URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Even Greener Pastures
  HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Found on the Internet
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 9789--------------------------------------------------
       Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 1, 2018, 11:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Neal, here you go (if you’ve got the guts to listen to it):
  HTML https://youtu.be/WP65GbPX1Lg
       #Post#: 9801--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: NealC Date: December 1, 2018, 5:12 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Wow.  He really was a psychotic, self aggrandizing lunatic
       filled with bitterness and hate.  Scary.
       How much do you listen to him to be able to quote from him so
       readily?  How long did it take you to transcribe that Devil joke
       you used in your post the other day?  You almost got it word for
       word.  I would be frightened if I sounded as similar to him as
       you do.
       So in between the boasting and cursing he has the outline of a
       "If God is so great, why is there so much evil in the world?"
       argument.  Not even a coherent argument, just some rantings in
       between the ravings.  This destroys the Bible?  You think that
       Christian pastors and theologians haven't addressed this yet?
       This one got by us, as we obviously aren't nearly as smart as
       you and your buddy Jim?  Please.
       Here is a response, if you got the guts to listen to it.  All of
       it, just like I listened to Jim.
  HTML https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-333
       Since McArthur actually presents arguments within an
       intellectual framework, you might even be able to take notes.
       You will find some excuse not to do it.
       Not only do you not have the guts, you don't have the
       intellectual honesty.
       #Post#: 9806--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 1, 2018, 7:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I`ll be glad to listen to your clip. Mine was only 44 minutes
       long as I recall, and yours is over an hour, but I`ll be glad to
       listen to it from start to finish and tell you what I think.
       #Post#: 9808--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 1, 2018, 10:41 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I listened to MacArthur`s entire sermon and I must say he paints
       a terribly unflattering view of God. It was nice that he
       admitted God was the source of all evil in the world, and he did
       a good job of explaining how theologians have unsuccessfully
       tried in the past to get God „off the hook“ so-to-speak for evil
       in the world through various logical techniques (e.g., the „free
       will argument, and others).
       I found his 4 sources of evil argument confusing as to causes 1
       and 4. 1 was the „natural“ evil argument (hurricanes, disease,
       avalanches, etc) and number 4, hell. The problem with number 1
       is he is attributing „evil“ to impersonal forces. Is a hurricane
       „evil“? Is a virus „evil?“ It´s an odd argument, but one I`ve
       actually used myself by saying nature (however you define it)
       has caused more human and animal suffering in history than any
       man. A trip to the oncology ward of any children`s hospital will
       demonstrate that easily. The capriciousness of it all, the
       intensity of suffering is absolutely horrible. But, these
       catastrophes result from impersonal sources, so it`s a rather
       odd argument to call this „evil.“ Is a lightening bolt „evil“?
       If a child falls from the window of a high-rise building and
       dies, is it because gravity was evil? The argument can be
       carried to extremes that are actually comical. Is your car
       „evil“ because it broke down on you, when you needed it
       urgently?  (That sort of reminds me of the Fawlty Towers scene
       where Fawlty beats his car with a tree limb for breaking down on
       him when he needs it saying, „I`ve warned you time and time
       again.....`“ )
       So, that`s a bizarre argument and one he probably would have
       been wiser just leaving out of his sermon because  it leads to
       absurd conclusions and really adds nothing to what he wanted to
       say.
       The hell concept of „evil“ left me a bit baffled as well. That`s
       like saying a prison is evil because it houses evil people. I
       fail to see the logic there. Definitions 2 and 3 are easy,
       people and demons (if you believe in them) because personhood is
       attributed to them.  But, in the long run, none of it really
       matters I suppose.
       MacArthur does a good job, once he admits God is the source of
       all evil in the world and, not only that, but in fact wills it
       (his words were it was „ordained and controlled“ by God),  of
       keeping you in suspense to see how he`ll get out of this trap
       he`s set for himself, but he sort of fails at the end by
       concluding it`s okay that God is the source of evil, because God
       1) is sovereign and all powerful, so no one has any business
       questioning what he does, or why, and 2) he injects evil into
       the world to bring himself more „glory.“ I`m not sure what
       „glory“ is, but I assume it means more adoration, praise,
       worship, etc?
       He asked a rhetorical question in the middle of his sermon,
       „would God get more glory with evil in the world?
       (Paraphrasing.) I suppose he thinks the answer is an easy „yes“,
       but that wasnt`t my choice. My thoughts were quite the opposite.
       So, God is a massive egotist who craves more praise than he`d
       otherwise get without evil in the world, so he actually injects
       evil into the world to get more „glory“ and he deserves it
       because he has all the power.  That´s his God concept. While an
       imperfect analogy, how is this any different than saying Kim Jon
       Un deserves to do what he does because, in his country, he is
       all powerful (can arbitrarily decide life or death), purposely
       injects evil into the society to scare people into obedience and
       thus cause them to worship him all the more than they are
       already made to? I realize the counter-argument is „Well, Kim
       Jong UN didn`t create his people through supernatural power, so
       that`s different“? Okay. It´s a bit different, but fundamentally
       not much.
       This reminds me of Bertrand Russell´s opening few lines of „A
       Free Man`s Worship“ wherein he says,
       „To Dr. Faustus in his study Mephistophelis told the history of
       creation: „The endless praises of the choirs of angels had begun
       to grow wearisome; for, after all, did he not deserve their
       praise? Had he not given them endless joy? Would it not be more
       amusing to obtain undeserved praise, to be praised by beings
       whom he tortured? He smiled inwardly, and resolved that the
       great drama should be performed.......“
       This is all your Pastor MacArthur`s argument amounts to. God is
       such an incredible egotist that he injects evil into the world
       to obtain the worship of beings he has tortured (torture is
       evil). And, it`s right and just for God to do it because he has
       sovereignty over the world and created it all.
       So, that`s all MacArthur has to tell us? Quite a disappointment.
       And, in any event, his is a very old argument that Bertrand
       Russell summarized in a few opening lines of an essay he wrote
       in 1903.
       #Post#: 9815--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 2, 2018, 12:57 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There`s obviously more to Bertrand Russell`s introduction to A
       Free Man`s Worship, which is this:
       To Dr. Faustus in his study Mephistopheles told the history of
       the Creation, saying:
       "The endless praises of the choirs of angels had begun to grow
       wearisome; for, after all, did he not deserve their praise? Had
       he not given them endless joy? Would it not be more amusing to
       obtain undeserved praise, to be worshipped by beings whom he
       tortured? He smiled inwardly, and resolved that the great drama
       should be performed.
       "For countless ages the hot nebula whirled aimlessly through
       space. At length it began to take shape, the central mass threw
       off planets, the planets cooled, boiling seas and burning
       mountains heaved and tossed, from black masses of cloud hot
       sheets of rain deluged the barely solid crust. And now the first
       germ of life grew in the depths of the ocean, and developed
       rapidly in the fructifying warmth into vast forest trees, huge
       ferns springing from the damp mould, sea monsters breeding,
       fighting, devouring, and passing away. And from the monsters, as
       the play unfolded itself, Man was born, with the power of
       thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst
       for worship. And Man saw that all is passing in this mad,
       monstrous world, that all is struggling to snatch, at any cost,
       a few brief moments of life before Death's inexorable decree.
       And Man said: `There is a hidden purpose, could we but fathom
       it, and the purpose is good; for we must reverence something,
       and in the visible world there is nothing worthy of reverence.'
       And Man stood aside from the struggle, resolving that God
       intended harmony to come out of chaos by human efforts. And when
       he followed the instincts which God had transmitted to him from
       his ancestry of beasts of prey, he called it Sin, and asked God
       to forgive him. But he doubted whether he could be justly
       forgiven, until he invented a divine Plan by which God's wrath
       was to have been appeased. And seeing the present was bad, he
       made it yet worse, that thereby the future might be better. And
       he gave God thanks for the strength that enabled him to forgo
       even the joys that were possible. And God smiled; and when he
       saw that Man had become perfect in renunciation and worship, he
       sent another sun through the sky, which crashed into Man's sun;
       and all returned again to nebula.
       "`Yes,' he murmured, `it was a good play; I will have it
       performed again.
       ....
       The savage, like ourselves, feels the oppression of his
       impotence before the powers of Nature; but having in himself
       nothing that he respects more than Power, he is willing to
       prostrate himself before his gods, without inquiring whether
       they are worthy of his worship. Pathetic and very terrible is
       the long history of cruelty and torture, of degradation and
       human sacrifice, endured in the hope of placating the jealous
       gods: surely, the trembling believer thinks, when what is most
       precious has been freely given, their lust for blood must be
       appeased, and more will not be required. The religion of
       Moloch--as such creeds may be generically called--is in essence
       the cringing submission of the slave, who dare not, even in his
       heart, allow the thought that his master deserves no adulation.
       Since the independence of ideals is not yet acknowledged, Power
       may be freely worshipped, and receive an unlimited respect,
       despite its wanton infliction of pain.
       But gradually, as morality grows bolder, the claim of the ideal
       world begins to be felt; and worship, if it is not to cease,
       must be given to gods of another kind than those created by the
       savage. Some, though they feel the demands of the ideal, will
       still consciously reject them, still urging that naked Power is
       worthy of worship. Such is the attitude inculcated in God's
       answer to Job out of the whirlwind: the divine power and
       knowledge are paraded, but of the divine goodness there is no
       hint. Such also is the attitude of those who, in our own day,
       base their morality upon the struggle for survival, maintaining
       that the survivors are necessarily the fittest. But others, not
       content with an answer so repugnant to the moral sense, will
       adopt the position which we have become accustomed to regard as
       specially religious, maintaining that, in some hidden manner,
       the world of fact is really harmonious with the world of ideals.
       Thus Man creates God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic
       unity of what is and what should be.“
       Sounds like MacArthur´s theology, doesn`t it?
       #Post#: 9821--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: NealC Date: December 2, 2018, 3:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Very good Steven, I must admit I am surprised you took up the
       challenge, that is not something you would have done in the
       past.  And you took good notes, excellent.
       Now I must tell you McArthur has a minority view in Christianity
       today, most American Christians would think in the "Arminian"
       style and they would NOT make God the author of evil.  They
       would interject the free will of man into the equation, that
       free will makes God blameless.  I understand that view, but I
       don't think it is rigorous enough to stand under scrutiny.
       I agree with you that McArthurs's first point was stated weakly,
       he could have put it better.  But we do experience natural
       disaster as 'evil' and we have to decide the reasons for it.
       Most Christians would rightly point to a fallen creation,
       corrupted by sin and destroyed in the flood.  But the Bible goes
       beyond that, as McArthur notes.
       Bertrand Russell certainly knew what he was aiming at and had
       the courage to state his convictions clearly.  I don't accept
       all of his argument, but I do admit the uplifting of the God of
       the Bible comes entirely at the expense of the pride of man.
       Paul in Romans also quotes the Isaiah passage that McArthur
       quotes, man is merely clay in the potter's hands.  That is
       either true or it is not.  I am not sure I can convince you of
       it, but then that was not the challenge here.
       To the original topic, Jones' rantings do not destroy the Bible,
       they are a vastly inferior re-hash of ideas far more clearly
       expressed by people like Russell.  Thinking Christians have
       examined these issues, and already know the score.
       #Post#: 9823--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 2, 2018, 4:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have no fear of listening to any viewpoints. I may not agree
       with them in the end, but I have no problem listening to them.
       Why should anyone be afraid of hearing anything, even kooky
       stuff people believe? We have to do that all the time.
       Your McArthur guy proved nothing really, and his views would
       have been ripped to pieces by JJ quite easily. In fact,
       McArthur`s views would have aided JJ in doing so, not hindered
       them.
       So, the point is, that really wasn`t much of a rebuttal.
       #Post#: 9825--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: NealC Date: December 2, 2018, 4:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       "I have no fear of listening to any viewpoints. I may not agree
       with them in the end, but I have no problem listening to them."
       I would respectfully submit that this has not been the case in
       the past, and that you are in fact at this moment telling a fib.
       Jim Jones strength was in his personal charisma, as well as
       being a bully.  He could not logically argue his way out of a
       paper bag.  You would be better served to put your regard
       elsewhere.  Just because he was a communist, doesn't make him
       immune to characterization as a complete wackadoo.
       #Post#: 9829--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: SHL Date: December 2, 2018, 4:34 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The entire story of JJ is actually quite interesting and there
       have been many books written about it and documentaries created.
       There`s new stuff all the time coming out about it by the
       survivors. It`s actually one of the most interesting stories of
       the last 40 years, as tragic as it turned out. And the sad thing
       about the entire history is that is so poorly understood by so
       many people.
       #Post#: 9833--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Jim Jones destroying the Bible per Neal’s Request
       By: NealC Date: December 2, 2018, 4:50 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Personally I think you would be making a big mistake trying to
       defend Jim Jones and you would thereby damage your credibility
       in future debate.  But if you want to hang yourself
       (intellectually speaking) I can certainly supply the rope.  I
       know you have wanted to talk about this for a while.
       Tell me Steve, how has Jim Jones been misunderstood?  What new
       information has come out?  Was he a murderous sociopath, or a
       victim of persecution?
       Inquiring minds.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page