Jimmy Carter Quits Baptist Church

[PeteS in CA]

I've been following this story (i.e., the one about Carter) over on another discussion board. Here are excerpts from several articles I posted there, with the comments I made:

Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, and Other Ex-Presidents Slam Christian Churches for Not Ordaining Women
By John-Henry Westen and Patrick B. Craine

July 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A grouping of twelve ex-world leaders convened by billionaire Richard Branson and Nelson Mandela who refer to themselves as "The Elders" has attacked the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and any other religious tradition that refuses to permit women to become ministers, priests, or bishops. In the media campaign for the new initiative, former US President Jimmy Carter notes that he left the Southern Baptists because women are "prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."
...
The group describes itself as "an independent group of eminent global leaders" who work together to promote peace and the "shared interests of humanity," and to fight human suffering. In addition to Mandela and Carter, "the Elders" include ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; former Irish Prime Minister and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson; Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who serves as chairman; former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland; former Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, and others.

Here's the larger, elitist context of former Pres. Carter's publicity stunt.

* * * * * * * * * *

Jimmy Carter on Religion: The Gospel of Oppression?
By Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Fri, Jul. 24 2009 12:47 PM EDT

Carter suggests that accepting these teachings pushes women into an inferior role to men. He also seems to draw a parallel between such teaching and the horrors of forced prostitution, genital mutilation, rape, and slavery.

The Washington Post/Newsweek blog “On Faith” asked my response. What I told them was that, with all due respect, I find Carter’s statement imprudent and presumptuous. His statement paints every religious tradition with the same brush.

It is true that some have abused Scripture in pursuing oppressive agendas, like arguments for slavery, apartheid, and the denial of rights to women and minorities. But these abuses cannot be supported by an appeal to God’s word ...

Former Pres. Carter is so past the time of his Presidency, and his behavior has been so egregious on so many levels that, excepting his title, given him over 30 years ago, he gets almost zero respect from me. Not that my opinion (or that of 100s of thousands or millions like me) matters much to him.

* * * * * * * * * *

Sorry, President Carter ... This Argument Falls Flat
By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sun, Jul. 26 2009 06:20 AM EDT

Back in October of 2000, President Carter sent a letter to some 75,000 Baptists, indicating that he intended to separate himself from the Southern Baptist Convention - a denomination with which he had historically been associated through church membership, public identification, and personal involvement. He spoke of this as "a painful decision" that was made necessary by the convention's stated convictions on a number of issues. For some years, Mr. Carter had been publicly identified with the more liberal wing of Southern Baptist life. He was well known for holding liberal positions on an entire range of issues that set him at odds with the denomination. ...
...
While acknowledging that he has not been trained "in religion or theology," he went on to argue that "the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths."

All this fits a pattern for which Mr. Carter is now well known. He simply rejects the texts in the Bible that clearly establish different roles for men and women in the church and the home. He dismisses these verses for the simple reason that he also rejects the inerrancy of the Bible.

He may well be the world's most famous Sunday School teacher, but over just the last several years he has publicly expressed his rejection of the belief that persons must come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. He has also stated that his faith would not be shaken if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. His denial of biblical inerrancy is not merely theoretical - he actually operates on the assumption that at least some texts of the Bible are false, untruthful, malignantly oppressive, and thus untrustworthy.

Mohler is the President of an SBC seminary, and a candidate for the Presidency of the SBC, until a health problem forced him to withdraw from that election.

Mohler provides very useful historical background, background that shows that former Pres. Carter is playing cynical PR games that are predicated on the MSM's and most of Americans' lack of awareness of how the SBC is organized.

The dishonesty (my choice of words) Mohler points out is an old, familiar story: pretending to be true to Christianity while capriciously rejecting large parts of the foundation of Christianity.

[BRamey]

Seems odd to say the least for Carter to be objecting to something that has apparently always been the case, so he didn't mind all those years until now?

I also happen to know someone who went to Southwestern Seminary in Wake Forest and the fight has been between the liberals and the consersatives, which the conservatives won and the community liked it better when it was more liberal since they tended to "party" along with members of the school. Not to mention, when the conservatives won and were restructuring and going through buildings, it was common to find mattresses in the attics with homosexual pornography found too. So that might be why some didn't like the liberalization of the school and church.

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by jtdc

I agree. I consider myself agnostic. I see the complexity of DNA and can't accept that it just happened. But I also see the contradictions in the Bible where the stars and the speed of light contradict the young universe described in the Bible. And the stories in the Bible of God's chosen people who seem to have been the most abused, and babies suffering, and disasters hitting seemingly innocents, it, to me, is a contradiction to a god of love. So I am on the fence.

I have a different "theory" altogether. (okay, here comes the torrent of disapproving Smilies)...

There is an unseen intelligence in the universe, which is God. God was everything all in one place, but was lonely, so he/it spread himself out (big bang) knowing that it was inevitable that we would be eventually created. When our brains were able to handle it, we were endowed with souls so that we would be able to ponder the possibility that (amongst other things) all of this was more than just randomness, and that there was the possibility of something much greater than ourselves.

The reason why innocent people suffer is that God has only established the physical rules of the game by which life is lived. It's the mental part (being good) which matters most, thus interference is not necessary. Not everyone will be asked to "join the stream of consciousness" after their physical life is over.

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

I have a different "theory" altogether. (okay, here comes the torrent of disapproving Smilies)...

There is an unseen intelligence in the universe, which is God. God was everything all in one place, but was lonely, so he/it spread himself out (big bang) knowing that it was inevitable that we would be eventually created. When our brains were able to handle it, we were endowed with souls so that we would be able to ponder the possibility that (amongst other things) all of this was more than just randomness, and that there was the possibility of something much greater than ourselves.

The reason why innocent people suffer is that God has only established the physical rules of the game by which life is lived. It's the mental part (being good) which matters most, thus interference is not necessary. Not everyone will be asked to "join the stream of consciousness" after their physical life is over.

I'll state some of my beliefs - and I don't care if some ridicule. Everyone is free to believe as they see fit.

Freedom is where I'll start. Freedom is first principles with God. God created mankind to be free - free to choose how to live and what to believe. This is, more or less, illustrated by all the different views on this forum alone. God is loving, and hopes that we will love Him. Love is impossible without freedom.

Folks ask why evil exists. Evil started with the Devil and will continue as long as he and his followers exist. God could have destroyed the Devil immediately, but then He would be served out of fear, not love, and that would be unacceptable. Alternately, God could have wiped out all memory of the Devil. That too would be unacceptable, since we would be like computers, knowing only part of the truth, and unable to freely choose.

God chose instead to let each choose whether God was right or if the Devil, God's accuser, was right. God has dealt with mankind in various ways. In the end, no one will be able to say, "if God had just done thus and so, mankind would have turned to Him in mass."

Jesus, God's Son (whatever that means), came to earth, lived, and died, suffering death in our place. In the end, if the Devil says of someone who has chosen to accept this gift, "Johnny did these horrible deeds and deserves to die." Jesus can say, "I died in Johnny's place so that he can continue to live." The Devil will have no answer to that. God created us with freedom even though He knew that doing so would cause great suffering for both God and His Son. Why? Because freedom is required to have love.

Do innocent suffer? Certainly. Foremost Jesus. When anyone suffers, innocent or not, God, with infinite sympathy, suffers too. This is easily illustrated by the suffering of a parent who watches his child suffer. The suffering is a result of the Devil's rebellion against God. Could God stop the suffering? Of course, but freedom requires that the experiment continue without God's thumb on the scales.

When the experiment is complete, all will acknowledge that God is loving and just, and that those who rebel against God are wrong. The suffering will seem as nothing when compared to living in perfection forever.

My political views start with freedom also. If God wants us to be free, what right does some earthly ruler have to restrict our freedom?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

There is an unseen intelligence in the universe, which is God. God was everything all in one place, but was lonely, so he/it spread himself out (big bang) knowing that it was inevitable that we would be eventually created.

This would seem at odds with the Bible. The words in Genesis tell of God deliberately creating the heavens, earth and man. And my question still is what changed? What was the motivation after eternity dormant for God or the Big Bang to suddenly happen?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

When our brains were able to handle it, we were endowed with souls so that we would be able to ponder the possibility that (amongst other things) all of this was more than just randomness, and that there was the possibility of something much greater than ourselves.

This would seem to go along with evolution.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

The reason why innocent people suffer is that God has only established the physical rules of the game by which life is lived. It's the mental part (being good) which matters most, thus interference is not necessary. Not everyone will be asked to "join the stream of consciousness" after their physical life is over.

So suffering, physical or mental, has no meaning to this loving god?

Originally Posted by Rafael

God created mankind to be free - free to choose how to live and what to believe. This is, more or less, illustrated by all the different views on this forum alone.

I don't see that as evidence of a greater being. It is more evidence of no organized pattern.

Originally Posted by Rafael

God is loving, and hopes that we will love Him.

That statement would fit Obama as well.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Rafael

Evil started with the Devil and will continue as long as he and his followers exist. God could have destroyed the Devil immediately, but then He would be served out of fear, not love, and that would be unacceptable.

This assumes that God did not create everything. So God was not alone. He had Lucifer among others. Is it a cosmic game of chess between these beings and we are just the game board? That is not evidence of love.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Jesus, God's Son (whatever that means), came to earth, lived, and died, suffering death in our place. In the end, if the Devil says of someone who has chosen to accept this gift, "Johnny did these horrible deeds and deserves to die." Jesus can say, "I died in Johnny's place so that he can continue to live." The Devil will have no answer to that.

Since the Bible refers to Jesus as God's son, the idea of them being one seems something conjured up, much as the Trinity is something conjured by people, but not the Bible.

And you argument about the Devil accepting Jesus death as payment, how many will the Devil accept for one savior? That's fuzzy math. You underestimate the intelligence of the Devil.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Foremost Jesus. When anyone suffers, innocent or not, God, with infinite sympathy, suffers too.

That Jesus had the power to save himself is hardly comparable to the average man. And while God's feeling may be hurt, it is hardly comparable to the physical suffering men must endure in this grand game.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Of course, but freedom requires that the experiment continue without God's thumb on the scales.

This is to say God isn't powerful at all. If God created the universe with the rules in place, he doesn't need any experiment to know the outcome.

Originally Posted by Rafael

When the experiment is complete, all will acknowledge that God is loving and just, and that those who rebel against God are wrong. The suffering will seem as nothing when compared to living in perfection forever.

Why have any negative speck in infinity? Love would be not experimenting on people.

Even among us three there are completely different concepts about what the Bible says and means. The is no consistency. And that chaos undermines any experiment.

[Rifleman]

NightMgr wrote: That's a false dichotomy that the right often attempts to use. If you believe in evolution, then you don't believe in Christ.

Perhaps that is true in your particular view of Christianity, but there are many who believe both. Belief in one does not negate belief in the other.

That is obviously false. If you or the left, was so tolerant, they wouldn't be so militanlty hostile to ID. You instead, try to negate my belief in Creation by citing "scientists" who both believe exclusively in evolution and those that believe in both. ID doesn't necessarily negate evolution, but you won't have that.

I would point out, too, that many believe things but with the evidence that the thing they believe can be studied and understood through reason without the miracle of faith. Like China. They consider that to not believe implies a conspiracy of such magnitude as to be unbelievable.

I've never been to China. I have seen no demonstration that China exists, and no direct evidence that it is there. The photos and all could be an elaborate ruse. The Chinese could all have had plastic surgery and really be from Norway. But, it's a simpler world view to believe China actually exists.

Also, from my understanding of the nature of China, I could learn to sail or fly and I could navigate my way to China and learn first hand. It requires no special insight or supernatural leap of faith that Christianity and other religions require. I could investigate the question and through reason and observation prove to myself that China exists. As I understand Christianity, no level of study and investigation is sufficient if I don't make that leap of faith.

So what! We are talking apples and oranges. Those people that had actually visited China would not be afraid to debate the issue, nor to provide evidence that China existed, nor require that everyone be required to learn everything about China including its history. You are mistaking the influence of faith. Someone can visit China, no one can go back and watch creation or evolution.

We live in a world of specialty. Time has past that "common sense" has the answers. Often the answer is not the one the wisdom of the masses knows, but it's one the masses could know through that practice many on the right seem to denigrate, education, without requiring any supernatural intervention.

"We live in a world of specialty." Specialty often means a limited competance or excelence in a limited area, but it is no guarantee, of wisdom nor insight. "Time has passed that "common sense" has the answers." Neithr does science. There is only so much that can be observed, and even then it requires an intelligence to percieve relationships and patterns. Therefore, when science is beyond its boundries, religion is equal to an unknown and unprovable scientific theory. Both exist only in the minds of men, and both are arisen from faith. "Often the answer is not the one the wisdom of the masses knows, but it's one the masses could know through that practice many on the right seem to denigrate, education, without requiring any supernatural intervention. Except, the education without supernatural intervention is easily proven to be false. When you take Evolution to it's ultimate first step. it's impossible. When you take life back to the very first cell, it's impossible. and when you take the Universe back to its beginning, which scienctists believe is the "Big Bang", it's impossible like the others by what has been observed. So what you are describing is a mass delusion.

FOunding Father wrote: I have a different "theory" altogether. (okay, here comes the torrent of disapproving Smilies)...

There is an unseen intelligence in the universe, which is God. God was everything all in one place, but was lonely, so he/it spread himself out (big bang) knowing that it was inevitable that we would be eventually created. When our brains were able to handle it, we were endowed with souls so that we would be able to ponder the possibility that (amongst other things) all of this was more than just randomness, and that there was the possibility of something much greater than ourselves.

The reason why innocent people suffer is that God has only established the physical rules of the game by which life is lived. It's the mental part (being good) which matters most, thus interference is not necessary. Not everyone will be asked to "join the stream of consciousness" after their physical life is over.

There are two thoughts, and FF you are not alone. One thought is that the Bible is written symbolically, or rather that many of the verses aren't realy literal. The other thought is that God IS omnipotent and the manner in which he created the universe makes it appear that it is older than it really is.

I have feelings towards both thoughts, and have reread Genesis sevearl times and see room even in a literal sense of time for things to happen, however, we must remember, that the age of the Earth as determined by "Scientists", reflects upon what was believable with respect to Evolution. [b]No one would EVER believe that Evolution occured in 20,000 years. So these millions of years were arbitrarily chosen and as scientists looked for methods to "prove the ages", they choose methods that suppoerted what was already believed. One of my "proofs" against Evolution involves the some 50 million base changes that occur between Chimpanzees and man, that supposedly occured in the 6 million year difference between man and chimp. There is simply not enough time to account for that kind of DNA change, and that doesn't even account for other changes that are even more difficult to make.

I also believe God is much more powerful that most people believe since they can't even concieve of things other than through their understanding. Since time IS relative, the universe may not be as old as it appear to be.

Anyway, if you have read Jimmy Carter's book, Our vanishing values or whatever it is called, you do not get the impression that Carter believes in Creation. Oh he talks as he believes in an Onipotent God, but in the end, it sounds as though Creation were a spiritual event where God took over the natural occurence of evolution, and lied about it, taking credit in Genesis. He similarly calls Abortion a tradgedy, like a young girl getting pregnant in a moment of passion, is perectly justified in killing her baby in order to attend college and have a future. Thus Carter avoids a moral delimma by default.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

however, we must remember, that the age of the Earth as determined by "Scientists", reflects upon what was believable with respect to Evolution. [b]No one would EVER believe that Evolution occured in 20,000 years. So these millions of years were arbitrarily chosen and as scientists looked for methods to "prove the ages", they choose methods that suppoerted what was already believed.

Like Carbon dating? Like light speed used to measure distance to celestial bodies? These tools, if grossly inaccurate, were made inaccurate by the creators to deceive!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I also believe God is much more powerful that most people believe since they can't even concieve of things other than through their understanding. Since time IS relative, the universe may not be as old as it appear to be.

"Relative" or "infinite"? If infinite, what purpose would there be in such a deception?

To expand on what I earlier said:

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

There is an unseen intelligence in the universe, which is God. God was everything all in one place, but was lonely, so he/it spread himself out (big bang) knowing that it was inevitable that we would be eventually created.

Look at John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

We have Satan, the other angels and somehow God had an only son to keep him company. Or did he one day decide to create all of these? And, of course, if the argument was that Jesus didn't exist until born of Mary, God's son was never sacrificed as he was resurrected. So you either think God was ignorant of what would come or knowingly orchestrated the events.

In Genesis God created man in his own image. In Genesis 1:20 God created creatures in the waters and the air. In Genesis 1:24 land animals were created. In Genesis 1:27 God created man and woman, in his image. Is that to say that God had women? That different sexes populated heaven? But then in Genesis 2:21 God took a rib from Adam and created a woman to be his companion, because he felt that Adam was lonely. But God had already created men and women in verse 1:27. Already in the beginning of the Bible, something doesn't add up.

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There are two thoughts, and FF you are not alone. One thought is that the Bible is written symbolically, or rather that many of the verses aren't realy literal. The other thought is that God IS omnipotent and the manner in which he created the universe makes it appear that it is older than it really is.

I have feelings towards both thoughts, and have reread Genesis sevearl times and see room even in a literal sense of time for things to happen, however, we must remember, that the age of the Earth as determined by "Scientists", reflects upon what was believable with respect to Evolution. [b]No one would EVER believe that Evolution occured in 20,000 years. So these millions of years were arbitrarily chosen and as scientists looked for methods to "prove the ages", they choose methods that suppoerted what was already believed. One of my "proofs" against Evolution involves the some 50 million base changes that occur between Chimpanzees and man, that supposedly occured in the 6 million year difference between man and chimp. There is simply not enough time to account for that kind of DNA change, and that doesn't even account for other changes that are even more difficult to make.

I also believe God is much more powerful that most people believe since they can't even concieve of things other than through their understanding. Since time IS relative, the universe may not be as old as it appear to be.

Anyway, if you have read Jimmy Carter's book, Our vanishing values or whatever it is called, you do not get the impression that Carter believes in Creation. Oh he talks as he believes in an Onipotent God, but in the end, it sounds as though Creation were a spiritual event where God took over the natural occurence of evolution, and lied about it, taking credit in Genesis. He similarly calls Abortion a tradgedy, like a young girl getting pregnant in a moment of passion, is perectly justified in killing her baby in order to attend college and have a future. Thus Carter avoids a moral delimma by default.

I think that the Bible was written with a combination of approaches, and that it's possible that some of the passages were somewhat distorted before being written down.

Of course an omnipotent "being" could make things look like anything he wanted, but assuming that he didn't, scientists have to use whatever's at their disposal to determine the age of things, and how long certain processes take. If you believe the carbon dating technique, then it takes millions of years for complex animals to really differentiate from each other significantly.

So, that leaves one thinking, "well, if we're the ultimate end product for this project, why wouldn't an omnipotent being just snap his fingers (as it were) and do it instantaneously?". So, that's why I guess that the term "and God created man in his own image" didn't mean *poof*, a man suddenly popped up out of thin air, but instead, was the moment when we were ready to receive the gift of "awareness" if you will.

I certainly don't know anything for sure except that I'm glad that we have the ability to wonder about all of it.

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Why have any negative speck in infinity? Love would be not experimenting on people.

Even among us three there are completely different concepts about what the Bible says and means. The is no consistency. And that chaos undermines any experiment.

I reject your conclusions as irrational - and you reject my conclusions. The experiment is God's only choice if He wants us to be free. If you don't understand this, then it all makes no sense. I didn't see freedom mentioned anywhere in your response whereas I started with the importance of freedom.

Further, you state what you conclude that I am assuming. What you conclude isn't sure to be so. For example, I don't believe that there was any time when there were no created beings. That would require that there be an infinite number of created beings and there is no first one. Before you dismiss this, consider that there is no smallest integer. You are likely not in the habit of considering the properties of infinite sets.

You are correct; the Devil is very smart. Far smarter than you or I. Still, he is going to die - as smart as he is.

One point of clarification. The great experiment isn't to inform God. It is to convince others that God is not guilty of the charges leveled at Him by the Devil. It allows all to decide for themselves, on the evidence. It is required for the universe to be free.

You believe what you like. Thanks to God, you are free to do so.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

I think that the Bible was written with a combination of approaches, and that it's possible that some of the passages were somewhat distorted before being written down.

That isn't speaking highly of the "Word Of God"!

Originally Posted by Rafael

The experiment is God's only choice if He wants us to be free.

Then you are saying that God really doesn't have much control over anything.

Originally Posted by Rafael

If you don't understand this, then it all makes no sense. I didn't see freedom mentioned anywhere in your response whereas I started with the importance of freedom.

Or the illusion of freedom! If you are born into poverty, born into wealth, born to abusive parents, born to caring parents, born with health problems or born with good health, this is not freedom. All of these combinations contributed to the outcome of the "experiment". It is a "controlled experiment". So there is no freedom. Only an illusion of freedom.

Originally Posted by Rafael

For example, I don't believe that there was any time when there were no created beings. That would require that there be an infinite number of created beings and there is no first one.

So God was never alone, in your opinion. And if there was no time when there were "no" created beings, people have always been. There is only change. Again that takes away from the "Word of God" that there was a "beginning".

Originally Posted by Rafael

You are likely not in the habit of considering the properties of infinite sets.

It serves no purpose in such discussions.

Originally Posted by Rafael

You are correct; the Devil is very smart.

Originally Posted by jtdc

And you argument about the Devil accepting Jesus death as payment, how many will the Devil accept for one savior? That's fuzzy math. You underestimate the intelligence of the Devil.

I do not believe in the Devil. That is your belief. And my comment was about you underestimating a concoction of your belief.

Originally Posted by Rafael

One point of clarification. The great experiment isn't to inform God. It is to convince others that God is not guilty of the charges leveled at Him by the Devil. It allows all to decide for themselves, on the evidence. It is required for the universe to be free.

So who is this tribunal that God is accountable to? So if you are caught in a burning house or car slowly being killed, that pain will make you more valuable to sit in judgment of God? Will it make you a better person if you survive and must be cared for by others for the remainder of your days? Do you delude yourself that your story will benefit others more than God could if he spoke to them directly or made their life better?

None of that is hardly logical. It is a leap of faith supported by conjured explanations, but not facts.

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Then you are saying that God really doesn't have much control over anything.

There you go again, telling me what I'm saying.

Or the illusion of freedom! If you are born into poverty, born into wealth, born to abusive parents, born to caring parents, born with health problems or born with good health, this is not freedom. All of these combinations contributed to the outcome of the "experiment". It is a "controlled experiment". So there is no freedom. Only an illusion of freedom.

Perhaps you are not free - or at least think you are not.

So God was never alone, in your opinion. And if there was no time when there were "no" created beings, people have always been. There is only change. Again that takes away from the "Word of God" that there was a "beginning".

Obviously many things had a beginning. God didn't.

It serves no purpose in such discussions.

If you don't understand the properties of infinite sets, that's what you would think.

I do not believe in the Devil. That is your belief. And my comment was about you underestimating a concoction of your belief.

Lets see. You were telling me that the Devil is smarter than I think - but now you say that the Devil doesn't exist? Curious.

So who is this tribunal that God is accountable to?

I said nothing like that - and I take it you do not believe God exists. (You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.) What are you talking about?

So if you are caught in a burning house or car slowly being killed, that pain will make you more valuable to sit in judgment of God?

No.

Will it make you a better person if you survive and must be cared for by others for the remainder of your days?

No.

Do you delude yourself that your story will benefit others more than God could if he spoke to them directly or made their life better?

No. BTW, how do you know that God has not made your life better?

None of that is hardly logical. It is a leap of faith supported by conjured explanations, but not facts.

So you conclude. That is your free choice.

Could your life be better?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rafael

There you go again, telling me what I'm saying.

When you say your god's only choice is an experiment, that is to say he is quite limited in what he is capable of. So you leave it to me to interpret for you.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Perhaps you are not free - or at least think you are not.

I know I am not. And if you feel that God is experimenting on you, and you did not choose to be experimented on, you are definitely not free either.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Obviously many things had a beginning. God didn't.

At least that's the way the story goes. Obviously God and Lucifer had quite a history, before this "beginning". Perhaps a family feud?

Originally Posted by Rafael

Lets see. You were telling me that the Devil is smarter than I think - but now you say that the Devil doesn't exist? Curious.

You put up this hypothetical to outsmart the Devil, not I. I don't have to believe the existence of the Devil to see the flaw in your thinking.

Originally Posted by Rafael

I said nothing like that

You said:

Originally Posted by Rafael

The great experiment isn't to inform God. It is to convince others that God is not guilty of the charges leveled at Him by the Devil.

Who are "the others"? If God has the need to prove himself to them by experimenting on humans, they must have authority over him. Or is it just his ego that must be satisfied? He doesn't want those "others" to think him weak.

Originally Posted by Rafael

and I take it you do not believe God exists. (You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

I don't believe that the God described in the Bible exists. Like I said, there is a complexity in this universe that I can't fathom just happening.

When you look a various societies, there are beliefs in gods. In virtually every such culture there is a plurality of gods. And they usually are struggling for power. The beliefs of Judaeo/Christian culture seems to be no different. There is believed to be a power struggle between God and Lucifer. And you seem to believe that God is experimenting on us as part of his struggle to remain the top dog.

Originally Posted by Rafael

What are you talking about?

Not sure what you were referring to with that question.

Originally Posted by Rafael

No.

My guess is that if you retain you memories of those last painful minutes on earth you would be a bitter, prejudiced juror.

Originally Posted by Rafael

No.

Then what purpose can there be to torture humans in this experiment?

Originally Posted by Rafael

BTW, how do you know that God has not made your life better?

Because I have seen the ups and downs. I have seen my family members abused and I was helpless to protect them. That is not evidence of a loving, helpful god. Now if this is all an experiment, it is evidence of a dispassionate cruel god. And I will not sing praises for bad deeds like those who when their children have just died, say God must have had a reason. That is delusion to justify what is bad.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Could your life be better?

Of course. There have been good times in my life. But inevitably they come to an end. And the good time have not outweighed the bad. So I would rather not have taken the ride.

Discussion of religion often brings contentious feelings out. Misapplication of religion destroyed my life in my childhood. It wasn't a choice I made. I had a grade school English teacher who absolutely loved English. But neither I nor most of the kids in class could relate to words with the love she felt. It is sort of like Obama using words like "calibrate" to street kids. He is not likely to communicate. But these are the curves thrown in to this "experiment".

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by jtdc

When you say your god's only choice is an experiment, that is to say he is quite limited in what he is capable of. So you leave it to me to interpret for you.

But you get it wrong most of the time. No reason you should know my thoughts, but you claim to anyway. You just aren't that sharp.

I know I am not. And if you feel that God is experimenting on you, and you did not choose to be experimented on, you are definitely not free either.

God is not experimenting. He is permitting the Devil to play out his hand, and in doing so he will show that God is right. In what sense are you not free. Can you believe any religion you choose - or none? Do you think you should have rights that God does not respect?

You put up this hypothetical to outsmart the Devil,

No I didn't.

I don't have to believe the existence of the Devil to see the flaw in your thinking.

Uh-Huh

You said:Who are "the others"?

I did? Naaah.

If God has the need to prove himself to them by experimenting on humans, they must have authority over him.

As I said, God is not experimenting on humans. As usual, you leap to an incorrect conclusion. Has it occurred to you that allowing created beings to see the truth for themselves is for their benefit?

Or is it just his ego that must be satisfied? He doesn't want those "others" to think him weak.

Why should God want them to believe a falsehood?

I don't believe that the God described in the Bible exists.

I do.

When you look a various societies, there are beliefs in gods. In virtually every such culture there is a plurality of gods. And they usually are struggling for power. The beliefs of Judaeo/Christian culture seems to be no different. There is believed to be a power struggle between God and Lucifer.

Lucifer would like to be a god, but he was created.

Not sure what you were referring to with that question.

No? Well you deleted my explanation. You said:

So who is this tribunal that God is accountable to?

I never spoke of any tribunal that God is accountable to. Hence my question.

Then what purpose can there be to torture humans in this experiment?

What indeed? God said to love one another. God does not promote torture. As long as folks are choosing against God, choosing not to love one another, there will be suffering. If everyone followed God's admonition to love one another, then things would be much better.

Because I have seen the ups and downs. I have seen my family members abused and I was helpless to protect them. That is not evidence of a loving, helpful god.

How do you know that it couldn't have been worse?

[NightMgr]

In what sense are you not free.

In the sense of the kind of freedom the creator of the universe and designer matter and space could have given me, I'm bound by physical and material laws such as gravity. I cannot bi-locate. I occupy space. I require a specific set of environmental circumstances to remain functioning, so I'm limited as to geography with most of the universe hostile to my physical existence. I can't go strolling on Venus, the sun, or the bottom of the ocean.

There are all manner of physical limitations put upon us because of our design.

[NightMgr]

What indeed? God said to love one another. God does not promote torture. As long as folks are choosing against God, choosing not to love one another, there will be suffering. If everyone followed God's admonition to love one another, then things would be much better.

Never spent much time in a pediatric cancer ward, have you?

I'd be sure to get up there and point out that their failure to follow God's admonition is why their 4 year old is spending the last weeks of his life in there. Point out their kid is choosing against God and to not love one another. I'm sure they'll agree that the pain is just punishment.

[BRamey]

Bottom line is those that believe in a Creator are not going to have their minds changed in these forums any more than those that do not believe will. The thread was about Carter leaving the Baptist Church, which there are a few Baptists I know that are happy and celebrating.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Rafael

I'll state some of my beliefs - and I don't care if some ridicule. Everyone is free to believe as they see fit.

Freedom is where I'll start. Freedom is first principles with God. God created mankind to be free - free to choose how to live and what to believe. This is, more or less, illustrated by all the different views on this forum alone. God is loving, and hopes that we will love Him. Love is impossible without freedom.

I wholeheartedly agree! Is love truly real if it is not freely given? What could be more precious (and real! ) to an omnipotent being than a gift of love than is not dependent upon this being's omnipotence?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rafael

But you get it wrong most of the time. No reason you should know my thoughts, but you claim to anyway.

Your failure to communicate!

Originally Posted by Rafael

God is not experimenting.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Of course, but freedom requires that the experiment continue without God's thumb on the scales.

When the experiment is complete, all will acknowledge that God is loving and just, and that those who rebel against God are wrong.

Who, other than God, is running this experiment?

Originally Posted by Rafael

You put up this hypothetical to outsmart the Devil

Originally Posted by Rafael

Folks ask why evil exists. Evil started with the Devil and will continue as long as he and his followers exist. God could have destroyed the Devil immediately, but then He would be served out of fear, not love, and that would be unacceptable.

So God created man so he would have someone to sit in judgment as to whether he is right or the Devil is right? After all, according to the Bible, the Devil and God had a falling out before God decided to create everything that is.
And as to "freedom", the Bible describes the downfall of the Devil and his followers. This document written thousands of years ago. So destiny is written. Where is freedom? It is just another word you use to try to defend what must be taken on faith.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Alternately, God could have wiped out all memory of the Devil.

But God had not yet created man, so there was no one to have to erase memory from. Man's "knowledge" of the conflict between God and the Devil was something man only came to know because God allegedly told his side of the story in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Rafael

God chose instead to let each choose whether God was right or if the Devil, God's accuser, was right.

So mankind is the jury God created to sit in judgment of God? This powerful god couldn't deal with the Devil on his own so he created an army of people to help him take on the Devil?

Originally Posted by Rafael

the Devil is very smart.

So God has to create an inferior race to deal with him?

Originally Posted by Rafael

I did? Naaah.

Evidence that you are not actually in an honest discussion? Or is your faith so weak that you deny what is. Is that a cock crowing?

Originally Posted by Rafael

As I said, God is not experimenting on humans. As usual, you leap to an incorrect conclusion.

It is you said we are an experiment. I have asked you a couple of times who is running the experiment and you give a glib answer. So I am left to speculate who you mean because after your initial insinuation you seem afraid to say who you mean.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Has it occurred to you that allowing created beings to see the truth for themselves is for their benefit?

If they have no power to control their fate, no! The Bible speaks of the joys of the Garden of Eden. But God put temptation smack in the middle as a center piece. It wasn't the Devil who placed that temptation there. Then when man did what God supposedly designed them to do, he punished them. Such love! So if the truth for us to see is that this God who would treat us so sadistically is too powerful for us to do anything about, I would say that the truth would not benefit us.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Why should God want them to believe a falsehood?

Why do you present falsehoods? I guess like you (created in his image) wants to be entertained ("I did? Naaah.")

Originally Posted by Rafael

I do.

It seems to be a draw. Neither of us has proof.

Originally Posted by Rafael

Lucifer would like to be a god, but he was created.

Then God is responsible for creating all the evil in the universe!

Originally Posted by Rafael

No? Well you deleted my explanation. You said:

I never spoke of any tribunal that God is accountable to. Hence my question.

You said:

Originally Posted by Rafael

I said nothing like that - and I take it you do not believe God exists. (You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.) What are you talking about?

Your question could have been to my belief in God, which I felt was pretty clear, whether you said anything like that, or my use of the word "tribunal".

Originally Posted by Allwords.com

tribunal
noun
an assembly including one or more judges to conduct judiciary, judicial business; a court of law

You said

Originally Posted by Rafael

It is to convince others that God is not guilty of the charges leveled at Him by the Devil.

Kind of sounds like what you said. I know that you want to squirm out of what you said via a word game. But that is, essentially, what you said.

Originally Posted by Rafael

God does not promote torture.

Of course not. He, like Pontious Pilate, washes his hands of it. It was the tsunami, the tornado, the floods that killed and tortured, not God. God was helpless to do anything about these indiscriminate natural disasters.

Originally Posted by Rafael

As long as folks are choosing against God, choosing not to love one another, there will be suffering.

Even if they are worshiping God in church, they are not safe! God created evil and allows it to continue, but you will praise God as love!

Originally Posted by Rafael

If everyone followed God's admonition to love one another, then things would be much better.

At least that's that claim by believers.

Originally Posted by Rafael

How do you know that it couldn't have been worse?

I don't!

[NightMgr]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I wholeheartedly agree! Is love truly real if it is not freely given? What could be more precious (and real! ) to an omnipotent being than a gift of love than is not dependent upon this being's omnipotence?

Not being omnipotent, how would anyone know what would be of value to such a being? I think that's speculation.

But, before one could answer a question like "is love real if not freely given", I think they'd have to define "love."

I think we ought also consider the Stockholm syndrome.

From wiki:

The Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological shift that occurs to captives when they are threatened gravely but shown acts of kindness by their captors. They tend to sympathize with their captors and think of them highly because they believe that their captors are showing fervor because of their inherent kindness and thus might not be as bad as they look. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that their captors are making choices based on their own discretion. When subjected to these situations for a period of time, the captive develops a strong bond with the captor and in some cases (especially with a captor of the opposite sex) develops a sexual interest.
According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, the tendency might well be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable — at the very least — the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defence mechanism of identification.[3]
This syndrome has also been explained in evolutionary terms, which highlights the fact that our ancestors sided with the tribes that captured them. In many cases, the capture may also involve the killing of the captive's relatives, thereby isolating the captive. The captive is subjected to isolation and so sees even a small act, such as providing amenities, as a great favor. They may side with their captors since they think the captors gave them great importance and love. This effect also stems from the fact that everybody other than the captive may have been killed, and thus the captive tends to think that (s)he is shown a special interest.

[jtdc]

Religion = Stockholm syndrome! Makes sense!