a specious sort of comparability which is made possible only by the parameters in which all human expression functions.

When you point out how scripture mirrors the human psyche, and how genesis mirrors human history, I only think to myself, "Yeah? Same is true for the vast majority of written works out there". How many stories have been written in which the jungian motif of "shadow" is expressed? Practically all of them; this isn't because every author of every story is trained in psychology. This is because psychology is the study of what we express; and jung was a psychologist.

So I think you've got things a little backwards.

There is also the issue of cherry-picking. Suppose I grant that Genesis is a remarkably accurate depiction of human hunter-gatherer evolution. Very well, I then turn a few chapters more, and am confronted with the full brunt of biblical savagery. What do I make of these other passages? Will you strain to concoct an exculpatory connection between every passage of the bible and some fact of reality, while knowing fully well that at the time of its writing, the open-minded and modern sense in which you interpret these passages was certainly not meant? And not even existing?

I'm sorry but the people who wrote genesis did not have historical accounts like we have today, so it is quite a stretch to say that middle eastern theologians 2,000 years ago were metaphorizing an account of human evolution; they had no idea where we came from and how we got here due to the paucity of records and the rarity of literacy.

I think that you are reading a lot of things into the bible, and that's fine, that's something you can do with any literary work, even Harry Potter. That doesn't mean that we should look to Harry Potter to guide our moral intuitions and to structure our society around, nor should we praise Harry Potter for proclaiming certain facts which we find agreeable, at the cost of closing off other avenues of exploration wherein we will arrive at those same facts through better means (or in fact find those facts to be fiction!).

Perhaps the bible was as stroke of genius two millenia ago. But now it's been a long time, and we've learned a lot. Can't we adjust our library to reflect this?

 

This is exactly my principle argument when confronted with a Christian who claims that certain Bible passages were not meant to be taken literally. Why does it have to be so vague and open to almost any interpretation? If the creation story, or the flood story wasn't meant to be taken literally, then why doesn't it say so? Do you think people two thousand years or more ago knew this? Did they have the knowledge we have today to know that a literal interpretation would clash with what we know to be empirically true, or was this the best that they had to go on then?

 

[/QUOTE]The following is from the first Christian Apologist Saint Justin Martyr: "And those who lived according to reason (logos) are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham and Ananias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious."
-St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 46

And then there's Pope Francis:
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class. We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all. And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there." http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/05/29/187009384/Pope-Francis-Even-Atheists-Can-Be-Redeemed

 

I feel the same way about you quoting sam harris with the phrase you are as likely to find a big ego at a science convention as you are to find nudity. That is all well and good but it doesn't say anything about what that likely hood is. I would say depending on the venue and the participants gathered it is very likely. Your statement that a scientist would qualify his statements so as not to be embarrassed suggests exactly that egos are at play. How big depends on how concerned you are about your reputation. As for nudity i bet a presentation on anatomy might include some.

One thing to note, the bible is a collection of materials from different times and different sources and and does not appear in the order written, That is oldest to most recent.

As to the brutality of other passages, these being that god suggests one vile campaign after another for the favor and discipline of his people, evidence of the cultural ego comes to fore as a chosen people. That god is on my side and not on yours is an egotistical claim. The ego in the egotistical sense gleans it's sense of uniqueness or superiority by comparison to others. We are superior fundamentally because they are inferior. We do things this way, they do not. We are civilized, they are not. We can see it in the modern vernacular used in the descriptions of ISIL and by ISIL. Certainly good is on our side if we slaughter them all.

How should you take those passages, with a grain of salt. With a modicum of sense.

How could people with no formal science glean deep psychological insight, through self observation. There is no limit on the subjective sense in apprehending things correctly save the egotistical temptation to qualify instead of quantify.

Religion and science involve the same impetus in that they seek to address the existential questions that concern us.

On why things have to be vague per acek , that is not the purpose but symbols are naturally abstract as is the mind that we may imagine potentials.

 

On books being written at different times and by different people they were also written for different purposes.

Here is a statement of such reason as might be found,

for gaining wisdom and instruction;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to those who are simple,[a]
knowledge and discretion to the young—
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

 

In adjunct and directly from the material in question,
Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?…

All sins and blasphemes will be forgiven except blaspheme against the holy spirit.

The holy spirit appears in men as does spirit in general, we being spirited.. As a practical matter regardless if there is a god or not to believe or not to believe or to assert belief or not about god has no practical consequences in this life other than how you privately organize your imagination. How you regard men in life is a practical matter. You do good service to regard the living with reverence.

 

Pretty sentiment, except that theists hardly do good for the sake of doing it.

They do it for a Heavenly reward.

Then they do bad things even though they know they shouldn't and they know that relying upon the loophole of asking forgiveness absolves them of doing those bad things.

It's an endless cycle with theists. They are not good in any sense of the word. They are evil incarnate.

 

Theists, just like everyone else, have all kinds of motives just as they have all kinds of perspectives on god. For myself i recognize that goodness is invoked and exhibited by men. If not me then who? certainly it appears that you prefer to invoke evil as a mans primary constituent. I see only innocence and a great degree of not knowing what one is doing

 

Oh, so you're a Duggar fan. Understand.

 

i don't, what is a duggar? I surmise from context that it suggests something unbecoming. Your statement on theists is egotistical or vain to the degree that i described earlier. I am better an atheist and theists are scum.

 

My ego is about as non-existent as the logic of a theist, and I hardly care to ever look at myself in the mirror so vanity is out the window.

 

My, my. Such a sweeping generalization about 2.2 billion people you couldn't all know, and so mean-spirited, too. if you said this about any other group, people might call you a bigot.

 

Vain as in a useless characterization. Ego is sense of identity. That you care not to look into the mirror means that is not a way you prefer to reflect on yourself.

 

I owe my faith to Genesis, but I certainly don't take it literally. To do so would miss the point. There were two passages that caught my attention and transformed my life: the part where God creates humans in his image and likeness, and the part where Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. The first passage suggests to me that I and every human I encounter is a reflection of Divinity or some aspect thereof. I find it a useful way to view myself and to relate to other humans. It provides a foundation for Christian humanism. The story of Adam and Eve highlights a basic conflict within human nature that the Buddha called attachments.Two people are living in Paradise and they can't get their mind off what they don't have: the forbidden fruit. These stories are useful today as metaphors, whether they were understood as such by their original audience or not. I don't think the Bible should be viewed at all as a science manual about the process of creation, the age of the earth, or the sequence of evolution. It's about metaphors of meaning and moral truth. Metaphors and allegories can speak to people's emotions in a way that scientific writing can't. I think people back then may have taken them literally, but they got the point.

 

I remember a native american saying before recounting a myth, it may not have happened like this, but this story is true.

 

If it did not happen like that, then the story is not true. Seems like religion to me.

 

I love looking in the mirror lately....LOL

 

It means it allegory or metaphorical

 

This quote seems to speak to Writer's point, unless I am misunderdtanding it, isn't he isolating Christians as the sole people of "reason"?

This is a quality quote, I admire the charitable intent the pope exudes, although I guess I have 2 slight reservations regarding it. 1) Similar to some of the posts in these threads, it seems like an attempt to cover the tracks of the actual popular beliefs that many Christians did and still do hold. 2) In a sense of irony, I draw a parallel to the earlier free will discussion, the determinism aspect in particular. I'm not sure you share the sentiments as the pope but assuming you do, If it's determined that everyone has the potential to get into Heaven regardless of their relgious (or lack thereof) beliefs, why attempt to convert anyone and/or what incentives remain to promote the Christian religion in particular?

 

I thought Writer was suggesting no Christian thinker was willing to allow that non-Christians were on the same moral footing as Christians. He asked for one example to the contrary. I gave him two.
I don't think it's possible to interpret Justin as saying that Christians are the sole people of reason. What he is clearly saying is that rational people who sincerely follow their consciences are essentially Christian, for all practical purposes. I understand that you and Writer might not want to be thought of that way, but it's different from saying that only self-proclaimed Christians are good, moral or saved.