Ask a Theologian IV

[Agent327]

Well, the ancient Judean god was just a regular deity (probably a fusion of the Canaanite pantheon), so it makes sense for him to demand absolute loyalty from his people and get angry like a typical king would. I don't understand your point about the nature of human beings.

I am referring to the idea that God created man "in his image".

I have no idea what this means. The Christian God is assumed to have infinite intelligence as well. These definitions aren't set in stone; they evolve along with philosophers' conception of them, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "this exact definition of God" is logically flawed, and then presume that that would disprove the existence of God.

I'm not discussing the (non-)existence of God. As for intelligence, I am uncertain what "infinite intelligence" would mean; either a being is intelligent, or it is not. (The God depicted in the Tanakh/OT certainly shows a lack of intelligence.) Unless you are saying that the modern God actually has 4 qualities: omniscience, eternity, omnipotence and intelligence. (This ofcourse leaves aside the question if any being would be able to create a universe. And if such a being exists, there is no reason for it to limit itself to a mere single universe: there might be very well an infnite number of universes.)

At any rate, I am not discussing a "Christian" God, but the abstractum. "Christian" is not a quality necessary nor likely to attain to God.

 

[Mouthwash]

I am referring to the idea that God created man "in his image".

Heh, let's not get into the dozens of different "interpretations" that arise out of that line.

 

[timtofly]

Heh, let's not get into the dozens of different "interpretations" that arise out of that line.

That would be like saying the universe is concerned about the scientific method? We are the product of the universe, but yet we are concerned with the scientific method.

People tend to forget that Seth was born in Adam's image. Thus humans are no longer the image of God. Adam had lost God's image as part of his punishment. There is a differentiation between The son's of Adam and the Son's of God. I think the human consensus was that they were angels, but angels cannot have offspring. It would make more sense that the sons of God were created along with Adam. They however were not "divided" into the two sexes like Adam was and they still retained God's image.

 

[_random_]

Has anyone taken a serious academic look at folk theology?

 

[Berzerker]

the gods made man and woman in their image, thats what genesis says

and when god became angry with adam and eve and kicked them out of the garden he explained why to these other gods - to prevent these now intelligent beings from living forever like the gods because of what they could achieve, like maybe a tower ascending heaven.

A sumerian creation myth claims the gods used an already existing creature upon which to bind their image and humans were to serve the gods, do their work - like the Adam tilling the land.

a zulu myth speaks of a distant time when their ancestors were at war with the apemen

and god took the adam and placed him eastward in the garden... west is africa

 

[kiwitt]

As opposed to starting a new thread, i'd pose the question here.

Why is that many seemingly 'intelligent/intellectual/knowledgeable scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. still believe in the existence God, when there does not seem to me to be any real hard evidence that these professionals would call for in their own careers, to verify the existence, except 'faith'.

If anything, this was one of the initial reasons I decided to try to investigate God's existence for myself. If people like the above believe in God, there must be something to it, i.e. they have found evidence, therefore so should I (eventually).

However, no amount of searching for evidence (outside the words of the Bible), could I find any real evidence at all. Anyone I spoke to said, you simply have to have 'faith' to 'believe'. Which is in effect, no evidence at all. And as we know anecdotes from others is not evidence, except to the person who experienced the particular event.

In addition, if we assume, that the events others describe in the Bible are also simply personal anecdotes, then that makes the Bible evidence even more flimsy. It should be noted that I consider the Bible only one source of information and I need to have evidence outside the Bible to corroborate whether an actual event really took place.

Am I wrong to look for evidence outside the Bible to verify the existence of God, if so how?

 

[Plotinus]

Just to say that I haven't disappeared - I will try to answer these - but I'm having a very, very busy couple of weeks, so please bear with me!

 

[NBAfan]

As opposed to starting a new thread, i'd pose the question here.

Why is that many seemingly 'intelligent/intellectual/knowledgeable scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. still believe in the existence God, when there does not seem to me to be any real hard evidence that these professionals would call for in their own careers, to verify the existence, except 'faith'.

If anything, this was one of the initial reasons I decided to try to investigate God's existence for myself. If people like the above believe in God, there must be something to it, i.e. they have found evidence, therefore so should I (eventually).

However, no amount of searching for evidence (outside the words of the Bible), could I find any real evidence at all. Anyone I spoke to said, you simply have to have 'faith' to 'believe'. Which is in effect, no evidence at all. And as we know anecdotes from others is not evidence, except to the person who experienced the particular event.

In addition, if we assume, that the events others describe in the Bible are also simply personal anecdotes, then that makes the Bible evidence even more flimsy. It should be noted that I consider the Bible only one source of information and I need to have evidence outside the Bible to corroborate whether an actual event really took place.

Am I wrong to look for evidence outside the Bible to verify the existence of God, if so how?

Check out St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence.

 

[classical_hero]

A thought occurred to me recently: if the God depicted in the Tanakh/OT is responsible for human character, that fits remarkably well: he displays a curious short-sightedness, pettiness and vindictiveness, paired with utter callousness. (That God is also equally remarkable absent from the NT, if he figures at all.)

That is not true. Very time God was about to bring judgement upon those who were sinned, he always had someone to forewarn them. God had Noah preaching for about 100 years the coming judgement of God because of the wickedness of men. God sent some Angels to Sodom and Gomorrah to tell Lot and his family to get out due to the wickedness of the cities and because of Lot's fallen stature, when he tried to tell others about it, they just laughed it off. Every judgement pronounced upon mankind, whether as a whole, for nations or for individuals has always come with a warning. If they heed the warning, like they did in Nineveh, then God will spare his judgement, but in every other case, they ignored the warning and as a result they got judged.

However, it would have been impossible for such a deity to have created something so perfectly composed as the universe. Nowadays we have another vision of God: God is omnipotent, eternal, and perfectly good. At first sight that seems to solve the problem. However, one essential quality is missing from this definition. An eternal, omnipotent and perfectly good deity would still be completely unable to create something so infinitely magnificent as the universe if it lacked intelligence.

As usual you ignore the fact we are living in a cursed universe now, because of man's sin. At the end of Genesis 1 God said that all was "very good", but now we are living in a world and universe full of suffering. Genesis 3 tells of the story of why the current world we live in is not perfect, because of our sin. Romans 5:12-21 shows us that as a result of one man's sin, we all suffer as a result. But now we have hope of redemption by one man's sinlessness. Romans 8:18-23 tells us that the whole universe is suffering and waiting for the redemption that we are going to have.

 

[kiwitt]

Check out St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence.

That did not help.

1: Motion

"Unfortunately for St. Thomas, relativity means that motion is no longer a property of one thing. Motion is a property of at least two “things”, the observer and the object. There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference."

2: Existence

"We have since learned that matter is continually formed as particles and antiparticles, and continually annihilated when a particle meets an antiparticle. There are no things that are caused or created by other things. Stuff only changes in form and there is nothing being “caused to exist”, St. Thomas’s premise here is simply irrelevant."

3: Contingent and Necessary Objects

"If the universe is truly eternal, and just goes through cycles of Bang, expansion, contraction, Crunch->Bang, then it is manifest that the universe itself is not a contingent entity."

4: Degrees And Perfection

"So, we have taken the very simple case of an element of substance, and have shown that purity does not equate to value; that although a Primary Substance can exist, it will not remain so; and that the existance of a Primary Substance – the “essence of greatest extent” is ephemeral, not eternal."

5: The Mind

"The mind appears to be on a continuum from mindless to mindful. It also appears that the mind only forms with appropriate social contact. St. Thomas’ first premise is wrong, and everything that leads from that is irrelevant."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Five Ways simply proves nothing. It does not prove that God exists, but its failure does not prove the inverse. Simply said, the convenient hook that folks have used to justify their belief has come detatched.

link

However, it does explain in a seemingly logical way why a God may exist, but the preponderance of new evidence to alternatives that St Aquinas could not possibly know over 500 years ago, make his arguments less relevant.

So in essense, "logical arguments" can be undone by new evidence.

 

[Mouthwash]

Just to say that I haven't disappeared - I will try to answer these - but I'm having a very, very busy couple of weeks, so please bear with me!

I'd prefer substantive and accurate answers over answers I can get right now- so no rush.

Is the concept of hell being used to make children behave a major problem in religious societies? How prevalent is it among religious people?

 

[Agent327]

That would be like saying the universe is concerned about the scientific method? We are the product of the universe, but yet we are concerned with the scientific method.

People tend to forget that Seth was born in Adam's image. Thus humans are no longer the image of God. Adam had lost God's image as part of his punishment.

I'm sorry, which part of the Bible is this from? (Also, ofcourse, I was taking "in God's image" metaphorically, not literally, as the latter makes little sense. But even when doing so, genetically speaking, Adam - and all his offspring - would still be "in God's image" even accepting the idea that he somehow lost that "image" as a punishment from God. If taken literally - possible, but implausible - then the Garden of Eden should be somewhere in subtropical Africa. But best not go there...)

That is not true. Very time God was about to bring judgement upon those who were sinned, he always had someone to forewarn them. God had Noah preaching for about 100 years the coming judgement of God because of the wickedness of men. God sent some Angels to Sodom and Gomorrah to tell Lot and his family to get out due to the wickedness of the cities and because of Lot's fallen stature, when he tried to tell others about it, they just laughed it off. Every judgement pronounced upon mankind, whether as a whole, for nations or for individuals has always come with a warning. If they heed the warning, like they did in Nineveh, then God will spare his judgement, but in every other case, they ignored the warning and as a result they got judged.

That's hardly an argument: having someone preach for 100 years (?) the "coming judgement"? Small wonder his warnings went unheeded. And again, being omiscient, God would have known this result from the outset.

Despite all God's chastizements and cruel punishments He seems to have been unable to weed out his evil from His creations. That points either towards a very shortsighted god or a hopeleslly naive god or - last alternative - a very sadistic god. It certainly doesn't point towards an omniscient and perfectly good being.

At any rate, I was using the story of Adam as an example, not as something to be taken literally.

As usual you ignore the fact we are living in a cursed universe now, because of man's sin. At the end of Genesis 1 God said that all was "very good", but now we are living in a world and universe full of suffering. Genesis 3 tells of the story of why the current world we live in is not perfect, because of our sin.

For one, the universe is a whole lot bigger than our tiny planet Earth. Whether the universe is perfect has little to do with the acts of man.

Romans 5:12-21 shows us that as a result of one man's sin, we all suffer as a result. But now we have hope of redemption by one man's sinlessness. Romans 8:18-23 tells us that the whole universe is suffering and waiting for the redemption that we are going to have.

Again, it is not the universe that is "suffering", merely the human part of this planet here. But suffering isn't limited to humans, all animals can experience it. Genesis does little to explain that. (Unless ofcourse all animals are "evil" or "dumb" and not worthy of human attention - but that would be a highly arrogant position, I would think.)

This brings up another interesting question, however. Why was this sacrifice timed to happen around 33 AD? It seems a completely random date, with which only a divine Being could come up with. (Another question is, ofcourse, why choose Judea, where most of the inhabitants would spurn such a false messiah?)

 

[Mouthwash]

For one, the universe is a whole lot bigger than our tiny planet Earth. Whether the universe is perfect has little to do with the acts of man.

My Rabbi says that the entire universe was created just for man (to gaze at, presumably), and that there couldn't possibly be intelligent life out there because God would have had to communicate with them as well yet could only ever be one perfect Torah. Hence God wouldn't have created alien life as man is the perfect being with the only Torah.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As opposed to starting a new thread, i'd pose the question here.

Why is that many seemingly 'intelligent/intellectual/knowledgeable scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. still believe in the existence God, when there does not seem to me to be any real hard evidence that these professionals would call for in their own careers, to verify the existence, except 'faith'.

If anything, this was one of the initial reasons I decided to try to investigate God's existence for myself. If people like the above believe in God, there must be something to it, i.e. they have found evidence, therefore so should I (eventually).

However, no amount of searching for evidence (outside the words of the Bible), could I find any real evidence at all. Anyone I spoke to said, you simply have to have 'faith' to 'believe'. Which is in effect, no evidence at all. And as we know anecdotes from others is not evidence, except to the person who experienced the particular event.

In addition, if we assume, that the events others describe in the Bible are also simply personal anecdotes, then that makes the Bible evidence even more flimsy. It should be noted that I consider the Bible only one source of information and I need to have evidence outside the Bible to corroborate whether an actual event really took place.

Am I wrong to look for evidence outside the Bible to verify the existence of God, if so how?

The search for Truth is a personal journey we all make in one fashion or another. For many it leads to one version or another of the "Big Four": Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. For others the path leads to agnostic, atheist, or one of the many lesser known religions such as Bahai, Mormonism, Jain, etc. There are ways to ease your way intellectually into some of these. But you need to understand that your mind will only get you so far. The intellect is limited and stifles investigation into may of the deepest corners of religion can go.

These are all slim volumes that may serve to introduce you to non western thinking:

Siddhartha by Herman Hesse
Bhagavad Gita
The Prophet by Kahil Gibran
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts

 

[Mouthwash]

Siddhartha by Herman Hesse

This book almost changed my life. It would have, except I forgot about it fairly quickly and got into Nietzsche (upon whom the aforementioned honor is bestowed).

 

[timtofly]

I'm sorry, which part of the Bible is this from? (Also, ofcourse, I was taking "in God's image" metaphorically, not literally, as the latter makes little sense. But even when doing so, genetically speaking, Adam - and all his offspring - would still be "in God's image" even accepting the idea that he somehow lost that "image" as a punishment from God. If taken literally - possible, but implausible - then the Garden of Eden should be somewhere in subtropical Africa. But best not go there...)

Genesis 5:1-3 makes a point that man was prepared in God's likeness. The Apostle Paul recorded that "sin" entered the world through Adam. When Seth was born in Adam's likeness mankind carried on the fallen state of Adam, not the perfect state of God's likeness. That is why I don't hold to the belief that the sons of God were angels. The sons of God make more sense as humans that still retained the likeness of God. Even Cain, had this likeness. He murdered his brother yet lived a protected life, that was not to be destroyed. The only judgment given to this race of man was total destruction during the flood of Noah.

The reason that Jesus came when he did, was because the ages of humanity that went on before were finished.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'm pretty sure that no part of the bible says that Adam lost God's image as part of his punishment.

It may be worth noting that the common Hebrew word for a god ("El," the singular form of "Elohim") literally means "mighty one" and does not always necessarily have to denote a divinity. It was occasionally used to refer to powerful human warriors or kings without any supernatural abilities. Bənê hāʼĕlōhîm (בני האלהי&#1501 could be translated as "sons of the the mighty ones" rather than "sons of God."


I was rather surprised on the Sunday before last when the pastor at my family's church (who was doing a sermon on Numbers 13, and included a reference to Genesis 6) plainly stated that fallen angels had sexual relations with women and produced offspring who are not quite human. He also strongly implied that this still happens today.

I am definitely not a fan of that interpretation. It makes way for all kinds of silly superstitions about cambions. The claim implies that some people are born irredeemably evil, and is closely associated with the promoters of genocide. (Most Jews think the phrase refers to humans, but there is a tiny fringe group who argues that the Palestinians are descended from fallen angels and so deserve to be exterminated.) It does not seem compatible with the teachings of Jesus himself, including claim in Matthew 22 that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. (There are a couple verses in Jude and II Peter that may vaguely allude to such relations, but Plotinus has led me to doubt the authenticity of those books anyway.)

 

[_random_]

Aren't angels supposed to be incorporeal? Although they can wrestle, apparently. I actually don't totally get that.

 

[Agent327]

My Rabbi says that the entire universe was created just for man (to gaze at, presumably), and that there couldn't possibly be intelligent life out there because God would have had to communicate with them as well yet could only ever be one perfect Torah. Hence God wouldn't have created alien life as man is the perfect being with the only Torah.

I thought the point of the whole Genesis story is about man being imperfect. Which goes back to my point: if God created the (perfect) universe, why include something as imperfect as man, which needs constant correction, admonition and punishment?

Genesis 5:1-3 makes a point that man was prepared in God's likeness. The Apostle Paul recorded that "sin" entered the world through Adam. When Seth was born in Adam's likeness mankind carried on the fallen state of Adam, not the perfect state of God's likeness.

Where does this "perfect state of God's likeness" enter the picture? It's not mentioned in Genesis, which only declares that man is created in God's likeness sec.

That is why I don't hold to the belief that the sons of God were angels. The sons of God make more sense as humans that still retained the likeness of God. Even Cain, had this likeness. He murdered his brother yet lived a protected life, that was not to be destroyed. The only judgment given to this race of man was total destruction during the flood of Noah.

The reason that Jesus came when he did, was because the ages of humanity that went on before were finished.

That's not really an explanation. Every "age of humanity" will be finished at some point. So why this specific point in time? The ages of humanity passed weren't worth saving?

I was rather surprised on the Sunday before last when the pastor at my family's church (who was doing a sermon on Numbers 13, and included a reference to Genesis 6) plainly stated that fallen angels had sexual relations with women and produced offspring who are not quite human. He also strongly implied that this still happens today.

Does your rabbi also agree with witchraft trials? Having relations with the devil frequently occurred as a pretext.

II am definitely not a fan of that interpretation. It makes way for all kinds of silly superstitions about cambions. The claim implies that some people are born irredeemably evil, and is closely associated with the promoters of genocide. (Most Jews think the phrase refers to humans, but there is a tiny fringe group who argues that the Palestinians are descended from fallen angels and so deserve to be exterminated.)

The Palestinians? The inhabitants of Israel since Jesus' time? So import Israelis think they have an argument against the people who originally lived there? Do they also use Exodus references to "justify" this?

Aren't angels supposed to be incorporeal? Although they can wrestle, apparently. I actually don't totally get that.

Angels usually act as messenger of God; whether they "are" corporeal or not seems somehow irrelevant here. They certainly can manifest as corporeal.

 

[timtofly]

I'm pretty sure that no part of the bible says that Adam lost God's image as part of his punishment.

It may be worth noting that the common Hebrew word for a god ("El," the singular form of "Elohim") literally means "mighty one" and does not always necessarily have to denote a divinity. It was occasionally used to refer to powerful human warriors or kings without any supernatural abilities. Bənê hāʼĕlōhîm (בני האלהי&#1501 could be translated as "sons of the the mighty ones" rather than "sons of God."


I was rather surprised on the Sunday before last when the pastor at my family's church (who was doing a sermon on Numbers 13, and included a reference to Genesis 6) plainly stated that fallen angels had sexual relations with women and produced offspring who are not quite human. He also strongly implied that this still happens today.

I am definitely not a fan of that interpretation. It makes way for all kinds of silly superstitions about cambions. The claim implies that some people are born irredeemably evil, and is closely associated with the promoters of genocide. (Most Jews think the phrase refers to humans, but there is a tiny fringe group who argues that the Palestinians are descended from fallen angels and so deserve to be exterminated.) It does not seem compatible with the teachings of Jesus himself, including claim in Matthew 22 that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. (There are a couple verses in Jude and II Peter that may vaguely allude to such relations, but Plotinus has led me to doubt the authenticity of those books anyway.)

It is interesting that Jesus allegedly said that about angels, when different sects of that time were pushing the Book of Enoch, which clearly seemed to be in contradiction.

Paul stated that Adam's choice constituted sin. Jesus' obedience constituted righteousness. Sin embodies more than just a fallen nature, but a total loss of God likeness. Morals only bring peace between humans. Morals do not redeem humans to God. Only the obedience of Jesus restores God's likeness back to Adam/mankind.


@ Jeelen

Have you read any of the gnostic writings of Jesus' time? They taught that there had already been several different ages of human existence that had come and gone. The western tradition is that there are only two ages. The Bible never specifies just two ages. There were two covenants, the new and the old, but they have only a slight bearing on ages. There were several covenants that make up the OT, but people usually just place them altogether.

There was enough difference in the way Adam was and those created with him, that men refer to them as a totally different type of human, even as angels. Seth was not the same type. The Bible clearly states it was in Adam's image and not God's that Seth was born. 2 Peter states that the old world perished and only Noah and seven others survived. After that the days of mankind were shortened. Genesis was not about an imperfect creation, but a perfect creation that was changed. Even Jesus taught a difference in the physical and the spiritual. To be in God's image, one has to accept the spiritual as one with the flesh. Most people today dismiss the spiritual as being too mystical and hard to understand.

It is not that ages are not worth saving, but that humans left to themselves, tend to forget God and create him back into other forms. Even perfect Adam could not resist the temptation to disobey God. If you think that Adam was not perfect, then he would not have been able to walk and talk with God, face to face. As MagisterCultuum pointed out, this is getting into the territory that God is able to create evil. Or that some humans were created for good and some for bad. Even stating in the NT that "many are called and few are chosen" seems to imply that not every one gets an invitation. Most people today do point out that God is mostly about judgment and destruction. It is kind of hard to argue against all that evidence.

@ _random_

The OT seems to paint them as messengers, which then sorta transition into God in the flesh. While some view Jacob wrestling with an angel, other's would say it was God himself that wrestled. They may just be the method of getting one's attention, and then God himself reveals the actual message or encounter.