Is the Christian God self-contradictory?

[Wormwood]

Geez I left for a few hours and someone has agitated Ghosty.

Evil is the word for “less good”, so I confess I don’t get your point.

The point is I was being a %$^$#%^!. This was just after the semantic debate over the definition of evil. Jokes are lost on the grumpy Ghosty

A schizophrenic who kills due to illness would not be held accountable for their action by God. This is an explicit aspect of Church teaching. The schizophrenic’s exercise of free will is impeded by their illness, and therefore is not accountable. I’m not sure where you’re going with this point.

But in many cases most of the time is spent in a lucid and controllable state, would that still be a lack of free will? It would ruin your life and cause you to live in a home for the criminally insane. It would seem some randomness occurs even for God.

As for the Old Testament plagues and such, they always served a learning purpose, and were ALWAYS precipitated by warnings about the behavior that would lead to them

Nope. What about the flood? He was going to kill everyone without a word then he changed his mind and saved noah. Also, was there a warning given for sodom and gammorah?

Mortal death and suffering can actually do wonders for bringing people back in line with God, so that they can eternally enjoy happiness, hence so many “deathbed” and “death-row” conversions. God knows this better than anyone, I’d imagine.

Agreed. I think that will always be inevitable as it is part of human nature, what with the preservation instincts and such.

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

have you though? if what i have done is what you call stipulating, then what have you done that is better?

sure. you made an argument that fails - all i have done is point out the flaw. nothing more.

atheos_sum:

which is essentially what plantinga says too, if i’m not mistaken: not that it’s impossible to be totally predestined, and that it is possible to be free.

right. and that’s all he (or i) **need todo.

atheos_sum:

Well, then, to this shouldn’t we ask, if both are possible, are both ***equally ***possible? Or does one view have a leg up on the other.

yes, we should ask that question. personally, i would say that we are, in fact, free and not predestined. which gives the “foreordained” hypothesis a probability of zero.

-- in a lot of apologetics, there is a certain strategy which seems to be prevalent. Such as in presuppositional apologetics (i’m sure you’re familiar with) in which the objective is to make all the alternatives to faith in God seem just like faith positions themselves, in a sense, making each alternatives seem equally valid. The idea is that if we can get both views to seem “possible” in some sense, then we can say that preferring one of the other is basically a presuppositional move. (but not that what i have said on this matter is necessarily conclusive. i’m just pointing it out.)

yes. that’s a strategy employed to good effect against detractors who make claims like “belief in a god or in religion is unreasonable because there exists no knock-down, drag-out proof for either”.

at that point, the only thing that needs to be done by the believer is to demonstrate that there aren’t any such arguments for anything, even for beliefs the reasonableness of which even the atheist/agnostic himself takes to be unassailable.

it’s a perfectly valid approach.

atheos_sum:

i would like to know, and not in a sarcastic way, in what possible universe it is possible to make free choices in, God being omniscient and all that. Could you describe it for me?

sure. look around you. it looks exactly like this one.

look, in the language of possible worlds, what god did (more or less) when he created the actual world was simply actualize one of the possible worlds in which there exist free agents. more specifically, he saw, for example, that in one world i chose to take a shower before responding to your latest post, while in another world identical to the first up until my choice to shower, i chose instead to respond first and shower later; then he actualized the first one.

if you’re a molinist (and i’m not sure i am), then this description will vary a bit. but you get the idea.

but whatever - you haven’t done anything to show that it’s not possible for god’s omniscience to be compatible with freedom of the will: your only argument for the position straightforwardly fails…

atheos_sum:

all transworld depravity states is something very much like, “In every possible universe God could have created there is at least one sin (or one smudgeon of evil, or something like it.)” isn’t this correct?

more or less. it shows that it’s possible that among the possible worlds that god could have actualized, there are none that contain moral good and no moral evil - that, namely, it is possible that everyone goes wrong at least once in every possible world.

atheos_sum:

but i’m not sure if this answers Mackie’s point. Surely there is at least one possilbe world in which creation freely does not choose evil. To say this is impossible would seem, frankly, unimaginative.

well, it does answer mackie’s point, since mackie was attempting to formulate a logical argument against the existence of god based on the exitsence of evil; this is an example of the kind of argument you tried to make against the compatibility of omniscience and free will: since the modus operandi of such reasoing is always to conclude to the impossibility of some state of affairs, all that needs to be done to counter it is to show that such states of affairs are, in fact possible.

which is what plantinga does.

and which is why arguments from evil have more recently focused on evil as a probabilistic, or evidential difficulty for theism rather than a logical one. that is, atheologians now try to demonstrate that the existence of god is improbable given evil…

 

[Ghosty]

The point is I was being a %$^$#%^!. This was just after the semantic debate over the definition of evil. Jokes are lost on the grumpy Ghosty

D’oh! Yeah, I guess I’m too used to people actually trying to make a point that way that I missed your intended joke. My apologies! I definately appreciate the humor in the statement, I just thought it was unintended

But in many cases most of the time is spent in a lucid and controllable state, would that still be a lack of free will? It would ruin your life and cause you to live in a home for the criminally insane. It would seem some randomness occurs even for God.

Their will wouldn’t necessarily be impeded all the time, only when their illness was ramping up. Are you refering to the worldly consequences of the person’s unwilled actions? If so, remember that God didn’t put homes for the criminally insane on Earth, as that’s a matter of free will on the part of the non-criminally insane, who have a right and duty to protect themselves and others from those who can’t control themselves. The criminally insane could theoretically be put in a home where they’re treated like kings and queens until they die natural deaths, so the fact that they have to be put away for their own safety and the safety of others doesn’t necessarily equate to a bad life. That it does for most has more to do with the evil behavior of others, not their own. Again, God doesn’t make mental institutions, He leaves that to us, and judges the sane for their treatment of the insane. If you meant something else, I apologize. Just clarify and I’ll be on it

Nope. What about the flood? He was going to kill everyone without a word then he changed his mind and saved noah. Also, was there a warning given for sodom and gammorah?

You have to remember when reading the Old Testament espescially that it’s not written in a way that is always culturally understandable to us today. It was recorded by largely nomadic shepards. Neither Jews nor Catholics take the Scriptures as word-for-word literal, that’s a much later heresy. What is actually being conveyed is not that God can be talked out of doing things, or that He changes His mind (Jews absolutely don’t believe that to be the case), but rather it shows the reasonableness of God. God will not destroy the whole world precisely because there is good in the world, namely Noah and the animals.

God is often portrayed as “changing His mind” because that’s the easiest way to show that He’s reasonable. Rather than simply say what God does, it presents the alternative that very rightly COULD have been done, but then shows God taking another course that benefits people to a much greater degree. It’s the ancient equivalent of saying “I bet you’d flood the whole world and just be done with it, right? Well God ain’t like that, check this out…”

As for the warning to Sodom and Gomorrah, that’s actually in the Covenant of Noah, which they were breaking, namely “be fruitful and multiply”, not to mention the words God spoke to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1. In the ancient mind, that was an express prohibition against homosexual acts, as it still is today in Judaism and Catholicism. Sodom and Gomorrah were knowingly engaging in sinful behavior. Also, Sodom and Gomorrah are tested again when the angels are sent, as Lot offers his daughters if they leave his guests alone, but all of the men of Sodom demand to to take the men. This is an express example of their total depravity, as they are offered what is natural, and they refuse it knowing God’s commands. It’s not a direct warning, but it does show complete willingness to choose evil in the face of testing; they are in no way tricked into violating God’s commands. In fact, if anyone of that group had relented, God’s wrath would likely have been turned away, given His previous dialogue with Abraham. The story emphasises that “everyone to the last man” was there demanding sex with those two guests to show that every one of them was culpable (they all heard Lot’s counter offer), and everyone desired to sin.

Agreed. I think that will always be inevitable as it is part of human nature, what with the preservation instincts and such.

Yup, and it works wonders. Thomas Aquinas argued that suffering in life actually pushes people towards God, not away from Him, as they seek to draw away from the pain of the mortal world. Each person’s choice is ultimately their own, however, and some will resist to the bitter end, and beyond.

 

[atheos_sum]

john doran:

right. and that’s all he (or i) ***need ***todo.

only as a counter argument. but you still don’t establish that this world is one such possible world in which free will exists.
john doran:

yes, we should ask that question. personally, i would say that we are, in fact, free and not predestined. which gives the “foreordained” hypothesis a probability of zero.

that doesn’t follow. because you side with one alternative doesn’t mean that the other alternative is *ipso facto *completely improbable.

but why are we grumbling over such details? we are only jockeying for some kind of logical one-upmanship.
john doran:

yes. that’s a strategy employed to good effect against detractors who make claims like “belief in a god or in religion is unreasonable because there exists no knock-down, drag-out proof for either”.

no one serious demands such proof, although serious people have raised doubts.
john doran:

at that point, the only thing that needs to be done by the believer is to demonstrate that there aren’t any such arguments for anything, even for beliefs the reasonableness of which even the atheist/agnostic himself takes to be unassailable.

the strategy of the presuppositional apologist is rather to attack reason itself. this is quite true for this approach, and it’s very plain to see, we should simply admit it. There are better formulations of this point, of course, but in general it goes like this: in order to make faith appear to be worthy as some kind of valid epistemological source, reason itself must be belittled – sometimes to a status lower than faith, sometimes completely disqualifying reason.
john doran:

it’s a perfectly valid approach.

no, it’s dishonest and it’s desperate–like something of a last resort.
john doran:

sure. look around you. it looks exactly like this one.

no. that wasn’t what i was asking, silly.
john doran:

if you’re a molinist (and i’m not sure i am), then this description will vary a bit. but you get the idea.

quite the contrary, molinism states the very opposite of my argument–but molinism is the opposite of my view in terms of soteriologic fates only. if you really understand the breadth of my position, you’ll understand that in this view molinism is basically a restatement of free will in terms of soteriologic consequences. if there is no free will, there is no molinism
john doran:

but whatever - you haven’t done anything to show that it’s not possible for god’s omniscience to be compatible with freedom of the will: your only argument for the position straightforwardly fails…

i’m puzzled as to why in your view the atheologian has to show the impossibility of (A) and also the necessity of (B), whereas the theologian–as you seem to think–only has to show the possibility of (A) but “nothing more”. Why shouldn’t the theologian have to show the impossibility of (B) and thus the necessity of (A)? where is the justice in such unequal burdens?

 

[atheos_sum]

john doran:

more or less. it shows that it’s possible that among the possible worlds that god could have actualized, there are none that contain moral good and no moral evil - that, namely,** it is possible that everyone goes wrong at least once in every possible world.**

rather, you mean that “it is*** necessary*** that everyone goes wrong at least once in every possible world” ??
john doran:

well, it does answer mackie’s point, since mackie was attempting to formulate a logical argument against the existence of god based on the exitsence of evil; this is an example of the kind of argument you tried to make against the compatibility of omniscience and free will: since the modus operandi of such reasoing is always to conclude to the impossibility of some state of affairs, all that needs to be done to counter it is to show that such states of affairs are, in fact possible.

there is a logical argument against the existence of God based on the existence of evil (and in turn based on the non-existence of free will). moreoever, plantinga does not satisfy mackie’s point. he answer’s a rather solid argument with a weak case as to why in his view every person in every possible would necessarily have at least one sin. like i said, it’s unimaginative and hardly conclusive.
john doran:

and which is why arguments from evil have more recently focused on evil as a probabilistic, or evidential difficulty for theism rather than a logical one. that is, atheologians now try to demonstrate that the existence of god is improbable given evil…

i have not seen these arguments yet, these probabilistic and evidential ones. so i’m guessing that would imply that i’m using out-dated arguments? well, perhaps–after all, i’m going to be a sophomore this year. but if plantinga is credited with ending the “logical arguments” as you call them, then since i don’t think he was successful at it, then i don’t think the debate should have shifted towards plantinga’s ground. this implies that the atheologians would have conceded to plantinga, do you think that is what has happened? of course, i am relying on your good judgment.

–

on another note, i’ve been laboring through this very argument on two forums, which is getting rather difficult. i’m thinking about ending my participation in the catholicforums, however. you and a handful of others are very fun & interesting to debate with, however, many of the posters on this forum are not. so i probably won’t stick around for much longer.

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

only as a counter argument. but you still don’t establish that this world is one such possible world in which free will exists.

establishing that the actual world is one of the possible worlds in which there are free choices is to establish the truth of the proposition “there are free choices”. this is not something i have to do in order to repudiate your argument - to do that, all i need to do is show that there is at least one possible world where people make free choices (i.e. that free choices are something that are possibly made). period.

atheos_sum:

no one serious demands such proof, although serious people have raised doubts.

not believing p without proof, and disbelieving p because doubt is possible are the same thing. at least when the disbeliever believes other equally dubitable propositions.

but maybe you’re right. maybe people like that aren’t serious. i don’t know.

atheos_sum:

the strategy of the presuppositional apologist is rather to attack reason itself. this is quite true for this approach, and it’s very plain to see, we should simply admit it. There are better formulations of this point, of course, but in general it goes like this: in order to make faith appear to be worthy as some kind of valid epistemological source, reason itself must be belittled – sometimes to a status lower than faith, sometimes completely disqualifying reason.

no, it’s dishonest and it’s desperate–like something of a last resort.

i am not going to belabor this point, but you are clearly talking about something different from the approach i described, which is neither desperate nor dishonest: if someone claims “p lacks sufficient warrant because it is capable of being doubted”, then that person cannot, without more, believe any proposition capable of that kind of doubt. so. if the original claimant in fact does believe other dubitable propositions, then it is texbook logic to point out her inconsistency.

i neither have made, nor am now making any arguments “belittling” reason.

atheos_sum:

quite the contrary, molinism states the very opposite of my argument…

i know. i was using the royal “you”.

atheos_sum:

i’m puzzled as to why in your view the atheologian has to show the impossibility of (A) and also the necessity of (B), whereas the theologian–as you seem to think–only has to show the possibility of (A) but “nothing more”. Why shouldn’t the theologian have to show the impossibility of (B) and thus the necessity of (A)? where is the justice in such unequal burdens?

i don’t know what A and B are…

anyone claiming “necessarily (~p)” can be refuted by a demonstration of “possibly (p)”. my observation about the atheologian, then, is only about that particular kind of atheologian who says “necessarily (omniscience is incompatible with free choice)”. if, on the other hand, you wish to attenuate your position to something more like “probably (omniscience is incompatible with free will)”, then your claim might not be so easy to controvert.

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

rather, you mean that “it is*** necessary*** that everyone goes wrong at least once in every possible world” ??

yes. possibly necessary, which, of course, amounts to the same thing.

atheos_sum:

there is a logical argument against the existence of God based on the existence of evil (and in turn based on the non-existence of free will).

let’s see it. the only logical arguments i know of were abandoned as invalid about the same time as logical positivism finally breathed it’s last breath.

but i’d love to see whatever variant you might have scrounged up.
athoes_sum:

moreoever, plantinga does not satisfy mackie’s point. he answer’s a rather solid argument with a weak case as to why in his view every person in every possible would necessarily have at least one sin. like i said, it’s unimaginative and hardly conclusive.

look, you may not find plantinga’s approach compelling, but it’s certainly a sound argument. and i would say it’s incredibly imaginative.

as for conclusive, it at least conclusively refutes mackie.

if you disagree, explain how it fails.

atheos_sum:

i have not seen these arguments yet, these probabilistic and evidential ones. so i’m guessing that would imply that i’m using out-dated arguments? well, perhaps–after all, i’m going to be a sophomore this year. but if plantinga is credited with ending the “logical arguments” as you call them, then since i don’t think he was successful at it, then i don’t think the debate should have shifted towards plantinga’s ground. this implies that the atheologians would have conceded to plantinga, do you think that is what has happened? of course, i am relying on your good judgment.

well, i would say not that they conceded any ground to plantinga, in particular, but rather to the ineluctable fact that the logical argument just doesn’t work.

atheos_sum:

on another note, i’ve been laboring through this very argument on two forums, which is getting rather difficult. i’m thinking about ending my participation in the catholicforums, however. you and a handful of others are very fun & interesting to debate with, however, many of the posters on this forum are not. so i probably won’t stick around for much longer.

well, that’s too bad - good luck to you in whatever you do, man.

take care.

 

[Wormwood]

D’oh! Yeah, I guess I’m too used to people actually trying to make a point that way that I missed your intended joke. My apologies! I definately appreciate the humor in the statement, I just thought it was unintended

…unintended…man i oughta…

Their will wouldn’t necessarily be impeded all the time, only when their illness was ramping up. Are you refering to the worldly consequences of the person’s unwilled actions?

Yeah that is more of what I was alluding to, but I guess I can see it both ways. I guess you’re right, but still part of me wonders, if God knew that would happen, is it really free will?

God is often portrayed as “changing His mind” because that’s the easiest way to show that He’s reasonable. Rather than simply say what God does, it presents the alternative that very rightly COULD have been done, but then shows God taking another course that benefits people to a much greater degree.

The reason I say that is because at first it was to be everyman, and THEN he warned Noah. Also in the older versions of that story, there were more families present on the ark…presenting an even bigger change of heart than we teach today (and one that makes more sense genetically).

As for the warning to Sodom and Gomorrah, that’s actually in the Covenant of Noah, which they were breaking, namely “be fruitful and multiply”, not to mention the words God spoke to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1.

But there was no warning. And I don’t get the genesis 1 reference. I can’t find a single mention of homosexuality being a mortal sin, there or anywhere else.

Sodom and Gomorrah were knowingly engaging in sinful behavior. Also, Sodom and Gomorrah are tested again when the angels are sent, as Lot offers his daughters if they leave his guests alone, but all of the men of Sodom demand to to take the men. This is an express example of their total depravity, as they are offered what is natural, and they refuse it knowing God’s commands.

See I thought this was more the point of this story, not that they were homosexual, but that they were deviants who even assult the lord’s messengers.

The story emphasises that “everyone to the last man” was there demanding sex with those two guests to show that every one of them was culpable (they all heard Lot’s counter offer), and everyone desired to sin.

See they were a ravenous mob turning down consent for rape. A testament to true mob mentality. If it were seriously the case that God would smite a city for being totally homosexual, San Fran would have been toast already. I think it was their inability to control their baser urges that led to their punishment.

Yup, and it works wonders. Thomas Aquinas argued that suffering in life actually pushes people towards God, not away from Him, as they seek to draw away from the pain of the mortal world.

So true. I think suffering will inevitabley lead to the assumption that you are NOT in complete control of your life…and that makes you want to yeild to the person that is.

 

[AnAtheist]

Yes, but not like a square circle. Lacking that option, I didn’t vote.

 

[Ghosty]

I guess you’re right, but still part of me wonders, if God knew that would happen, is it really free will?

Not really a direct answer, but something to consider: Ever notice how you can never suprise yourself with a free choice? In fact, by definition, a free choice is one you know about beforehand. It’s an unfree choice, like that of the schizophrenic, that comes as a suprise to the actor. Basically, suprise negates free will rather than allows it. Now if God simply shares in your “lack of suprise”, why is that an indication that you didn’t freely will your action?

What trips most people up is the fact that God sees what we chose before we do, but again that really doesn’t affect the whole “suprise” issue, IMO. The reason God sees is not simply because He’s so smart and made everything to act a specific way, but because He exists outside of time in the “eternal now”, and lives contemporaneously with all moments in our timeline. The past is just as much “now” for God as the future, and just as much as our “now” for that matter. God is not suprised simply because He knows our minds at every instance of choice we make, and all those instances coincide in the “eternal now”.

The reason I say that is because at first it was to be everyman, and THEN he warned Noah. Also in the older versions of that story, there were more families present on the ark…presenting an even bigger change of heart than we teach today (and one that makes more sense genetically).

First off, which older stories are you refering to? The only story version kept by Jews that I’m aware of is the one we have, so unless you’re refering to non-Jewish versions, I’m not sure what you’re refering to.

Second, it only seems like a change of heart because of the way you’re reading it. A change of heart on the part of God in an absolute sense is not actually indicated by the story. Jews, espescially ancient Jews, had a much different storytelling style than we do in the modern West. Everything must be understood on the grounds of certain fundamental assumptions, such as God being eternal and unchanging, which is a Jewish “dogma” according to everyone that I’ve read and spoken to. It’s a matter of God defying expectations with His mercy, not of changing His mind. This “bait and switch” tactic in Jewish storytelling is actually all over the Bible. It’s practically a running gag in the Book of Esther, for example.

Again, it amounts to “I bet you thought we were gonna say God did such and such. Well let me tell you how wrong you are.” It’s actually one of the things that makes the Tanakh so fun to read. You just have to become aquainted with the literary style. It wasn’t written for 21st century literalist Protestants, which is why they draw so many erroneous conclusions from it in the eyes of Catholics and Jews, who preserve the original style for the most part. The trick is to read the Tanakh like a collection of truthful and faithful campfire stories, complete with twists, heroes, and moments that make you go “Whoa, did that really happen?!” It wasn’t originally recorded as a historical treatise, although it describes historical events.

But there was no warning. And I don’t get the genesis 1 reference. I can’t find a single mention of homosexuality being a mortal sin, there or anywhere else.

“Be fruitful and multiply” has always been understood as a directive on the proper use of sexual activity. Homosexuality is never explicitely listed as a “mortal sin” in the Tanakh, but it is always understood as such for this very reason. The closest we come to an explicit mention of homosexuality directly being evil is in Leviticus, but that book applies only to Jews even by their count. The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah predates Leviticus, and deals with non-Jews, so we have to look in contemporaneous sources for the reason why it’s held as an abomination. The Genesis discourse, as well as the post-Flood Noahide Covenant are the marker points of this.

These were the warnings, as they are direct commands from God, and also the angels were testing Sodom and Gomorrah directly, and the test was failed miserably. Since Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously Noahides, they knew the regulations of God. Again this is an aspect of Jewish storytelling that must be understood to read the story properly. It’s not a style that spells everything out obviously and/or literally.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

See I thought this was more the point of this story, not that they were homosexual, but that they were deviants who even assult the lord’s messengers.

That’s a part of it, but as can be seen their deviance was explicitely homosexuality. They flatly refused relations with Lot’s virgin daughters, and definatively asked for the guests so they could “have intimacies” with them. The fact that they were demanding this of angels was just icing on the cake.

They were rapists, yes, but mercy is offered to them if they just limit themselves to raping virgin girls, and they refuse. If rape was the main issue at hand, rape of women wouldn’t have been offered as the alternative. Rape is certainly a component of their sin, but it’s not the issue that’s being specifically addressed in these passages.

See they were a ravenous mob turning down consent for rape. A testament to true mob mentality. If it were seriously the case that God would smite a city for being totally homosexual, San Fran would have been toast already. I think it was their inability to control their baser urges that led to their punishment.

God didn’t smite Athens, either, which made homosexuality a cultural rule. For what it’s worth, Sodom and Gomorrah seem to have been the warning for the rest of the world. God doesn’t make it a point to smite every sinner left and right, in fact quite the opposite. God gives us a test case in order to guide us back, and then we’re left to make our own decisions knowing full well that raining fire and brimstone is the least of our worries if we sin. Jesus even implies that Sodom and Gomorrah haven’t met their final judgements yet, possibly indicating that they really were just warning cases and not an example of damnation.

Jews believe very few people, if any, can definately be said to be eternally damned. I’ve only actually heard of Pharoah as a “definite” case, and that’s not even held by all Jews. Sodom and Gomorrah don’t seem to be on that short list. Being struck down by God is not at all considered the worst case scenario in Catholicism or Judaism. In fact, sometimes it’s viewed as a mercy when it prevents worse sins, ones that WOULD lead to certain damnation, from occuring.

God bless!

 

[Wormwood]

Not really a direct answer, but something to consider: Ever notice how you can never suprise yourself with a free choice? In fact, by definition, a free choice is one you know about beforehand

What are you talking about?! I surprise myself all the time. When I accidentally tell someone the rude truth instead of a sugar coated lie, or when I blurt out the right answers to questions, or even when people that I claim to dislike are in trouble and for some reason turn to me, I help them and I don’t know why…it just happens in that instant, so don’t give me that…

First off, which older stories are you refering to?

The Epic of Gilgamesh mentions it, and also look up tablets containing Zuisudra (which is the oldest “Noah” from the original version, before there even were jews).

It wasn’t written for 21st century literalist Protestants, which is why they draw so many erroneous conclusions from it in the eyes of Catholics and Jews, who preserve the original style for the most part.

But it is your 21st century perspective that is shaping that view of God. In the original context, they were real stories and events, granted dialogue is not ver batum, but even other cultures hold true that yes those events happenen. People of the ancient world were not impressed by flowery metaphors about God, but a God of action performing miracles that are still talked about to this day. Not to say that EVERY word is the historical truth, but I think the major events, especially predeluvial, were from some memories embedded in middle eastern culture since the beggining of time.

“Be fruitful and multiply” has always been understood as a directive on the proper use of sexual activity. Homosexuality is never explicitely listed as a “mortal sin” in the Tanakh, but it is always understood as such for this very reason

Bah, if that were the case, celibate priests would be the exact same as homosexuals.

They were rapists, yes, but mercy is offered to them if they just limit themselves to raping virgin girls, and they refuse

It wouldn’t have been rape, because lot consented. It seems like it was specifically because of the “angels”, and mans insistance on having his own way. I just can’t see the justification for condemning homosexuals on a biblical level.

 

[Ghosty]

When I accidentally tell someone the rude truth instead of a sugar coated lie, or when I blurt out the right answers to questions, or even when people that I claim to dislike are in trouble and for some reason turn to me, I help them and I don’t know why…it just happens in that instant, so don’t give me that…

I didn’t say you never suprise yourself, I said you never suprise yourself with a free choice. You can’t choose to suprise yourself, plain and simple. What you are describing are precisely unfree actions, unconcious reactions, impulse to stimuli, no different than a sea anemone recoiling its tentacles when you touch it, or you kicking when someone strikes your knee with a rubber mallet.

Free, concious choices are those that do not come as a suprise. You can not intend what you do not know before hand.

The Epic of Gilgamesh mentions it, and also look up tablets containing Zuisudra (which is the oldest “Noah” from the original version, before there even were jews).

Yes, the non-Jewish versions of the story. Do those versions have God changing His mind as well? That’s the reason I pointed out that I wasn’t aware of any other Jewish versions, because that’s the version in question with the “change of heart” by a single omnipotent God… Your point in bringing them up was that they contained “an even bigger change of heart”, which I’ve already stated is irrelevant given the nature of ancient storytelling. Of course, the other versions don’t contain a single omnipotent deity anyway, so any change of heart has nothing to do with the attributes of God believed in by the Jews.

But it is your 21st century perspective that is shaping that view of God. In the original context, they were real stories and events, granted dialogue is not ver batum, but even other cultures hold true that yes those events happenen. People of the ancient world were not impressed by flowery metaphors about God, but a God of action performing miracles that are still talked about to this day. Not to say that EVERY word is the historical truth, but I think the major events, especially predeluvial, were from some memories embedded in middle eastern culture since the beggining of time.

Hmmm, perhaps you aren’t familiar with Catholic and Orthodox Jewish storytelling practices. Neither group interprets old writings from a 21st century perspective. In fact, both rely on adherence to the ancient understanding of terms and literary styles. Both groups believe that they were real stories and events, but we also remember how these events were recorded. Just as today a personal account of a rodeo to children will differ from a journalistic account of the same, so it is with Scripture. For example, we read the Gospel of Luke very differently from the Gospel of John or Revelations. Both are true, but they are written very differently, even telling different truths using the same event.

In fact, the whole point of Orthodox Judaism and Apostalic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) is to remember things from the Prophet’s/Apostle’s perspective. This is why we are so lambasted for being “old fashioned” and “backwards” in our reading of Scripture, and also why we’re so consistant. When Catholics and Jews pick up the Bible, the first thing we do is ask our scholars how such things were intended when they were written, and that’s why both groups put so much stock in non-Scriptural Tradition (Talmud and Sayings of the Fathers for the Jews, and the writings of the Apostalic Councils and the Church Fathers for Catholics).

In short, I don’t understand your point here, though it appeared that the Catholic understanding of how to read Scripture, and how such interpretations have been passed down since ancient times, has been held to. It’s Protestants who put their modern, novel interpretations on Scripture, and they are considered heretics by the Church for doing just that.

 

[Ghosty]

Bah, if that were the case, celibate priests would be the exact same as homosexuals.

Nope, because celibacy is addressed seperately and specifically. Just one place is in Matthew 19, when Jesus is discussing the virtues of marriage:

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

What must be understood here is that sex is an integral part of marriage in the Jewish and Catholic understanding. A marriage without sex is actually a violation of God’s law. Likewise, sex outside of marriage is a violation, and sex that intentionally removes the procreative character of the act is likewise a violation:

Genesis 38:

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.

So one is not obligated to sex, but if one is going to have sex you are obligated to be married AND to at least attempt to be naturally fruitful. Homosexuality violates both of these aspects, priestly celibacy violates none. Again, this is both the Catholic and Jewish understanding of the moral law, going back to the time Genesis was actually written down.

It wouldn’t have been rape, because lot consented. It seems like it was specifically because of the “angels”, and mans insistance on having his own way. I just can’t see the justification for condemning homosexuals on a biblical level.

See, it’s you who are stuck in the 21st century mindset in reading Scripture. Both the Orthodox Jews and the Catholics understand it to be a prohibition on homosexuality, because that’s the traditional understanding passed down since it was written. If you want to get an understanding of what their crime was understood to be, just look at a couple of passages in Scripture. We’ll start with Ezekiel 16 49-50:

49
And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy. 50 Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them.

Now you might argue that it doesn’t state which crimes were commited, but notice it describes them as abominable. Well, funny thing is that that same description appears elsewhere in Scripture too, in Leviticus 20:13 which reads:

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Same descriptive term used for the same crime. This is hardly a coincidence. Sodom and Gomorrah commited an abomination in the eyes of God, and that abomination was homosexual relations, as described in Leviticus. Now I bring up Leviticus only to show linguistic evidence and comparison, not to show that the whole of Leviticus is binding (we are not to put homosexuals to death). Levitical law is the Law of the Unfinished Covenant, but it does show the linguistic understanding of what was being done in Sodom and Gomorrah when compared with Ezekiel.

So, to wrap it up, it is the Jewish understanding that all people understood the laws of God regarding sexual function and use, and that all were bound by them, as seen in Genesis 1. Therefore their description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual reasons is not at all an indication of God going off without warning, but rather God trying to spare the people from themselves through Lot’s offer, and eliminating their wickedness when they refused.

Hope that helps! God bless!

 

[AquinasXVI]

Paradoxes abound but contradictory no.