Biblical Judgement

[Strafio]

It's that time again, to question Biblical Judgement.

Christians believe that all people deserve Hell for their sins (i.e. to be cut off completely from God, which is meant to be extremely painful). The theory is that Jesus died on the cross, taking the punishment for the sins so if you believe in him then you get forgiven, and get into heaven.

The implication is that all non-Christians burn in hell.


I've been talking with aikiMac over PM over this. We decided to take it to the board because:

a) We thought we might let you guys have a say
b) PM's have a character limit so one reply would end up as 3 messages, each other those 3 messages being replied as... well, it was getting silly! :D

As a non-Christian I'm assuming "worst case scenario".
That is, there is a God and that Easter happened (i.e. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead). If you want to argue against there being a God or Easter happening then that's a different thread.

Some people say that if Easter is true then it proves the Christian message is true. However, even if Jesus came to die and rise again, that doesn't prove his motive for doing so (for all we know we know he just felt like a bit of sadomasochism! ;)). "Dying to save us from sin and hell" might be the motive but not necessarily. We've only reason to believe it if it fits the rest of the facts, and I think it only works if "judgement" works philosophically. I'm trying to show that it doesn't.

My first point was that judgement is against God's character.
God is assumed to be perfectly patient, compassionate and understanding. That implies that this perfectly patient, compassionate and understanding person would never have any need to cut people off. Even if people cut themselves off, he'd (or she'd ;)) always leave it open to them to come back anytime they were ready. aikiMac said that God has other characteristics too, but I reckon that if those other characteristics contradict this "no cut off" scenario then they contradict the "perfect patiences/compassion/understanding" too.

My second one was that "Christianity" wasn't a sufficient method of "saving" people. That even if what Christians say is true, people still have good reason to doubt or not believe it. Would God depend someone's immortal soul on accepting something that doesn't seem true. Christians believe that if you get to know the message properly then you see that it is true but I'm not so sure of that myself.

Anysway, aikiMac's given me a bit of reading to do.
A guy called Calvin had 5 points, one of which ought to answer my second point, and a Thomas Oden has logically sorted through God's characterists and found them consistant so I should read him. In the meantime, enjoy! :)

[Capt Ann]

God is assumed to be perfectly patient, compassionate and understanding. That implies that this perfectly patient, compassionate and understanding person would never have any need to cut people off.
I think your word choice here gives a great insight into the topic. I believe that God is, in fact, perfectly patient. I also believe that perfectly patient is different than infinitely patient. If "patience" means an ability to bear with wrong or injustice, then infinite patience would be far from perfect.

God is also perfectly just, meaning that, as part of His character, every wrong must righted, and every injustice answered. I see the cross of Jesus Christ and the message of Easter as the only reasonable answer to this paradox.

My two-cents, anyway.

[macker]

An interesting read, and some good points.

I would however say that as humans we do not fully comprehend perfect (tion) as regards to spiritual matters. We try to understand the word but in my opinion nothing on earth comes close to showing us perfection.

I find it also hard to talk about god, in my vocab this would be the creator, again i am not knocking the use of language just putting my ideas across.
The patience you talk about is another good point, surely if the creator/god did not have any he could end everything and start again.

I also think the creator is forever forgiving, and will always offer humans another chance. I tend to look at the biblical judgements being steeped with symbolism, in fact the whole bible is steeped in symbolism. I tend to look at Jesus giving his life up and being resurrected, as being symbollic of humans being offered the chance of living another life to put things right (life after death/reincarnation.

Has this gone off topic :rolleyes: , hope its givien you more ideas.

[Gajah Silat]

I would like to add a simple numerical perspective to this.

As I understand things, the standard Christian viewpoint is that one must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and repent for their sins to enter heaven.

Please feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong.

I assume there could only be Christians after Jesus started his teachings.

With me so far? :)

After Christ's crucifiction and resurection there were 11 apostles(not counting Judas) and a relatively small number of followers.

Agreed?

So in the year following the death of Christ almost everyone on the planet who died, by Christian logic, must have been condemned to hell.

[Jesh]

So in the year following the death of Christ almost everyone on the planet who died, by Christian logic, must have been condemned to hell.

According to that line of logic, all people that ever lived before the birth of Christ would be condemned to hell.

:)

[Strafio]

Wehey! I knew this topic would take off eventually! :)

I think your word choice here gives a great insight into the topic. I believe that God is, in fact, perfectly patient. I also believe that perfectly patient is different than infinitely patient. If "patience" means an ability to bear with wrong or injustice, then infinite patience would be far from perfect.
Good answer. Letting wrongs/injustices go unchecked wouldn't be perfect patience. The thing is, would the correct way of dealing with these problems be to cut someone off? I'll expand with the answer to the next part.

God is also perfectly just, meaning that, as part of His character, every wrong must righted, and every injustice answered. I see the cross of Jesus Christ and the message of Easter as the only reasonable answer to this paradox.
I also agree with perfectly just, all wrongs being righted and every injustice answered. I don't see "punishment for every wrong" as a way of doing this though. If anything it escalates the wrongs. When I say punishment I mean the attitude of "you got hurt so you must be hurt". Sometimes a genuine solution can feel "punishing" but that's a side effect rather than the intention.

Also, this solution would have to "work out" so that everyone ended up happy.

So God's perfect patience would mean rather than let everything happen, he'd take steps to help better things happen (rather than sit and wait with infinite patience). Cutting someone off wouldn't be an act of justice, it would be "giving up", not letting them be your problem anymore. I think that's short of perfect patience.

My two-cents, anyway.
And much appreciated they were. :)


Macker, good insights. I believe that Easter (death + ressurection) was symobolic too. Jesh + Gajah, Christians are always ready to admit that that's the hardest question they face. On the one hand, these people didn't have a chance to get to know the word so God must've had some sort of contingency plan for them. My question would be what constitutes a "chance".

Is it hearing a Christian preaching on the street? Surely lots of people preach on the street. How would you know that this person was more significant. Is it until you get a convincing argument for it? Well if it's convinced you then you're Christian by definition and you're not a Christian then you're not convinced.

[Topher]

I dunno, all this “judgment day” stuff seems like a way to get people to accept Christianity. Have in the day when someone describes heaven and hell then i'll know which one i'd pick. One could also argue that people therefore do good out of fear of hell.

Surely you can only be judge if subscribe to the belief that there is a God, a Devil, a heaven and a hell etc. If you do, you’ll get in, if you don’t, it doesn’t manner because you don’t believe it anyway.

[Strafio]

Surely you can only be judge if subscribe to the belief that there is a God, a Devil, a heaven and a hell etc. If you do, you’ll get in, if you don’t, it doesn’t manner because you don’t believe it anyway.
Nah. They believe that every person is going to be judged and everyone deserves to burn in hell but Christians have had the sense to get to know Jesus, so the punishment for their sins was taken by him on the cross. So it's a case of:

"We know this geezer who's going to get us into heaven. Well are you in or are you out?"

The pair of us are out! ;)

I'm trying to cover "worst case scenario", so even if there is God as Christians say, even then he wouldn't condemn anyone to eternal damnation, so long as he's the good God that Christians say he is. :Angel:

[aikiMac]

Christians believe that all people deserve Hell for their sins
...
As a non-Christian I'm assuming "worst case scenario".
That is, there is a God and that Easter happened (i.e. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead). If you want to argue against there being a God or Easter happening then that's a different thread.
I underlined the word "deserve." I read that word I to imply free will; that is, impliedly we have agreed that people have free will. You and I never made that assumption explicit. Question, then: can we agree for this discussion that people have free will? It is part of standard Christian doctrine.

Considering the other assumptions we made for the sake of this discussion I would think the whole talk if pointless if we do NOT assume free will. What say you, Strafio?

[Strafio]

I've always assumed that free will as a given.
Having said that, I don't think that "beliefs" are dictated by free will, and aren't quite so "free" as it were. You can't pick and choose beliefs - they have to make intuitive sense to you and you can't believe something if it contradicts something you already strongly believe in. Are you good with that one?

[Kacey]

I find it interesting on a martial arts board that no one has mentioned the vast number of non-Christians - specifically Buddhists - who do not believe in a Deity (in the Judeo-Christian sense) at all, but rather in the life force that exists in all things. No God, no Trinity... just life force. Sort of like Star Wars - except that The Force in Star Wars imbued all things, including planets, rocks, and inanimate objects like space craft, while the Buddhist belief, as I understand it, is limited to plants and animals (I could be wrong here; my education in Buddhism is self-directed and somewhat fragmented).

Being Jewish, my perspective is somewhat different from both Buddhists and Catholics (and Muslims, for that matter, since their traditions include Christianity but add the Koran and Mohammed). Having been raised in Reform Judaism, in which the ONLY required belief is that there is only one God, with no other detail appended, I tend toward a belief that is somewhere between that of Buddhists and the traditional depiction of God - that there is a guiding force in the universe of some type (life seems like an unlikely sort of accident) that is the embodiment of life, in the sense that life is the opposite of entropy. As you may understand, it's a little hard for me to put this down in writing; it's one of those things that people understand for themselves, but can't easily explain.

To respond to the original thought in the thread, first, being Jewish, the Bible for me consists only of the Old Testament - which contains within it no reference to an afterlife of any sort, except some nebulous occurrence after Judgement Day. The significance of the Jews being the Chosen People is that, when Judgement Day comes, the Jews will be judged first... this could be good or bad, depending, and I'm not sure that first is necessarily the best position to be in. From this perspective, I have a problem with people who tell me that I am damned to eternal perdition because I belong to a religion, and a belief system, that predates their own and does not include the same beliefs and assumptions.

I'm not talking about roadside preachers here. I am a special education teacher, and work with many well-educated professionals, several of whom are very active in their particular churches and have approached me with questions about my beliefs and concerns about my ultimate future. Among the possibilities that have been raised, I have several that come up the most often:

1) I am damned to eternal perdition, as I said, because I do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. This is, by the way, because according to Jewish tradition, the Messiah has not come - if he had, the world would have ended. To those who say that the Messiah came and discovered he was early... well, the conditions for the Messiah's coming have also not been fulfilled - one key condition being that the entire human race must believe that there is only one God - not that they have to become Jewish, only that they must become monotheists. This has never happened in the recorded history of man, and is becoming less rather than more likely, especially in non-Western countries.

2) As a person who does not believe in Jesus but who has nonetheless lived a good life, I will be admitted to the lower circles of Heaven, but will never be able to progress beyond the outer reaches.

3) It doesn't matter what I believe while I'm alive, because once I die, I, like all non-believers, will be sent to what can best be described as 'school'. I will then have whatever remains of eternity to be 'educated' until I agree with the beliefs of the particular sect which proposed this idea, and I will either change to their beliefs (which, in their opinion, are the only correct ones) or, when eternity finally ends on Judgement Day, I will indeed be dumped into the pit for the sin of holding the same beliefs as my ancestors. This last one is my favorite, I think - it's so much more creative.

[Topher]

I've always assumed that free will as a given.
Having said that, I don't think that "beliefs" are dictated by free will, and aren't quite so "free" as it were. You can't pick and choose beliefs - they have to make intuitive sense to you and you can't believe something if it contradicts something you already strongly believe in. Are you good with that one?
Also, many children are indoctrinated when they are not old enough to make such a decision.

Did anyone see Derren Brown: Messiah, which was about persuasion and belief system? http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/derrenbrown.html

[aikiMac]

I find it interesting on a martial arts board that no one has mentioned the vast number of non-Christians - specifically Buddhists - who do not believe in a Deity (in the Judeo-Christian sense) at all, but rather in the life force that exists in all things.
Actually, Buddhism is mentioned often in this forum.
Also, see the first post: "As a non-Christian I'm assuming 'worst case scenario'. That is, there is a God and that Easter happened (i.e. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead). If you want to argue against there being a God or Easter happening then that's a different thread."


I've always assumed that free will as a given.
Having said that, I don't think that "beliefs" are dictated by free will, and aren't quite so "free" as it were. You can't pick and choose beliefs - they have to make intuitive sense to you and you can't believe something if it contradicts something you already strongly believe in. Are you good with that one?
Ya, that should be fine.
Consider thoughts and actions. Free will ---> it's your fault. You did it or thought it on your own. Can't blame someone else when there's free will.

Next step is punishment. You did it, it was your fault ---> punishment rightly falls on you.

Now we get into the question of what is a fitting punishment. The buzz word for that is "justice," or its shorter form, "just." One of God's stated attributes is that he is just. He considers all the facts and all the circumstances and makes a just decision. Another stated attribute of God is holiness. Sin and holiness are incompatible. One of them has to leave, and God (holiness) is not leaving. To say that God's patience overrides this is equivalent in effect to ignoring (1) free will of mankind, and (2) God's attribute of holiness. Can't do that.

Weigh these into the mix, and Easter will make more sense. A shorthand form that helps me is:
free will ---> I did it, it's my fault
my fault ---> punishment falls on me
holiness of God ---> separation by sin (above) ---> bad for me
patience of God ---> I'm not damned yet, and I'm given opportunity to make peace with God

Eventually the punishment will fall on me, or else God isn't holy and just and we have an internal conflict. Can't allow internal conflicts. Now, maybe someone else could take my place, but that someone would have to be blameless. Otherwise, his sacrifice would be for himself alone and not for me. Such a person is hard to find. Oh, wait, I take that back: Jesus at Easter is easy to find. :)

Easter --->sufficient punishment was made
sufficient --> justice was served
justice served ---> holiness doesn't have to be offended
God's patience was shown in the fact that he sent a substitute (Jesus) rather than being done with us in the beginning.

I believe that I am considering more of God's attributes than you have considered in the past. Eventually we have to consider all of them of course, but I am confident that whatever attributes we have left out will not pose a contradiction for me.

[TheCount]

Personally speaking and speaking from the point of view of many of my religious compatriots God made us so that we could have free will and choice, hence Eve took the apple (twit) and we are doomed to live a suck life. ANYWAY... He doesn't wish us to be robots, he has a plan for us ultimately but he does not choose our course, we choose our own course in life. I believe that you will always get a chance to be aware of God or come to him. Thats all he asks, is your love back to him as he gives to you. Now, all non christians have no will to give him love or just don't believe he exists. Would you give your son a place in paradise when they refuse to admit you are there, let alone give you the appreciation you deserve.

I think christianity can be in a way very secretarian, it is the ONE religion, the ONLY god etc. however in the end it makes sense. It used to be you had to sacrafice an animal to the Lord for your sins but Jesus took our sins off us and through him its become much easier to reach the father.

Just my opinion, have no fear in God if you are his follower, have fear in him if you disobey him

[snow_tiger]

I think the sectarian accusation is perhaps the most unfair accusation leveled against Christianity:

(a) if I say that I have the only Porshe in my neighborhoodn and it is, indeed, the only one-- am I being sectarian or just stating a fact?
(b) How can Christians be sectarian when we try do darned hard to prosthelatise and incorporate others into the faith? How can we be sectarian by saying, "God loves you and died for you so that you can live a personal relationship with Him"? Seems Christians can't win. Half of the population dis them for being sectarian, and the other half of the population dis them for spreading their faith and trying to hard to get converts...

Some thoughts on the main points of the thread...

Romans 1 says that God has painted Himself on each person's heart by way of a conscience. Romans 2 says that a person who has not heard the law and still upholds it, fulfills it.

<14For whenever Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that what the law requires is written in their hearts, a fact to which their own consciences testify, and their thoughts will either accuse or excuse them 16on that day when God, through Jesus Christ, will judge people's secrets according to my gospel>

Christ, Himself, said that those with much truth will be judged harsher than those with little (no) truth revealed.

[Capt Ann]

Cutting someone off wouldn't be an act of justice, it would be "giving up", not letting them be your problem anymore. I think that's short of perfect patience.....
>
My question would be what constitutes a "chance".

Romans 1 says that God has painted Himself on each person's heart by way of a conscience. Romans 2 says that a person who has not heard the law and still upholds it, fulfills it.
>
Christ, Himself, said that those with much truth will be judged harsher than those with little (no) truth revealed.Strafio, you make some excellent, well thought-out points. Still, I see a general trend in this thread where, I think, something is missing. Forgive me that this isn't as clear as I would like--I will try to put it into words as best as I can.

Most of the posts in this and other similar threads seem to assume that the entire discussion (of God's existence, of faith, of belief, of resurrection and judgement) occurs in a vacuum. Snow_tiger makes the excellent point that it doesn't. While we are all debating whether there is an eternal judgement, or what is the nature of truth, God really does exist and truly is interested in each person's individual well-being. He is dealing with each individual, revealing Himself to each and writing His law and just requirements on every heart. That is why it is ultimately true that no one has an excuse: there are certain things that everyone 'knows', and each of us knows that we fall short and are guilty at some point.

Moreover, God is not just perfectly patient and perfectly just, He is also perfect in knowledge and perfect in fore-knowledge. He knows all things (omniscience), including all things before they happen. This means that God knows exactly what is necessary for someone to see/hear/know/experience in order to come to faith (so He and He alone is in the position to pronounce judgement that someone has had an adequate 'chance'). It means He knows in advance what their decisions will be. It also means that He (and He alone) knows when any given person has set their will to a decision and has determined never to change. In such a situation, He is not 'giving up' on anyone by honoring the free will He has given them, and allowing them to choose rebellion (I am reminded of the picture John Milton drew of Lucifer in 'Paradise Lost'). See for instance Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139: 1-16.

Anyway, my main thought today is that the God we are discussing is intimately involved in every step of the day-to-day battle for men's souls, making Himself and His law known in ways they can perceive, and moving people and circumstances to provide that adequate 'chance'.

I have some other thoughts about the nature of 'eternal' consequences, after our (relatively) short time on earth, but I'll have to spend some more time putting those together. In the meantime, I hope this offers some food for thought. Perhaps someone else can add flesh to these bare bones and put them into words more clearly.

[Strafio]

Here's what I made the topic for! :)

Consider thoughts and actions. Free will ---> it's your fault. You did it or thought it on your own. Can't blame someone else when there's free will.

Next step is punishment. You did it, it was your fault ---> punishment rightly falls on you.
So we're free to chose our actions but must accept consequences for those actions. That's fair enough so far. Let's carry on. :)

Now we get into the question of what is a fitting punishment. The buzz word for that is "justice," or its shorter form, "just." One of God's stated attributes is that he is just. He considers all the facts and all the circumstances and makes a just decision. Another stated attribute of God is holiness. Sin and holiness are incompatible. One of them has to leave, and God (holiness) is not leaving. To say that God's patience overrides this is equivalent in effect to ignoring (1) free will of mankind, and (2) God's attribute of holiness. Can't do that.

So we have just - making things right, and holy - sinless.

Weigh these into the mix, and Easter will make more sense. A shorthand form that helps me is:
free will ---> I did it, it's my fault
my fault ---> punishment falls on me
holiness of God ---> separation by sin (above) ---> bad for me
patience of God ---> I'm not damned yet, and I'm given opportunity to make peace with God

If the ideal of justice is "an eye for an eye" then maybe this follows (except we wouldn't be able to cook up an eternities sins in a lifetime, but I don't need to play that card yet ;)) but that was justice in it's crudest form, designed to work with simple/barbaric people.

Justice - making things right.
The aim of any kind of justice is always positive.
"Punishment" is always a means or a side effect of a greater good.
The better we've become at justice, the more we try to "help" the accused rather than be vengeful on them. There's a lot more focus on rehabilitation than there used to be, and if we can't help them then we atleast ensure that they're treated humanely while locked up. Notice can't help, our inability to. It still remains our ideal.

Any kind of punishment a good parent will put on their child will be one that the child will learn from and will be for the better in the long run.

So God being good, any punishment would be for our own good. To make things right. He might put us through hell and back, but there'd always be light at the end of the tunnel. So if God is trully just then any punishment he dishes out will be for their own good and will actually benefit them in the long run.

Secondly, holiness.
Jesus was holy, free from sin.
However, rather than stay free from sinners, he spent as much time as he could with them. You might notice that the spiritually closer to God a christian is, the closer they are to being holy, the more they feel compelled to go out to people who are opposite and help them.

They might feel very close to one of these "sinners" (technically the Christian is too, but you know what I mean), even if this "sinner" didn't return the feelings. Which one is missing out? So God isn't seperated from us, we're just from him, in that his hand would always be there for the taking. This patience would mean that he would never hold it against us how slow we were, it might mean he intervenes to speed things up but that again would be purely for our own good.

Lastly, "sin" can only be confusion.
Is it your fault if you sin out of ignorance?
Maybe once you "know" it's wrong? But to know it's wrong is just to be told "it's wrong" and you'd be taking someone elses word. You can't really take someone's word so easily, especially when people can get it wrong. (Say TG's sister took his word for it that Christianity was wrong? ;))
Maybe when you understand it's wrong? At this point, if you trully understand that something is wrong (including some basic "why") then you're not going to want to do it. So you'd only do it if something went wrong, perhaps this belief clashed with another and you had to chose between the two.
So if you understand the right priorities when making a choice? Here you're generally going to make correct decisions and have the discipline to easily fall to lusts. Having said that, how easy is it to be permanently vigilant of yourself and no screw up, not accidently succumb to an old habit, not to speak without thinking...
So if you've always got clear calm state of mind as well? If so then you'd have no excuse for doing wrong but is this humanly possible? If anything, this ought to show that "to sin" isn't simply a matter of will but a matter of wisdom, understanding and strength of mind/spirit. Will is "free", but it's much dependant on your state of mind. I'm sure there's plenty of things that you might want to do while angry that you'd never dream of (or even consider) when happy.

So going back to your line of logic:
Weigh these into the mix, and Easter will make more sense. A shorthand form that helps me is:
free will ---> I did it, it's my fault
my fault ---> punishment falls on me
holiness of God ---> separation by sin (above) ---> bad for me
patience of God ---> I'm not damned yet, and I'm given opportunity to make peace with God
Here, punishment would be God's "heavenly" rehab.
Pergatory where he slaps some sense into you.
So does Jesus make a difference?
Well yes. If you're humble and repentant as Jesus encourages you to be then God won't need to prove anything to you and the "rehab" would (if anything) be where he helps you become more or what you want to be.
Maybe there'd be more "punishment" for someone who doesn't understand that they're doing wrong, and need harsh lessons to come to understanding. But there'd be light at the end of the tunnel, for anyone.

Although I bet there's a fair few that got a right purgatorial spanking first! ;)

[aikiMac]

So we have just - making things right, and holy - sinless.
...
Justice - making things right.

Hmm. Not sure about that. I believe a more correct definition of just/justice is "giving to each his due."


The aim of any kind of justice is always positive.
I'm not convinced this is accurate. :confused: To give to Mr X what he is due might not be positive, if what he is due is not a pleasant thing.


"Punishment" is always a means or a side effect of a greater good.
Yes, I believe this, if we look beyond Mr X who is receiving something that might not be pleasant.


So God being good, any punishment would be for our own good.
I really don't know if this is accurate or not.


To make things right. He might put us through hell and back, but there'd always be light at the end of the tunnel. So if God is trully just then any punishment he dishes out will be for their own good and will actually benefit them in the long run.
Might the purpose of the punishment for Mr X be to benefit Mr Y? Could not the punishment of one person benefit another person? I'm not convinced you are correct here, because I'm not convinced that punishment must necessarily be personal to the individual receiving it. I'm thinking there is a broader view, and I'm thinking that God looks at the broader view.


Secondly, holiness.
Jesus was holy, free from sin.
However, rather than stay free from sinners, he spent as much time as he could with them. You might notice that the spiritually closer to God a christian is, the closer they are to being holy, the more they feel compelled to go out to people who are opposite and help them.

They might feel very close to one of these "sinners" (technically the Christian is too, but you know what I mean), even if this "sinner" didn't return the feelings. Which one is missing out? So God isn't seperated from us, we're just from him, in that his hand would always be there for the taking. This patience would mean that he would never hold it against us how slow we were, it might mean he intervenes to speed things up but that again would be purely for our own good.
Yes.


Lastly, "sin" can only be confusion.
No, sin could be intentional. Some sins are intentional.
And then you'll say that Mr X had that intention because he was confused, and I'll say you're missing the whole point if you go that route. Intent is intent is intent, and every person has committed an intentional sin at some time.

[Strafio]

Hmm. Not sure about that. I believe a more correct definition of just/justice is "giving to each his due."

I'm not convinced this is accurate. :confused: To give to Mr X what he is due might not be positive, if what he is due is not a pleasant thing.
What he's due might not be pleasant but in the long term he'll be better for it. He'll learn from it.

Yes, I believe this, if we look beyond Mr X who is receiving something that might not be pleasant.
Ideally, Mr X will benefit by being rehabilitated in the long run, even if it's unpleasant in the short term.

I really don't know if this is accurate or not.
Looks like we're going to have discuss what justice (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice) is. Yours seems to be closer to the dictionary definition but mine seems to be closer to the aims of the modern justice system.

Might the purpose of the punishment for Mr X be to benefit Mr Y? Could not the punishment of one person benefit another person? I'm not convinced you are correct here, because I'm not convinced that punishment must necessarily be personal to the individual receiving it. I'm thinking there is a broader view, and I'm thinking that God looks at the broader view.
The punishment wouldn't be all about punishée, and some of it would be reperation to the victim where possible. It would hopefully be better for everyone and I think that some kind of rehab fits the bill.

In reply to the Holiness bit: Yes.
Read that again... that had some of the rehab philosophy in there.
Or maybe you meant purely during this life and once we die our time is up? You see, I'd see no reason for God to "give up" on us then.

No, sin could be intentional. Some sins are intentional.
And then you'll say that Mr X had that intention because he was confused, and I'll say you're missing the whole point if you go that route. Intent is intent is intent, and every person has committed an intentional sin at some time.
Which state would he be in when he intended to "sin".
Was it that he understood it was wrong but put another desire first (that he didn't truly understand which to prioritise), or should he have known better but got caught up in a moment/lost themselves?

If someone understands something is wrong then they won't want to do it.
I'm free to drink out of a toilet but I'd never want to.

[Capt Ann]

Which state would he be in when he intended to "sin".
Was it that he understood it was wrong but put another desire first (that he didn't truly understand which to prioritise), or should he have known better but got caught up in a moment/lost themselves?

If someone understands something is wrong then they won't want to do it.
I'm free to drink out of a toilet but I'd never want to.Interesting. Maybe we should back up and look at the 'original sin' (not Adam & Eve, either). If we are looking at the point of view of "God exists" and "Easter happened", why not assume that the other parts of the Bible are true, too? In this case, the 'original' sin was when Lucifer chose to rebel against God and desire his own rulership ahead of God's. At this point in time,
1). he had absolutely no temptation from any outside source,
2). he was thinking perfectly clearly with no interferring or confusing thoughts,
3). he had every reason to trust God, and had never previously experienced doubt or confusion, and
4). he was in a perfect environment.
The only reason he sinned was because he chose to. Of his own free will.

I disagree with your first statement in the second paragraph above. I believe (and I see it every day) that people know some things are wrong, and still choose to do them anyway.

[serakmurid]

New to this thread- I believe Johnathan Edwards said, "We will always do what we MOST want to do."
Justice: Being treated based on our actions/intentions according to an outside standard, NOT "making things right"...
Free Will: The power to choose according to our strongest inclinations.
Man does not have the power to choose God. He lost this when he rebelled against God, and died spiritually. Man does not want God for God Himself, he merely wants God for the benefits that come from Him.
Justice is what Man deserves, but not always gets (mercy and grace). God is not obligated to give anyone mercy. He is obligated to be just because it is His nature to be both holy and righteous.
What God does is for His glory and for the greatest good, not to reduce evil.
I'm sorry if I'm butting in....
I read some helpful books on these topics, just trying to help.

[Strafio]

Interesting. Maybe we should back up and look at the 'original sin' (not Adam & Eve, either). If we are looking at the point of view of "God exists" and "Easter happened", why not assume that the other parts of the Bible are true, too? In this case, the 'original' sin was when Lucifer chose to rebel against God and desire his own rulership ahead of God's. At this point in time,
1). he had absolutely no temptation from any outside source,
2). he was thinking perfectly clearly with no interferring or confusing thoughts,
3). he had every reason to trust God, and had never previously experienced doubt or confusion, and
4). he was in a perfect environment.
The only reason he sinned was because he chose to. Of his own free will.
This is tricky...
Is Lucifer just the snake or is there more about him?
I've always assumed that there's no such thing, but if I'm doing "worst case scenario" then I'd need to either show his existance is contradictory or fit him in some how. :eek:

The plot thickens... :bang:

Edit:A little research (http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml) (the first page that came up in google anyway! :D) got me this. It claims that Lucifer is a corruption from the original texts. In my translation the error is corrected so I assume so in your multiple ones. I'll see if there's any more places where Lucifer or Satan crop up...

More Edit: Wikipedia reckons that it's Satan that judges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Satan_as_an_accuser) (according to Jewish tradition anyway). He's the prosecution lawyer that gets us put away. I always did kind of see him like that, except in these stories he works for God, like how he tests Job...

Not sure how to "deal" with Satan at the moment.
I don't really know anything about this "Satan" I'd be dealing with.
Tomorrow I'll probably look at Wikipedia again.

[aikiMac]

Read that again [on holiness]. that had some of the rehab philosophy in there.
Nope, you're right. Jesus hung out with sinners, and made friends with sinners. He did. And the more "holy" a regular person grows to be, the more he too will look for sinners and hang out with sinners and make friends with sinners. I believe this. And God's hand is there for the taking, yep. If it wasn't then I wouldn't know him today.

Otherwise -- what Capt Ann said in post #20. She beat me to it. :) (Great minds think alike? :p )

[tekkengod]

I disagree with your first statement in the second paragraph above. I believe (and I see it every day) that people know some things are wrong, and still choose to do them anyway.

I agree with Capt Ann, happens all the time, there are no excuses, most people are just naturally "sinful" {i don't like that word, but its for sake of argument}, throw in the effect of enviroment and alignment and you get your standard screw up. People will never learn to blame themselves though. :cry: :bang:

[Capt Ann]

I agree with Capt Ann :eek: :eek: :eek:

Capt Ann prints out this post, mails copies to every friend and relative, and frames one and hangs it over the mantle in the living room.

WOW! Thanks, TG! :love:

[tekkengod]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Capt Ann prints out this post, mails copies to every friend and relative, and frames one and hangs it over the mantle in the living room.

WOW! Thanks, TG! :love:

:D now put it right between your collage diploma and your marriage lisence!!! :cool: {this might be a first actually!}

[snow_tiger]

I have a lot that I would like to weigh in on here-to-for, so please forgive if I jump around-- it is at least better than double-and-triple-posts... Thanks in advance.

(Strafio)Looks like we're going to have discuss what justice is. Yours seems to be closer to the dictionary definition but mine seems to be closer to the aims of the modern justice system.

It would be more appropriate, I think, to look at justice from a Biblical perspective, since it is Biblical justice in debate.

Biblical justice encompasses punishment (Rom 13:4), and it is for God and state alone, with no room for personal vengeance (matt 5:38,39). It encomasses recompense (2Sam.12:6, Lk.19:8). It involves protection and deterrence. Lastly would be rehabilitation.

When put into perspective of the sin problem and put on an eternal scale, it becomes less about "justice" and more about God's nature and sin's nature. We see through scripture that sin and God can't coexist. Holy and evil are mutually excusive. Light and dark can't inhabit the same space simultaneously. Where sin is God isn't (so-to-speak).

The comparison was made as to whether a parent would punish their children so? In light of the above paragraph, imagine it this way: In the days of the black plague, there were thousands and thousands of parents who sent their children away to die elsewhere. There have been innumerable parents who sent their children away to leper colonies. God has been saying, "Please don't play in the plague." I hope the comparison makes sense.

Does this make God an uncaring "parent"? Thrice no! He made reparation for the sin problem! He allowed Christ to bear the brunt of our sin plague so that all who believe can be washed clean of the plague. And why must one believe? If God was truly caring and good, why couldn't He have made Christ's blood good for anyone, believing or not? Why didn't God make it a universal salvation? Please bear with me...

Matt 12:32, Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.

1 Cor 2:12, 12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

Romans 8:16The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

1 John 5:10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son

I apologize for going to such length, but in a discussion such as this, scripture should speak louder than philosophy, for it is scripture which is the root of the discussion (if scripture is a liar, then the discussion is over, so the sake of argument should fall back to scripture...). Anyway, the great lengths above were quoted to make the argument that all can and will be forgiven, except the blasphemy of calling God a liar. The person who does not believe (unto death) basically uses their last breath to call God a liar, after which there is no chance to ask forgiveness for the blasphemy.

This one unforgiven sin is enough of a "plague" to seperate us from God, which is exactly what Hell is!

This is a scriptural perspective to the philosophical reasoning. This is how I understand it. I know I didn't explain very well and will try again if anyone is interested...

On another note:

(serakmurid)Man does not have the power to choose God. He lost this when he rebelled against God, and died spiritually.

I won't attempt a thread-jack into a calvinism debate, but I will offer some thoughts on your view of total depravity...

1 Tim 2:3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matt 3:2Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 4:17:From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

There is not space enough to list all COMANDMENTS to repent and be saved, from OT to New. I'll ask you why God commands men to do something they are incapable of doing, lest he damn them to Hell. He may as well have command me, you, and everyone else to grow a 3rd arm out of their anus, lest He send us to Hell.

I'm very familliar with the verses listed which may be interpreted as total depravity, along with the many that interpret as the opposite. I'd love to discuss all of them and offer a theology that allows all scripture to be true.

Just a few thoughts for you. We can start a new thread for that discussion if you want.

Take care.

[Gary]

Not sure how to "deal" with Satan at the moment.There's something you don't see every day :D

[Strafio]

It would be more appropriate, I think, to look at justice from a Biblical perspective, since it is Biblical justice in debate.

Biblical justice encompasses punishment (Rom 13:4), and it is for God and state alone, with no room for personal vengeance (matt 5:38,39). It encomasses recompense (2Sam.12:6, Lk.19:8). It involves protection and deterrence. Lastly would be rehabilitation.
However, as God loves everyone and wants the best for everyone then wouldn't his justice plan see rehab for everyone rather than a significant majority (non-Christians that is) suffer an eternity in hell?

When put into perspective of the sin problem and put on an eternal scale, it becomes less about "justice" and more about God's nature and sin's nature. We see through scripture that sin and God can't coexist. Holy and evil are mutually excusive. Light and dark can't inhabit the same space simultaneously. Where sin is God isn't (so-to-speak).
However, if sin is equivilant to darkness, isn't it merely a lack of God the same way darkness is a lack of light? So "sin" doesn't stop us from being near God, sin is just the symptoms of a lack of God?

The comparison was made as to whether a parent would punish their children so? In light of the above paragraph, imagine it this way: In the days of the black plague, there were thousands and thousands of parents who sent their children away to die elsewhere. There have been innumerable parents who sent their children away to leper colonies. God has been saying, "Please don't play in the plague." I hope the comparison makes sense.
The difference is is that the parents were limited in what they could do.
They'd've done much more for their children if it was possible. God doesn't have such limitations. In that situation the plague was in control. God by definition has ultimate control over everything.

[aikiMac]

However, as God loves everyone and wants the best for everyone then wouldn't his justice plan see rehab for everyone rather than a significant majority (non-Christians that is) suffer an eternity in hell?
Two thoughts:
1) Why didn't he make us with another opposable digit on each hand? You know, a 2nd thumb next to the pinky. I'd have a better grip with a 2nd thumb next to the pinky.

I don't know the answer. Things are the way they are. Sometimes we know why, and sometimes we don't know why.

2) We assumed free will in this discussion. We cannot backtrack now and blame God for the things we do by free will. One might say that final separation from God is the best punishment for those who by their free will chose separation in this life, 'cause they got what they wanted. When God gives you what you wanted all along, how can you complain about it, huh?

And then you'll say that not everyone chose separation from God. They just didn't know any other way. And then I'll say that God makes himself known in sufficient ways. (I think the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans on this very point was already mentioned in this thread.)

[Strafio]

However, as God loves everyone and wants the best for everyone then wouldn't his justice plan see rehab for everyone rather than a significant majority (non-Christians that is) suffer an eternity in hell?
Two thoughts:
1) Why didn't he make us with another opposable digit on each hand? You know, a 2nd thumb next to the pinky. I'd have a better grip with a 2nd thumb next to the pinky.

I don't know the answer. Things are the way they are. Sometimes we know why, and sometimes we don't know why.
Firstly, you dissin' God's design of our hand? In G's defense I'd like to say that a second thumb would get in the way and hinder more than it would help. :p

Second, the hand is something of "what is".
We've agreed that we get an idea of God principly by his characteristics.
If we combine just and love then we get my statement up there. If God's plan doesn't include someone then either he doesn't love that person or his plan is flawed. That would contradict either his omnipotence or his love.

You argument might be that he chooses to respect free will rather than "control" us into line, but we know that will is affected by circumstance. God could easily keep up a plan of circumstance that would eventually lead this person to enlightenment, truth. Although I only say easily because anything's easy for God! :)

2) We assumed free will in this discussion. We cannot backtrack now and blame God for the things we do by free will. One might say that final separation from God is the best punishment for those who by their free will chose separation in this life, 'cause they got what they wanted. When God gives you what you wanted all along, how can you complain about it, huh?
Do you really think that people want to burn in hell?
If seperation from God is so harsh do you think anyone really wants that?
Take me. As a non-Christian I supposedly want to be seperate from God, but I don't want to burn in hell, I just don't think that I will.

And then you'll say that not everyone chose separation from God. They just didn't know any other way. And then I'll say that God makes himself known in sufficient ways. (I think the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans on this very point was already mentioned in this thread.)
I'm going to replace that with something even stronger:
If someone thinks they want to be seperate from God then they don't know what it is to be so.

If you could find me one person in the world who desired the ultimate suffering for eternity then maybe your "choice" argument would stand. (Bear in mind that people who want physical suffering only want it as a means to drown out a worse emotional suffering - true separation as in "spiritual death" would bring in the ultimate emotional suffering too).

If I offered you a choice between two identical cups, one with the elixir of eternal life and one with poison, you have no way of telling which is which. Would you call that a choice?

You'll perhaps reply with "but people do know the difference - they have the Bible." If someone hears the Christian message and rejects it, it won't be because they want to be seperate from God or burn in hell, it'll be because they don't believe it to be true. (Remember that we agreed that beliefs aren't as volutary and free as "will"). "The word" is only sufficient if all who hear it are convinced that it's true and only then do these people have a choice.

[aikiMac]

Firstly, you dissin' God's design of our hand? In G's defense I'd like to say that a second thumb would get in the way and hinder more than it would help. :p
Score one for God, then! :D


If we combine just and love then we get my statement up there. If God's plan doesn't include someone then either he doesn't love that person or his plan is flawed. That would contradict either his omnipotence or his love.
If those were the only two characteristics of God, I would agree with you. We're repeating ourselves now: there is more to the biblical God than just these two characteristics. Gotta consider them all, or else you're not considering the biblical God, and that would totally contradict your original post.


God could easily keep up a plan of circumstance that would eventually lead this person to enlightenment, truth. Although I only say easily because anything's easy for God! :)
Maybe being that he's omniscient, he's knows when enough is enough? :confused:
And maybe being that you and I are not omniscient, we cannot tell the difference between enough and not enough? :confused:


Do you really think that people want to burn in hell?
If seperation from God is so harsh do you think anyone really wants that?
Take me. As a non-Christian I supposedly want to be seperate from God, but I don't want to burn in hell, I just don't think that I will.
The last part is a winner: "I just don't think that I will."
So God is a liar. Fine. Take it up with him.


I'm going to replace that with something even stronger:
If someone thinks they want to be seperate from God then they don't know what it is to be so.
Agreed. But, your line above still applies: "I just don't think that I will." And my response is still the same: "So God is a liar. Fine. Take it up with him."


If you could find me one person in the world who desired the ultimate suffering for eternity then maybe your "choice" argument would stand.
Nope. You already answered the issue: "I just don't think that I will."


You'll perhaps reply with "but people do know the difference - they have the Bible." If someone hears the Christian message and rejects it, it won't be because they want to be seperate from God or burn in hell, it'll be because they don't believe it to be true. (Remember that we agreed that beliefs aren't as volutary and free as "will"). "The word" is only sufficient if all who hear it are convinced that it's true and only then do these people have a choice.
I agree with this except for the part in parenthesis. You said that beliefs are not voluntary. I did not agree but at the time it did not matter to the discussion. At the time we were talking about actions, not beliefs, so I didn't fuss. But okay, we've now drifted to beliefs. Try this: to hear X and not believe X is a conscious decision. Maybe you disbelieve X because it contradicts current belief. Fine. But to not look into the matter is a conscious decision. Thus, we have "free will." This might not be qualitatively the same as free will for actions, I'll give you that, but right now all I see is a distinction that makes no difference. The Apostle Paul's argument to the Romans applies here.

[snow_tiger]

Firstly, you dissin' God's design of our hand? In G's defense I'd like to say that a second thumb would get in the way and hinder more than it would help. :p

Second, the hand is something of "what is".
We've agreed that we get an idea of God principly by his characteristics.
If we combine just and love then we get my statement up there. If God's plan doesn't include someone then either he doesn't love that person or his plan is flawed. That would contradict either his omnipotence or his love.

You argument might be that he chooses to respect free will rather than "control" us into line, but we know that will is affected by circumstance. God could easily keep up a plan of circumstance that would eventually lead this person to enlightenment, truth. Although I only say easily because anything's easy for God! :)


Do you really think that people want to burn in hell?
If seperation from God is so harsh do you think anyone really wants that?
Take me. As a non-Christian I supposedly want to be seperate from God, but I don't want to burn in hell, I just don't think that I will.


I'm going to replace that with something even stronger:
If someone thinks they want to be seperate from God then they don't know what it is to be so.

If you could find me one person in the world who desired the ultimate suffering for eternity then maybe your "choice" argument would stand. (Bear in mind that people who want physical suffering only want it as a means to drown out a worse emotional suffering - true separation as in "spiritual death" would bring in the ultimate emotional suffering too).

If I offered you a choice between two identical cups, one with the elixir of eternal life and one with poison, you have no way of telling which is which. Would you call that a choice?

You'll perhaps reply with "but people do know the difference - they have the Bible." If someone hears the Christian message and rejects it, it won't be because they want to be seperate from God or burn in hell, it'll be because they don't believe it to be true. (Remember that we agreed that beliefs aren't as volutary and free as "will"). "The word" is only sufficient if all who hear it are convinced that it's true and only then do these people have a choice.


OK... You're back to my point in my other post. We are back to the "calling God a liar" part. God revealed Himself in Word, and as part of that He revealed Hell as a real and certain alternative to Himself. By not believing in this, you call God a liar, and thus sentence yourself.

God revealed Himself in deed. Again, Paul says in Romans 1 that He painted Himself on everyone's heart with a conscience. He proved Himself through creation so that He is plainly seen. People choose/chose to worship other things, be it created objects or "self". Either way, they are ignoring the plain God, and find themselves without excuse.

You also decry that God should concern Himself more with rehab work, when, in fact, He has spent 4,000 years of documenting His plan for everyone. He took the time and trouble to tell us about Himself through the Bible, use this Bible as a guideline for finding Him, and went as far as to sacrifice Christ to do what we can't do for ourselves. All he requires is repentence and belief. What more do you want out of Him?

Perhaps your spacial concept of God vs human is what is wrong in the discussion? If we give the existence of God the benefit of the doubt for this discussion... You may need to visit the idea that God is the center of the universe and not humanity! You are hung up on what God should be doing for man, and ignore what responsibilities man has to his creator! The infinite amount of preperatory salvation work which he has worked is all GRACE, and not due to mankind. He has gone above and beyond for insignificant man. You claim he hasn't done enough. You may want to revisit that mindset.

[fugepilot]

Forgive me for butting in but I've seen no mention of Original Sin as yet - which was the main reason for Easter, according to my Catholic upbringing.
Prior dead went to Limbo, Purgatory or Hell. Nobody got in until the OS-slate was cleared. :Angel:

[snow_tiger]

Update:

Strafio, I promise I'm not trying to force the issue here. I just thought since Aiki and I both keep referring to this, I'll post it. It is Romans 1.

18For(1) the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who(2) hinder the truth in unrighteousness;(1) Or a wrath 2) Or hold the truth ; Compare 1 Co 7:30 (Gr))
19because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity;(1) that they may be without excuse:(1) Or so that they are ) 21because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed(1) for ever. Amen.(1) Gr unto the ages ) 26For this cause God gave them up unto(1) vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:(1) Gr passions of dishonor ) 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28And even as they(1) refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;(1) Gr did not approve ) 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters,(1) hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,(1) Or haters of God ) 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

I don't expect you to place the same validity I do on the Bible; I do, however, use it since it is the center of our discussion of the Christian theology. Read through the above reasons for God's wrath, and note the number of times and reasons that it says God gives them up to (or gives them over) their own desires. It's pretty clear that God does not force Himself on people; that He allows them whatever mindset they choose.

Thanks.

[Gajah Silat]

:rolleyes: I would like to add a simple numerical perspective to this.

As I understand things, the standard Christian viewpoint is that one must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and repent for their sins to enter heaven.

Please feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong.

I assume there could only be Christians after Jesus started his teachings.

With me so far? :)

After Christ's crucifiction and resurection there were 11 apostles(not counting Judas) and a relatively small number of followers.

Agreed?

So in the year following the death of Christ almost everyone on the planet who died, by Christian logic, must have been condemned to hell.

I still have no answer :eek:

Come on God botherers, where did all those souls go?

Did the big G change the rules...."sorry no Jews allowed anymore"?

Oh and have we forgotten the fact that there was no New Testament for a while yet either :eek:

[Strafio]

If those were the only two characteristics of God, I would agree with you. We're repeating ourselves now: there is more to the biblical God than just these two characteristics. Gotta consider them all, or else you're not considering the biblical God, and that would totally contradict your original post.
So which of his other characteristics contradict what I just said then?
Holiness doesn't, Holiness would just require that they can't be with God until they've finished this rehab. All the others like patience, forgiveness, understanding, omniscience seem to support it, wheras going against what I said contradicted either God's love or capability?

Maybe being that he's omniscient, he's knows when enough is enough? :confused:
And maybe being that you and I are not omniscient, we cannot tell the difference between enough and not enough? :confused:
"Enough is enough?"
Enough of what?
"Enough is enough" is when we stop trying to let the situation resolve itself and step in. It God says "enough is enough" then this person's free will has ended. Free will is no longer an issue. Will God do what's best for this person that he loves or do the worst thing imaginable to them.

The last part is a winner: "I just don't think that I will."
So God is a liar. Fine. Take it up with him.
Agreed. But, your line above still applies: "I just don't think that I will." And my response is still the same: "So God is a liar. Fine. Take it up with him."
Notice I don't think God is a liar. Something God supposedly said something that would make him a liar then I conclude that he didn't say it. The "I don't think that I will" highlights my problem:
"I don't think that I will" is my belief. If it lands me in hell it's because I got it wrong, because I was ignorant. It wouldn't be my choice.

I agree with this except for the part in parenthesis. You said that beliefs are not voluntary. I did not agree but at the time it did not matter to the discussion. At the time we were talking about actions, not beliefs, so I didn't fuss. But okay, we've now drifted to beliefs. Try this: to hear X and not believe X is a conscious decision. Maybe you disbelieve X because it contradicts current belief. Fine. But to not look into the matter is a conscious decision. Thus, we have "free will." This might not be qualitatively the same as free will for actions, I'll give you that, but right now all I see is a distinction that makes no difference. The Apostle Paul's argument to the Romans applies here.
Okay. I have belief Y which is strongly rooted. X would contradict it so I can't believe in X.

You're right. I have a conscious decision whether to look further into the matter. If it was the only problem in my life and if there was a definate solution then that would sound reasonable. The thing is, people have a lot to deal with in life. So the choice "which problem should I solve today?".

When there's multiples of religions, how do you choose which one to look into? You don't have the capacity to look into all of them. Now you once said that I'm "scary smart" for a 20 year old :love:, and I spend a lot of my time on this problem but I only have the capacity to have one foot in Christianity and one foot in Buddhism. If Islam was the absolute truth that I was supposed to look into then I'm absolutely screwed! :eek:

Secondly, I am looking into Christianity and find it unconvincing. Even in this thread, I started with worst case scenario assumptions that are things that although I can't prove wrong, I still don't believe in them. I think Socrasteins "there's no reasons to believe in God" argument is a bit extreme but he shows that there's plenty of reasons why you could understandably come to the conclusion that there's no God.

Thirdly, if I were to come out of the otherside of this tunnel with the conclusion that Christianity was correct, it would've taken an extremely heavy amount of investigating, (and I'm seriously privellaged with the time and resources I have to do this, especially compared to the rest of the world's population). It would mean that someone who was brought up in a rival belief system would have an extreme disadvantage. I know Paul reckons that the basics are written in every heart and find themselves in every religion, but how is one to conclude that their conscience is innate Christianity. Perhaps it's innate Tao-ism or innate Shamanism.

Lastly, people have good reason to be sceptical of Christianity before they've even looked into it. Countless attrocities have been caused in it's name. I'm not saying that Christianity is to blame for them, I'm saying that it justifies sceptism. Your favourite Richard Dawkins (http://www.freeola.co.uk/Life-and-Everything-Intelligent-Discussion-423-chats/Richard-Dawkins-programme-on-C4-now-133795/20) has been showing a program that shows up nutty fundamentalists from all religions (didn't see it personally but apparently he got some really good quotes from fundamentalists). Who's the most famous evangelical Christian at the moment? GW Bush. Can you blame people for sceptism? :)

[Strafio]

I don't expect you to place the same validity I do on the Bible; I do, however, use it since it is the center of our discussion of the Christian theology. Read through the above reasons for God's wrath, and note the number of times and reasons that it says God gives them up to (or gives them over) their own desires. It's pretty clear that God does not force Himself on people; that He allows them whatever mindset they choose.

Thanks.
Hmmmm....
I'll go over the passage again in a second. I don't think Paul quite had the same understanding of human nature that we do today.

Also, I think that wrath/anger contradicts love and patience.
We can't take something to be true if it contradicts itself.
My view is that when bad things happened, they figured that God was angry and punishing them. I don't think that they were necessarily right.

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity;
Paul reckons that this world is proof God exists.
The only claim close to this nowdays is the argument of "First Cause".
Even then, this can't be proof as it can't be verified.
Maybe there's a natural explanation as to what caused the Big Bang but we can only guess what came before. God causing it fits as well as any other theory but doesn't prove it.

The rest of what he says relies on me accepting that first bit.
I'm not putting down Paul here. He was probably a genius for his time but that argument he gave was a bit weak to be the word of an omniscient God.

[Strafio]

OK... You're back to my point in my other post. We are back to the "calling God a liar" part. God revealed Himself in Word, and as part of that He revealed Hell as a real and certain alternative to Himself. By not believing in this, you call God a liar, and thus sentence yourself.
Or maybe I don't think God did reveal himself so clearly and that people have misunderstood him.

You also decry that God should concern Himself more with rehab work, when, in fact, He has spent 4,000 years of documenting His plan for everyone. He took the time and trouble to tell us about Himself through the Bible, use this Bible as a guideline for finding Him, and went as far as to sacrifice Christ to do what we can't do for ourselves. All he requires is repentence and belief. What more do you want out of Him?
Belief is a lot to ask... (see post above). He should/does know that.
I'm not saying that God should concern himself more with rehab. No one here absolutely knows for sure what he's planning. We're using logic, philosophy and scripture to guess. You're right, he does offer "rehab" through Christianity but is it the only religion/faith that can make that claim? And does his generousity end once we die?

Perhaps your spacial concept of God vs human is what is wrong in the discussion? If we give the existence of God the benefit of the doubt for this discussion...
You misunderstand my arguments. :)
Nothing I say is against God himself.
If someone has an idea of what God is that sounds wrong then I'm saying that there's problem with that idea of God. That the idea must be wrong. So in this argument, I'm not saying that God shouldn't throw us in hell, I'm saying God wouldn't wouldn't throw us in hell. And between us we'll get to the bottom of it all! ;)

[snow_tiger]

Or maybe I don't think God did reveal himself so clearly and that people have misunderstood him.

I'm sure there's a lot of misunderstanding, via finite of the infinite. But Christianity says that the Bible is God's revelation, and His way of saying, "Accept what I did for you, or don't."


Belief is a lot to ask... (see post above). He should/does know that.
I'm not saying that God should concern himself more with rehab. No one here absolutely knows for sure what he's planning. We're using logic, philosophy and scripture to guess. You're right, he does offer "rehab" through Christianity but is it the only religion/faith that can make that claim? And does his generousity end once we die?

You have your choice of any out there, including a lack of religion. If Christianity is right, you will be judged against the truth you were offered and discarded. As to His "generosity" ending upon death, the Bible says it does if you have chosen your own desires over Him. Clarity of this, and "what He's planning" is printed below from revelations. (Yes, it is scripture. But if we aren't discussing this based on scripture as the revelation of God and His plans, then what is this discussion about? :))

You misunderstand my arguments. :)
Nothing I say is against God himself.
If someone has an idea of what God is that sounds wrong then I'm saying that there's problem with that idea of God. That the idea must be wrong. So in this argument, I'm not saying that God shouldn't throw us in hell, I'm saying God wouldn't wouldn't throw us in hell. And between us we'll get to the bottom of it all! ;)[/QUOTE]

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe. Either it is all true, or it is all the result of 4000 years of madmen. You seem to like the parts about a lovable, good-natured guy with a white beard and sandles, so that part is true. The parts about a vengeful, jealous God who demands our allegiances and praise-- who sets before us eternal life and death and lets us make our choice... Are those parts wrong because they don't set well with you? :D Have a read on Christ's teachings about those who reject the Kingdom, and you'll see plainly eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth. Rev 20 speaks clearly to your comment that God "wouldn't" throw us in Hell.

10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night(1) for ever and ever.(1) Gr unto the ages of the ages )
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. 15And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

Again, the Bible says that it is the inerrant word of God. Take it all, or take none of it. ;)

I'll go over the passage again in a second. I don't think Paul quite had the same understanding of human nature that we do today.
Is this the "anscient people were too dumb to know what they meant" argument? :D

Again, the Bible says that it is the word of God, written through men by the pen of the Holy Spirit. Either it is all right, or all wrong. If, for the sake of this discussion, it is all wrong, then we are not talking about the same God and the discussion is for naught.

Personally, I believe the One who created humans knows their nature quite well.

Take care...

[Capt Ann]

"Enough is enough" is when we stop trying to let the situation resolve itself and step in. It God says "enough is enough" then this person's free will has ended. Free will is no longer an issue. Will God do what's best for this person that he loves or do the worst thing imaginable to them.

Also, I think that wrath/anger contradicts love and patience.

Ok, I think I have something here. I think we've all stepped into a false dichotomy. Wrath/anger/hatred are not the opposites of peace/patience/love. These things can all coexist (as you said yourself, when you mentioned that people can hate the effects of a particular wrong/habit while allowing someone the 'right' to indulge in it). The opposite of all of these things (love/hate, anger/wrath/patience) is APATHY. I think, from what I've seen/heard/experienced, that it would be outside God's character to just plain not care what we chose or what we did. In this light, the whole scenario of rewards, punishments, eternal embracing or eternal cutting off makes sense: because God cares extremely much what we do/say/choose/will/believe.

God is justifiably angry at our willful rejection of Him (not just some intellectual feeling of "I am not convinced", but a defiant, fist-in-the-air "I know Who You are and what You want, and I choose to say 'NO!' "). He is justified in pronouncing any judgement of His choice on us.

Now, the next false dichotomy: either God will love us or He will judge us. I don't believe this is an either/or statement, nor do I believe that God's highest motivation is to assure my personal good. Taking that second part first, let's look at the ultimate example: surely brutal beating and death by crucifixion was NOT what was best for Jesus Christ (it was what was best for the rest of us and for God's glory). Similarly, I don't think God is obligated to be concerned about what would be absolutely 'best' for me, personally. As Christians, believers are called to join in 'the fellowship of the sufferings' of Christ, and suffer on this earth for the benefit of other people. Certainly, being eaten by lions, sawn in half, burned at the stake, tortured, starved, and/or drowned was not what was 'best' for the hundreds of thousands who have endured martyrdom through the centuries.

There are only two ways to deal with sin: ignore it or judge it. Ignoring it is antithetical to God's character. Sin will be judged.

"Enough is enough" is when we stop trying to let the situation resolve itself and step in. It God says "enough is enough" then this person's free will has ended. Free will is no longer an issue. Will God do what's best for this person that he loves or do the worst thing imaginable to them.If free will is no longer an issue, am I right that you're assuming that God must step in and negate their free will to rescue them? If so, then I would say that a creation with no free will and no rebellion would be worse than a creation with free will and some people in permanent rebellion. C.G. Finney defined God's love as benevolence directed towards the supreme good of the universe. An interestig definition. If true, then it would be for the ultimate good of the universe to allow free will, even when free will is used in rebellion, and even when rebellion results in judgement for specific individuals.

I think what you're saying (as in I'm not sure so please correct me if I'm wrong) is that if God ever stops giving someone another chance, then he has given up on them. I think that such a view makes sense in our temporal world, but may not apply in eternity. I change every day. Sometimes I'm angry. Sometimes I'm tired. Every day I get older. But can an eternal being ever change? Just a thought for now; more on this later.

[aikiMac]

So which of his other characteristics contradict what I just said then?
I can't believe we're even having this talk.
Dude makes rules. Dude makes a punishment. You break the rules, and now you want to argue the punishment? Who are you to argue the punishment? Which mountain did you create? Which sea did you carve out of the earth and fill with water? Which star is your handiwork?

It takes some arrogance to argue that the law maker can't hand down a punishment for breaking his laws.

justice ---> punishment. To deny this is to deny justice. Big problem there.
holiness + justice ---> punishment that you cannot satisfy yourself. We need help. Ooo, we're approaching Easter now!

Love + mercy ---> God will come up with an alternative. Oooo, getting closer to Easter! (Whereas justice is getting what is due you, mercy is not getting what is due you. God is merciful.)

Patience ---> God gives people a long time to repent.

Patience + love ---> AikiMac would talk to you about this. In light of your assumptions in the original post, you should consider this very conversation from God's point of view. This conversation could well be evidence of God's love and patience.


"Enough is enough" is when we stop trying to let the situation resolve itself and step in. It God says "enough is enough" then this person's free will has ended.
No, when God says "enough is enough" the hammer of justice comes down. To deny a punishment is to deny justice, or holiness, or both. There has to be cut off point eventually. Patience + love delays that point. Love + mercy offers an alternative punishment.


The "I don't think that I will" highlights my problem:
"I don't think that I will" is my belief. If it lands me in hell it's because I got it wrong, because I was ignorant. It wouldn't be my choice.
It would be your choice. You've had too many talks to play ignorant now, and all those talks are examples of patience + love + mercy.


When there's multiples of religions, how do you choose which one to look into? You don't have the capacity to look into all of them. Now you once said that I'm "scary smart" for a 20 year old :love:, and I spend a lot of my time on this problem but I only have the capacity to have one foot in Christianity and one foot in Buddhism. If Islam was the absolute truth that I was supposed to look into then I'm absolutely screwed! :eek:
In post #1 we assumed the Christian God. Let's not change that.


Secondly, I am looking into Christianity and find it unconvincing.
I realize that admitting guilt is hard. I have that problem sometimes too. Punishment sucks. I'd rather blame someone else. You're doing pretty good with it, though.


I know Paul reckons that the basics are written in every heart and find themselves in every religion, but how is one to conclude that their conscience is innate Christianity. Perhaps it's innate Tao-ism or innate Shamanism.
We assumed the Christian God in post #1. This question requires that we remove that assumption. I don't want to do it.


Lastly, people have good reason to be sceptical of Christianity before they've even looked into it. Countless attrocities have been caused in it's name. I'm not saying that Christianity is to blame for them, I'm saying that it justifies sceptism.
Agreed, and I'll grant you that Pres. Bush gives Christians a bad name in some circles, but you've already distinguished the genuine from the fake so we needn't go there.

[aikiMac]

I assume there could only be Christians after Jesus started his teachings.
Wrong assumption.


After Christ's crucifiction and resurection there were 11 apostles(not counting Judas) and a relatively small number of followers.
Agreed?
No, I do not agree with this.


So in the year following the death of Christ almost everyone on the planet who died, by Christian logic, must have been condemned to hell.
No.


Oh and have we forgotten the fact that there was no New Testament for a while yet either.
I don't know what this matters. Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and all the other Apostels taught the "Old Testament." They were teachers of the Old Testament.

[Strafio]

I'm sure there's a lot of misunderstanding, via finite of the infinite. But Christianity says that the Bible is God's revelation, and His way of saying, "Accept what I did for you, or don't."
My point was, how can I be certain that Christianity is God's word.
Am I rejecting God if I don't think Christianity is God's word?

You have your choice of any out there, including a lack of religion. If Christianity is right, you will be judged against the truth you were offered and discarded. As to His "generosity" ending upon death, the Bible says it does if you have chosen your own desires over Him. Clarity of this, and "what He's planning" is printed below from revelations. (Yes, it is scripture. But if we aren't discussing this based on scripture as the revelation of God and His plans, then what is this discussion about? :))
Yes. It is all my choice.
So is "choosing" a religion a game of russian roullette (except 5 of the six barrels are loaded!!!)? Hold the right beliefs on your death bed and you win, choose one of the multiple and you've had it.

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe. Either it is all true, or it is all the result of 4000 years of madmen. You seem to like the parts about a lovable, good-natured guy with a white beard and sandles, so that part is true. The parts about a vengeful, jealous God who demands our allegiances and praise-- who sets before us eternal life and death and lets us make our choice... Are those parts wrong because they don't set well with you? :D
Well yeah, I was first told that God is love.
If other parts of the Bible contradict that then they must be wrong.
If the Bible is either all right or all wrong then that would make it all wrong. I don't believe that personally...

My assumptions start with the characteristics of the Christian God.
If "judgement" isn't consistent with his character then something's gone wrong. Either the Christian God isn't who the Bible says he is or something else the Bible said was wrong. If you take the Bible to be ALL right or ALL wrong then you've got some serious problems (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) to sort out. I know that a plenty of the "contradictions" described on that site are petty, contextless, pedantic and even irrelevant, but not all of them.

[Strafio]

I can't believe we're even having this talk.
Dude makes rules. Dude makes a punishment. You break the rules, and now you want to argue the punishment? Who are you to argue the punishment? Which mountain did you create? Which sea did you carve out of the earth and fill with water? Which star is your handiwork?

It takes some arrogance to argue that the law maker can't hand down a punishment for breaking his laws.
I'm not saying that. But if the lawmaker claims to be love incarnate then his laws/judgements will be up for scrutiny to see if he is so. If you want me to drop the assumption that God is love then say so.

justice ---> punishment. To deny this is to deny justice. Big problem there.
holiness + justice ---> punishment that you cannot satisfy yourself. We need help. Ooo, we're approaching Easter now!
I didn't say deny punishment. "Rehab" would be punishment, just with light at the end of the tunnel rather than eternal punishment.

How can eternal punishment be justice?
How can I commit and eternities worth of sins in a single lifetime?
Jesus went through some harsh punishment at Easter but it was barely an eternities worth... and what come Easter Sunday? Why, if it isn't the light at the end of the tunnel. If Jesus' punishment was a substitute for yours then then you weren't going to get an eternity, just a ceremonial execution's worth of rehab.

Love + mercy ---> God will come up with an alternative. Oooo, getting closer to Easter! (Whereas justice is getting what is due you, mercy is not getting what is due you. God is merciful.)
Fair enough, except Easter doesn't cover everyone - I'll back this up later.

Patience ---> God gives people a long time to repent.
A lifetime? Well I guess it's more patient than the average human...
Who needs perfection. ;)

Patience + love ---> AikiMac would talk to you about this. In light of your assumptions in the original post, you should consider this very conversation from God's point of view. This conversation could well be evidence of God's love and patience.
Yeah. That he's letting us discuss our amature philosophy instead of jumping in and just giving us all the answers! :D

No, when God says "enough is enough" the hammer of justice comes down. To deny a punishment is to deny justice, or holiness, or both. There has to be cut off point eventually. Patience + love delays that point. Love + mercy offers an alternative punishment.
I don't see why the punishment has to be a cut-off...

It would be your choice. You've had too many talks to play ignorant now, and all those talks are examples of patience + love + mercy.
Too many talks to play ignorant of your point of view.
Ignorant of the absolute answer of "who's point of view is correct"?
If I couldn't claim that then life would be so much easier. :)

In post #1 we assumed the Christian God. Let's not change that.
I'll recontext that bit.
We assumed that the Christian God is the true one at the beginning.
The bit this reply was to was what justification could I have for guessing wrong. The tangent was beliefs, are they "free".
You said it was free will that determined whether someone explores Christian belief further (whether they had an excuse for not believing it) despite it contradicting their current beliefs. Those four paragraphs were to explain why someone was justified in not believing the Bible, or even feeling the need to dwelve into it deeper to be sure.

We assumed the Christian God in post #1. This question requires that we remove that assumption. I don't want to do it.
It doesn't remove the assumption.
The assumption is that the God is "Christian".
These four paragraphs were to justify disbelieve, considering the evidence he's given us.

Agreed, and I'll grant you that Pres. Bush gives Christians a bad name in some circles, but you've already distinguished the genuine from the fake so we needn't go there.
Ah... but I've dwelved into it so the "bad rep" means nothing to me. I'll even argue against it. But people who hear Christianity for the first time, this bad rep gives them good reason to be sceptical without dwelving any further.

Read it all again in context and remind yourself what I was replying to.
It ought to make sense.

[Strafio]

Ok, I think I have something here. I think we've all stepped into a false dichotomy. Wrath/anger/hatred are not the opposites of peace/patience/love. These things can all coexist (as you said yourself, when you mentioned that people can hate the effects of a particular wrong/habit while allowing someone the 'right' to indulge in it). The opposite of all of these things (love/hate, anger/wrath/patience) is APATHY.
I disagree. Hate is the opposite of love. Anger/wrath the opposite of patience. Apathy would be the lack of anything.
Think magnets:
North = opposite of South. "neither" would be "not magnetic".

I think, from what I've seen/heard/experienced, that it would be outside God's character to just plain not care what we chose or what we did. In this light, the whole scenario of rewards, punishments, eternal embracing or eternal cutting off makes sense: because God cares extremely much what we do/say/choose/will/believe.
Yes, but if it's because he cares then any intervention/punishment would surely be for our own good? It's the difference between 2 situations:

Parent sees their child doing x and then smacks them so they learn not to x.
Older child sees younger child doing x. Uses x as excuse to smack younger child.

If he punishes because he cares then it's for our own good and it'll work out best for us in the future.

God is justifiably angry at our willful rejection of Him (not just some intellectual feeling of "I am not convinced", but a defiant, fist-in-the-air "I know Who You are and what You want, and I choose to say 'NO!' "). He is justified in pronouncing any judgement of His choice on us.
I really don't think that anyone can meaningfully say that.
I know I can't. Does that mean I deserve to be exempt from judgement?
If I knew who God was and what he wanted then this conversation would be unnecessary.

Now, the next false dichotomy: either God will love us or He will judge us. I don't believe this is an either/or statement, nor do I believe that God's highest motivation is to assure my personal good.
But he must have very high motivation to do so, being all loving.
There would have to be an amazingly good reason why he can't do good for you if he wouldn't, but is can't a word we can use for someone omnipotent?

Taking that second part first, let's look at the ultimate example: surely brutal beating and death by crucifixion was NOT what was best for Jesus Christ (it was what was best for the rest of us and for God's glory).
I disagree. Short term unpleasantness can't have been nice but there was light at the end of the tunnel. At the end of the day he'll be sharing God's glory.

Similarly, I don't think God is obligated to be concerned about what would be absolutely 'best' for me, personally.
Not "obligated", it's just the definition of his character if he is love.

As Christians, believers are called to join in 'the fellowship of the sufferings' of Christ, and suffer on this earth for the benefit of other people. Certainly, being eaten by lions, sawn in half, burned at the stake, tortured, starved, and/or drowned was not what was 'best' for the hundreds of thousands who have endured martyrdom through the centuries.
And at the end of their strife? What could be better?
In each example you give is a short term hardship followed by eternal bliss. It always works out. God's genius plan...

There are only two ways to deal with sin: ignore it or judge it. Ignoring it is antithetical to God's character. Sin will be judged.
Fair enough. I've been mis-using the word judge.
Eternal sentances though? (See my reply to Aikimac on that one. You'll either really like or be really wound up by the answer I gave there! :Angel:)

If free will is no longer an issue, am I right that you're assuming that God must step in and negate their free will to rescue them?
Well if "enough is enough" then God has already decided that free will has come to it's end. From there he decides how to sort this guy's eternity. I assume that God loves this person so will do good for them.

Maybe you believe God doesn't tamper with free will at all.
Me neither, hence he I don't think he'll say "enough is enough".
Perfect patience in practice...

I think what you're saying (as in I'm not sure so please correct me if I'm wrong) is that if God ever stops giving someone another chance, then he has given up on them. I think that such a view makes sense in our temporal world, but may not apply in eternity. I change every day. Sometimes I'm angry. Sometimes I'm tired. Every day I get older. But can an eternal being ever change? Just a thought for now; more on this later.
Maybe that's why a just loving God wouldn't give someone an eternal position until they were ready for it, that they'd finished a "rehab" punishment?

[aikiMac]

I'm not saying that. But if the lawmaker claims to be love incarnate then his laws/judgements will be up for scrutiny to see if he is so. If you want me to drop the assumption that God is love then say so.
Love without justice is not love. True love requires justice.
Rehab is not a fitting punishment because rehab does not make up for sin. A person covered in sin before rehab will still be covered in sin after rehab. Holiness is now a big problem for him. Not good.

Read that ^^^ again. That's the part that you don't get. You asked why Easter must be interpretted the Christian way. That there is the answer, and it comes out of the OT, and it is repeated in the NT. Love + justice + holiness + mercy + patience all fit together seamlessly under this construction.


How can eternal punishment be justice?
In eternity, how can it be any other way?
What is "time" in eternity? :confused: I do not know.


How can I commit and eternities worth of sins in a single lifetime?
Because you're an eternal being who has free will.


I don't see why the punishment has to be a cut-off.
Asked and answered: Holiness + justice. There has to be a fit punishment. No amount of rehab can make up for sin. None.


Ignorant of the absolute answer of "who's point of view is correct"?
If I couldn't claim that then life would be so much easier. :)
We assumed the Christian point of view for the sake of this discussion.


These four paragraphs were to justify disbelieve, considering the evidence he's given us.
Ahh, okay. Got it. Sure, there's reasons to doubt. I see them too. I played around with other religions too. I could make Socrastein's arguments for him if I wanted to. But if Easter happened, then, well, you know, things look different. ;)

[Strafio]

Love without justice is not love. True love requires justice.
Rehab is not a fitting punishment because rehab does not make up for sin. A person covered in sin before rehab will still be covered in sin after rehab. Holiness is now a big problem for him. Not good.

Read that ^^^ again. That's the part that you don't get. You asked why Easter must be interpretted the Christian way. That there is the answer, and it comes out of the OT, and it is repeated in the NT. Love + justice + holiness + mercy + patience all fit together seamlessly under this construction.
Rehab would be the process of unsinning.
If every sin required a punishment then it would be a punishment for every sin.

In eternity, how can it be any other way?
What is "time" in eternity? :confused: I do not know.
I don't know, but we can do maths.
Eternal punishment > than earthly sin so eternal punishment =/= justice.

Because you're an eternal being who has free will.
So I get to pick a pill and hope it's not the one with hidden cyanide... wonderful... (back to those 4 paragraphs - good reasons why I'd be "ignorant")

Asked and answered: Holiness + justice. There has to be a fit punishment. No amount of rehab can make up for sin. None.
Urgh... we're going to have understand what sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin) is before we resolve this. So it's supposed to be "knowingly" wronging God? Thing is, I don't really know what God wants. I could take the Christian word for it (and if our assumption is correct then I'd've guessed correctly) but I have no real reason to. (Back to those 4 paragraphs on why there's good reasons not to believe).

We assumed the Christian point of view for the sake of this discussion.
We assumed that Christian view is right.
I have no way of knowing this assumption is right.
Read what I replied to again.

Ahh, okay. Got it. Sure, there's reasons to doubt. I see them too. I played around with other religions too. I could make Socrastein's arguments for him if I wanted to. But if Easter happened, then, well, you know, things look different. ;)
If I can be sure Easter happened. Remember, this bit is talking about our reasons to believe. We assume Easter happened but we don't assume that I've got sufficient reason to believe so.
And yes, all the other beliefs are just as prone to sceptism as well.
I wouldn't blame you for not being an athiest, even if you were wrong. And I certainly wouldn't burn you in hell for it... even if I had the power to. :Angel:

[Topher]

2) We assumed free will in this discussion. We cannot backtrack now and blame God for the things we do by free will. One might say that final separation from God is the best punishment for those who by their free will chose separation in this life, 'cause they got what they wanted. When God gives you what you wanted all along, how can you complain about it, huh?
Non believers of God don’t want to be separated from him, they just don’t believe n him or don’t really see a God is even revenant. How can you be separated from someone you cannot believe in? So why would God on the supposed Judgment Day condemn people for not accepting something because they used the intelligence he gave them.

The same thing applies to hell. Heaven and hell are concepts of the mind and probably the biggest marketing strategy ever. A prime example are the “hell houses” in the US :rolleyes: Anyway the point is, to truly believe in the Christian heaven and hell one must accept Jesus into their lives and believe in the Bible, and by doing that you will be accepted to heaven. So I don’t believe anyone is in hell, as not only will it destroy the notion of an all loving all powerful God, you also only truly believe in hell once the application for heaven as been accepted.

Lastly, people have good reason to be sceptical of Christianity before they've even looked into it. Countless attrocities have been caused in it's name. I'm not saying that Christianity is to blame for them, I'm saying that it justifies sceptism. Your favourite Richard Dawkins (http://www.freeola.co.uk/Life-and-Everything-Intelligent-Discussion-423-chats/Richard-Dawkins-programme-on-C4-now-133795/20) has been showing a program that shows up nutty fundamentalists from all religions (didn't see it personally but apparently he got some really good quotes from fundamentalists). Who's the most famous evangelical Christian at the moment? GW Bush. Can you blame people for sceptism? :)
Saw it, liked it. He mainly asked people about their beliefs and why they believe in them then science has debunked so much religious belief. One interview was with the friend of a priest who murdered a doctor for going against the Bible. The friend was sure the priest was in heaven. I didn’t know heaven approved cold blooded killers.

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe. Either it is all true, or it is all the result of 4000 years of madmen.
This was another part of the Dawkins show. Some follow the Bible word for word and use it to justify murder. Others pick and choose and believe its up to interpretation. If you can be selective in your belief of the Bible, why have a Bible to start with.

[aikiMac]

Rehab would be the process of unsinning.
:confused: The only thing in the Christian Bible that could be called "unsinning" is faith that Jesus took the punishment for your sins. I'm still operating on the assumption of the Christian God, so, I don't really know what you're saying here. :confused:


I don't know, but we can do maths.
Eternal punishment > than earthly sin so eternal punishment =/= justice.
I don't know what "greater than" means in a world without time, so, I don't know. Anyway, I think it's all moot after we assume free will and justice. You're still denying that justice ---> punishment, but under the biblical meaning of justice, you're, um, wrong. I would think that if we assume the Christian God we should assume the biblical definitions of important words. Fair? And then you'll say some other God suits your fancy better, and then I'll say that doesn't matter if Easter happened, and then we'll jump down this post a couple paragraphs.


Thing is, I don't really know what God wants.
Asked and answered by the Apostle Paul in Romans, and by "the Golden Rule" across all religions.


If I can be sure Easter happened. Remember, this bit is talking about our reasons to believe. We assume Easter happened but we don't assume that I've got sufficient reason to believe so.
Accepted. Somewhere, in some thread, Capt Ann gave title and author for significant books on the evidences for Easter. But that's perhaps a different subject altogether.

[Strafio]

:confused: The only thing in the Christian Bible that could be called "unsinning" is faith that Jesus took the punishment for your sins. I'm still operating on the assumption of the Christian God, so, I don't really know what you're saying here. :confused:
Well, the punishment Jesus took in our place was a Roman Crucifixion.
A friday of humiliation, pain, suffercation. It ends before midnight. 2 days later he's risen. So if that's the punishment we deserved for our sins before we were "even" then I guess rehab would be similar to a day's crucifixion and then it's all paid for.

I don't know what "greater than" means in a world without time, so, I don't know.
A world without time isn't eternity. You're thinking of pause.
Eternity would mean that rather than have a finite amount of seconds you'd have an infinite amount of seconds. It would never end.

If Mr X was to dangle a cat by it's tail into a bonfire for 3 seconds, would it be the same as someone who held the cat in for 10 mins?
No one's racked up enough sins to deserve eternal suffering.

Plus, causing suffering is a major sin.
If I hurt someone it's a sin.
And it's not just through direct cause, it's through neglect as well.
If a mother was to leave her baby to starve then that would definately be considered a sin.

So if God condemns someone to eternal suffering, or just causes someone eternal suffering by cutting them off then it's a "sin". That would contradict Holiness. In other topics when I'd was say that God allows suffering in the world because he doesn't want to spoil us, I was assuming that there wasn't "sin". It wasn't a case of "follow this law", it was a case of suffering is unpleasant but we overcome it. Now it seems that there's a law that to cause suffering through intent or neglect is to a sin and require necessary punishment.

Something doesn't follow...

Anyway, I think it's all moot after we assume free will and justice. You're still denying that justice ---> punishment, but under the biblical meaning of justice, you're, um, wrong. I would think that if we assume the Christian God we should assume the biblical definitions of important words. Fair? And then you'll say some other God suits your fancy better, and then I'll say that doesn't matter if Easter happened, and then we'll jump down this post a couple paragraphs.
Okay. I'm assuming worst case scenario.
God wants punishment for each sin commited.
Fair justice - no less punishment than necessary, no more punishment than necessary. Punishment for eternity doesn't = fair

Accepted. Somewhere, in some thread, Capt Ann gave title and author for significant books on the evidences for Easter. But that's perhaps a different subject altogether.
Will it be 100% unquestionably conclusive? Besides, I showed that people have good reason not to even look into Christianity if it doesn't agree with their core beliefs. That means, the requirement of being "saved" is blind luck to which horse you pick.


Anysway, we've come along way.
At some point I'll try and do a summary of what we've argued through so far so we can see where it all stands in context.

[Capt Ann]

No one's racked up enough sins to deserve eternal suffering.
>
>
Punishment for eternity doesn't = fair I think what you're assuming here is that God is punishing you for a specific act. (Mr. X did something to Mr. Y and now must pay). What you haven't considered is a 'sin of being'. For instance, if hating your brother is sinful, what is the penalty for choosing to be in a continual state of hatefulness? Likewise, if the greatest sin is rebellion against God and rejection of His just and legitimate authority, how long should the punishment last for choosing to be in a continual state of rebellion?

I would think such punishment would not be unjust if it lasts at least as long at the state of sin. In fact, I think it would be less than just if the punishment ended while someone willfully remained in a state of hatefulness/rebellion/sin. Even earthly judges will not grant parole to murderers if their stated intent is to go kill more people as soon as they get out of jail.

[holyheadjch]

well isn't this thread a great advert for christianity, screw up once and pay for it for all eternity, well I might as well go out and kill a load of people, punishment is exactly the same.

If this is the way that God works then why the hell should I worship him.

[Poogle]

If we could be certain that the Bible was the word of God, belief wouldn't be an issue. For us to believe there has to be uncertainty. I trust God. What choice do I have? He created me, he can do what he wants with me, maybe he'll tell me to trust in him, and I'll do want he wants, and then maybe he'll chuck me in Hell anyway. Not a lot I could do about that, really. If I really knew God was telling me not to enjoy life and spend it in misery obeying various restrictive laws, I guess I'd do it, rather than risk being punished for disobeying. But that's not the question we're asking.

I am not certain that the Bible is the word of God. So I am being asked to trust not in God, but in the humans who tell me that the Bible is God's word. Yes, I could spend my life trying to establish what is in fact God's word, but there's no way I could single-handedly do that in one lifetime. I'm reading holy books, studying texts that people say will convince me, looking at the laws of physics, which if God exists I think truly are the true, unaltered, words of God. But they don't tell us anything about how to live our lives. So if I fail to convince myself by the end of my life, God will punish me? While he lets people who are just more easily convinced by their fellow man than I am off the hook, just because they were born less cynical than me? Why should they be rewarded for their willingness to trust the word of their fellow humans? Adam trusted the word of his fellow human, and look what happened to him.

[Strafio]

Yeah. That was one of my points in that it's a case of luck if you find the truth in this lifetime. So if salvation is only open to those who find truth, salvation is a matter of blind luck.

I think what you're assuming here is that God is punishing you for a specific act. (Mr. X did something to Mr. Y and now must pay). What you haven't considered is a 'sin of being'. For instance, if hating your brother is sinful, what is the penalty for choosing to be in a continual state of hatefulness?
Still doesn't add up to infinite.
Or are you saying that people keep sinning in hell and keep renewing their punishments?

Likewise, if the greatest sin is rebellion against God and rejection of His just and legitimate authority, how long should the punishment last for choosing to be in a continual state of rebellion?
I thought we'd established that I'm not knowingly rebelling against him.

I would think such punishment would not be unjust if it lasts at least as long at the state of sin. In fact, I think it would be less than just if the punishment ended while someone willfully remained in a state of hatefulness/rebellion/sin. Even earthly judges will not grant parole to murderers if their stated intent is to go kill more people as soon as they get out of jail.
Yeah. But if God cares about his "defendants" more than we do then he'll attempt some kind of rehab to help this sinner mend their ways so that they sin no more.

I've got an exam in about 4 hours and need to spend between now and then cramming for it, but after that I'll try and get some sort of summary of how it all stands so far. I think we've run a couple of circles already. :)

[Strafio]

well isn't this thread a great advert for christianity, screw up once and pay for it for all eternity, well I might as well go out and kill a load of people, punishment is exactly the same.

If this is the way that God works then why the hell should I worship him.
Because of what'll happen if you don't? :p
Seriously though, this isn't supposed to be an advert for Christianity, this is us tackling extremes. For instance, I'm arguing that no one deserves hell, not even Mr Hitler. Rather God'll slap a bit of sense into him until he's fit for heaven.

They're saying that Hitler had the chance to see truth while he was alive and should pay the punishments for all the bad things he's done. So I now say, yep, he'd have a lot of hard times coming his way but surely there'd be light at the end of the tunnel...

[holyheadjch]

Because of what'll happen if you don't? :p
Seriously though, this isn't supposed to be an advert for Christianity, this is us tackling extremes. For instance, I'm arguing that no one deserves hell, not even Mr Hitler. Rather God'll slap a bit of sense into him until he's fit for heaven.

They're saying that Hitler had the chance to see truth while he was alive and should pay the punishments for all the bad things he's done. So I now say, yep, he'd have a lot of hard times coming his way but surely there'd be light at the end of the tunnel...
now you see this is a vision I have no problem with, I have no problem with punishment so long as it fits the crime, but the idea that you go to hell for eternity unless you follow jesus is absurd,

I see the bible as the words oldest example of chain mail. The last page originally said: "If you dont preach this book to at least 15 people before you die you will spend eternity in hell. Little Jimmy read the bible and preached it for the rest of his life, he now gets to sit at the right hand side of the father and will be happy for all eternity. Young Billy however read the bible and decided to form his own ideas about the world based on such stupid things as science and "physical evidence", and he didn't bother preaching the bible. When he died he got sent to hell where he was thrown into a pit of fire and sulfur where he writhed in agony for all eternity. Do you want to risk ending up in hell like Young Billy, if not then get out on the street and start preaching!"

Someone get on the phone to Jack Chick, I have a great idea for his next tract

[snow_tiger]

now you see this is a vision I have no problem with, I have no problem with punishment so long as it fits the crime, but the idea that you go to hell for eternity unless you follow jesus is absurd,

I see the bible as the words oldest example of chain mail. The last page originally said: "If you dont preach this book to at least 15 people before you die you will spend eternity in hell. Little Jimmy read the bible and preached it for the rest of his life, he now gets to sit at the right hand side of the father and will be happy for all eternity. Young Billy however read the bible and decided to form his own ideas about the world based on such stupid things as science and "physical evidence", and he didn't bother preaching the bible. When he died he got sent to hell where he was thrown into a pit of fire and sulfur where he writhed in agony for all eternity. Do you want to risk ending up in hell like Young Billy, if not then get out on the street and start preaching!"

Someone get on the phone to Jack Chick, I have a great idea for his next tract
It would seem you have formed an opinion of the Bible/Christianity without taking the time to either study it nor understand it. The above post belies your ignorance.

You are describing Jehovah's Witnesses and not mainstream Christianity-- which puts no value of eternity on preaching. Heaven and Hell has no dependence on apologetics. Period. Christians do not "spread the gospel" to earn eternal merit badges; they do it out of "brotherly love" and care for others. The Bible calls us to do so, but not at the end of a fiery plank.

Your imaginings of what the last page used to say is really only funny in comparison to what it actually DOES say.

18I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: 19and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Now, THAT'S funny. I'm not saying this is what'll happen, but the irony is thick and hilarious.

Cheers.

[Capt Ann]

Why should they be rewarded for their willingness to trust the word of their fellow humans?
Yeah. That was one of my points in that it's a case of luck if you find the truth in this lifetime. So if salvation is only open to those who find truth, salvation is a matter of blind luck.Again, you are both assuming that this entire discussion occurs in a vacuum. It doesn't. God is active. Here. Guiding. Directing. Revealing. He is more interested in you finding the truth than you are. That is why I believe Jesus tells us to keep on seeking, keep on asking, and keep on knocking, and then promises that everyone who keeps on seeking finds, and everyone who keeps on asking will be answered, and everyone who keeps on knocking will have it opened. If your heart is genuinely 'to know', and you are willing to respond, I believe God Himself will show you the truth, and in many cases, He already has.

Still doesn't add up to infinite.
Or are you saying that people keep sinning in hell ....?Yes. A poor example, but the best I can come up with: Assume there is a legitimate government in Peru. There is also a terrorist Maoist rebel group in Peru called Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). Shining Path does not have legitimate authority. It's goal is to topple the government of Peru. Right now, there isn't much activity with the guerrillas, but they are still in a state of rebellion from the Peruvian government. Even if the Peruvian government offers a total amnesty, they will still be in a state of rebellion, until the moment they lay down arms and surrender. The fact that no one is shooting or bombing anything at this exact moment in time doesn't make the guerrillas any less rebellious, or any less guilty of treason against Peru.

The whole human race has rebelled against God's legitimate authority. Being pinned down, or caged, or otherwise restrained so we can't lie, cheat, steal, etc. will not make any of us any less a rebel. We remain in a state of rebellion until we lay down our defenses and surrender. Then our only hope (because we are guilty of treason) is to fall on the mercy of the Government we have offended. In this case, the mercy is offered now. [Arguments about 'giving up' on someone or always offering them another chance for all eternity deny God's complete foreknowledge of each individual (including their will and choices), deny God's sovereignty and wisdom (that He best knows the perfect balance of mercy and justice) and deny the nature of both mercy and rebellion (that someone who refuses mercy unless it is offered on 'their terms' is still in rebellion, and not really asking for mercy at all).]

I thought we'd established that I'm not knowingly rebelling against him.No, sorry, I disagree. You don't know the extent of your rebellion (who can??) But based on the 'universal condition of the human race', I'm going to throw out a few assumptions. First, I am going to assume that every person on this thread has at some time in their life knowingly, willfully done something they believed was wrong. This goes for you, me, aikiMac, Poogle, Homer, snow_tiger, tekkengod, holyheadjch, and all the other folks who have participated (no slight intended for those I missed). You might not have fully comprehended what or whom you were rebelling against, but you flat-out knew you should NOT do it (whatever 'it' was), but you DID anyway. Second, I am going to assume there was a time in your life when you DID believe that God existed. I'll even really step out on a limb and say that you probably have even talked to Him and prayed. If you no longer believe in Him, then at some point in your life you CHOSE to stop. I know everyone has their reasons (and we've discussed a lot of reasons for skepticism on this thread), but I think the two are closely related: disbelief becomes more and more easy (and a more natural consequence) as more and more acts of rebellion pile up. This is being "hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."

Yeah. But if God cares about his "defendants" more than we do then he'll attempt some kind of rehab to help this sinner mend their ways so that they sin no more. That's what salvation is. Salvation doesn't just rescue you from the punishment of sin. Salvation makes you a new person who never existed before, with a new nature, new way of 'being', new desires. Your ways aren't 'mended'; the old ways are eradicated, and new ways are born (kind of like being 'born again', eh? ;) ) See for example 2 Corinthians 5:17-21.

I'll try and get some sort of summary Good luck on the exams!

My bit to add to the summary, I see the main differences between your view and mine as:
1. The value and extent of human free will. I see this as so paramount in God's eyes that He is willing to allow someone to reject Him totally and suffer the consequences, rather than violate it. From our discussion, I would guess I see the human will as more powerful, more sustained, and much more valuable in God's economy than you do. I see it as what makes me truly human, truly 'free', truly responsible, and truly 'made in God's own image'.
2. The nature of sin. I still get that you view sin as a series of mistakes or confusion. I see it very much as a state of rebellion against God, willfully chosen (by that powerful, sustained, valuable free will I have ;)). We also differ in the degree of guilt we are willing to associate with sin. You do not see sin (any sin) as 'so bad' that it warrants eternal punishment. I do.
3. The nature of God. You view anger and judgment as wrong, or even childish. I view them very much in keeping with the character of a God who is infinite love. Part of why anger doesn't make sense to you goes back to our disjoint on the rank/vile/nasty nature of sin. We also have a disjoint on what we see as God's priorities.
4. Who is Jesus Christ? And of course, this question. If Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, come to save us, then all the other discussion is moot, especially since He is the only one to have died, been-there-done-that, and then come back to tell us about it. Anyone who is God can certainly be trusted to know what God (and sin and man and judgment) are like.

Other than these things, I think we're 100% on the same page
:D :D :D :love: :D :D :D

One other note: this is the first post in this thread where I have managed to spell 'judgment' correctly. (Just thought I'd point that out.)

[Poogle]

Then where is he? Certainly not revealing himself to me. There is nothing in the world more frustrating than someone telling me that God is revealing himself and showing himself to me all the time and that if I really want it, then he'll show me the truth when a) to know God is the first and foremost goal in my life, and apart from the people in my life I love (and I'm sure God will appreciate why I can't lie and say my search for God is the only thing in my life, given what the other thing is - the thing he supposedly says is the most important thing), apart from that there there is nothing else, all other things in my life are incidental and b) I have had no sign whatsoever in my entire life that he even exists. WHERE IS HE?

[snow_tiger]

Then where is he? Certainly not revealing himself to me. There is nothing in the world more frustrating than someone telling me that God is revealing himself and showing himself to me all the time and that if I really want it, then he'll show me the truth when a) to know God is the first and foremost goal in my life, and apart from the people in my life I love (and I'm sure God will appreciate why I can't lie and say my search for God is the only thing in my life, given what the other thing is - the thing he supposedly says is the most important thing), apart from that there there is nothing else, all other things in my life are incidental and b) I have had no sign whatsoever in my entire life that he even exists. WHERE IS HE?
Poogle. First, I applaud the baring of your soul here, and hope that you find what you are looking for.

Second, I ask you what you are expecting from God as a revelation of Himself to you. A FedEx parcel signed by Him? An appearance of burning laundry in your closet that speaks to you? A temporary quickening of your soul into heaven for a chat?

I'm not being patronizing; I promise. What I'm getting at is that there are several degrees of revelation, each of which build from the other. There is the "general" revelation which everyone gets through conscience, proof by creation of a creator, etc... There is then the general/specific revelation of Him through the Bible. This is what he says about Himself in specifics to the masses. Once one has accepted His word for Himself through the Bible and accepted Him through faith, this faith opens one's reception to a personal revelation via the Holy Spirit. But the important thing is that it is based on an acceptance of FAITH.

Look at Christ's dealings with the Jews of His time who wanted signs. He gave them no more since (1) they should have known Him if they were His people, and (2) the blessings are for those who accept Him WITHOUT seeing (faith). Those who accepted Him without signs (the apostles) were invited into His inner circle to know Him personally. The same happens today.

So, if you're looking for signs of thunder and earthquakes, you are taking the wrong road to Him. If you drop pretense and approach Him humbly, He is willing and ready to reveal Himself and invite you into His communion.

Take care.

[holyheadjch]

So in order for god to reveal himself to us we first have to offer unquestioning faith. Thats just silly

[Poogle]

There is no pretence.

Why should they have known him? OK, if they did know him through something he wrote on their soul, but chose a life without God and therefore did things wrong, fair enough. But if they didn't know God through instinct, why is that a sin?

I'm telling you right now, I do not know God through instinct. I'm not even one of 'his people'. So... the idea that we 'know' God without him showing himself in some definite way is wrong, because I don't know God. QED. I have a sense of right and wrong, but I'm not certain that comes from God.

I am simply unable to place life-changing amounts of belief in something if my evidence for that thing I am supposed to believe in is nothing more than another human's say-so. If God knows anything about me at all, he'd appreciate why I simply can't force myself to believe something. And I also can't bring myself to based a lifetime of actions on something I'm not even sure is true. What if I've got it wrong? What if I'm not doing what God wants? I don't know for certain that I am.

I am more concerned about knowing the truth about God than I am about being able to spent the rest of my life with my mind at rest believing I will go to heaven. That's why I can't make myself shut my mind off and just pretend to myself that I believe anything that religions teach.

And I don't buy this whole idea that it's wrong to want proof. Why on earth is it wrong? I do not see the virtue in faith, nor the sin in doubt. If Eve had doubted what the serpent told her, we wouldn't be in this stupid mess in the first place. Eve was lucky enough to have both God's word (which she KNEW was from God) and the serpents word to choose from. From my point of view, I'm sitting in some Garden of Eden, with a load of serpents saying 'eat the fruit, go on, it's the right thing to do' and all I have from God is a note in serpent's handwriting stapled to the tree saying:

'Dear Poogle,

Yeah, go on, eat the fruit, it's great!

Yours truly,
God'

[holyheadjch]

There is no pretence.

Why should they have known him? OK, if they did know him through something he wrote on their soul, but chose a life without God and therefore did things wrong, fair enough. But if they didn't know God through instinct, why is that a sin?

I'm telling you right now, I do not know God through instinct. I'm not even one of 'his people'. So... the idea that we 'know' God without him showing himself in some definite way is wrong, because I don't know God. QED. I have a sense of right and wrong, but I'm not certain that comes from God.

I am simply unable to place life-changing amounts of belief in something if my evidence for that thing I am supposed to believe in is nothing more than another human's say-so. If God knows anything about me at all, he'd appreciate why I simply can't force myself to believe something. And I also can't bring myself to based a lifetime of actions on something I'm not even sure is true. What if I've got it wrong? What if I'm not doing what God wants? I don't know for certain that I am.

I am more concerned about knowing the truth about God than I am about being able to spent the rest of my life with my mind at rest believing I will go to heaven. That's why I can't make myself shut my mind off and just pretend to myself that I believe anything that religions teach.

And I don't buy this whole idea that it's wrong to want proof. Why on earth is it wrong? I do not see the virtue in faith, nor the sin in doubt. If Eve had doubted what the serpent told her, we wouldn't be in this stupid mess in the first place. Eve was lucky enough to have both God's word (which she KNEW was from God) and the serpents word to choose from. From my point of view, I'm sitting in some Garden of Eden, with a load of serpents saying 'eat the fruit, go on, it's the right thing to do' and all I have from God is a note in serpent's handwriting stapled to the tree saying:

'Dear Poogle,

Yeah, go on, eat the fruit, it's great!

Yours truly,
God'

hmm, you're pretty good at this

[Topher]

Your imaginings of what the last page used to say is really only funny in comparison to what it actually DOES say.
Used to say? When and why was it remove then?

[Topher]

No, sorry, I disagree. You don't know the extent of your rebellion (who can??) But based on the 'universal condition of the human race', I'm going to throw out a few assumptions. First, I am going to assume that every person on this thread has at some time in their life knowingly, willfully done something they believed was wrong. This goes for you, me, aikiMac, Poogle, Homer, snow_tiger, tekkengod, holyheadjch, and all the other folks who have participated (no slight intended for those I missed). You might not have fully comprehended what or whom you were rebelling against, 1. but you flat-out knew you should NOT do it (whatever 'it' was), but you DID anyway. 2. Second, I am going to assume there was a time in your life when you DID believe that God existed. I'll even really step out on a limb and say that you probably have even talked to Him and prayed. 3. If you no longer believe in Him, then at some point in your life you CHOSE to stop. I know everyone has their reasons (and we've discussed a lot of reasons for skepticism on this thread), but I think the two are closely related: disbelief becomes more and more easy (and a more natural consequence) as more and more acts of rebellion pile up. This is being "hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Wrong on all assumptions…

1. According to Christian doctrine sex before marriage is wrong and sinful. I, as does most of society, don’t think it is. Just because a book says something is wrong, doesn’t mean it actually is. Islam say the word of God is that women should be covered up but i dont see Chritians following that word of God.

2. Nope. We learnt religion in school but I was never in the position at that age to neither hold such an opinion nor make decision like this. If I remember correctly payer was conducted during school assembly but again, at the age I was (11 and below) I was not able to understand so while i may have recited the words on the screen, i doubt any of the kids knew what it was truly about.

3. I never really believed in God in the first place (at least I remember not believing), but even if I did, how can a child make such a choice. I really think a child who says they believe in God really doesn’t know what it is they believe in.

[snow_tiger]

Used to say? When and why was it remove then?
Uh... Please reread that statement in the context of what it is a REPLY to. It's quoted right there in the message. I'll copy it below for your benefit. ;)

"I see the bible as the words oldest example of chain mail. The last page originally said: "If you dont preach this book to at least 15 people before you die you will spend eternity in hell. Little Jimmy read the bible and preached it for the rest of his life, he now gets to sit at the right hand side of the father and will be happy for all eternity. Young Billy however read the bible and decided to form his own ideas about the world based on such stupid things as science and "physical evidence", and he didn't bother preaching the bible. When he died he got sent to hell where he was thrown into a pit of fire and sulfur where he writhed in agony for all eternity. Do you want to risk ending up in hell like Young Billy, if not then get out on the street and start preaching!"

Someone get on the phone to Jack Chick, I have a great idea for his next tract"

That's why I mentioned his "imaginings" of what it "used to say".

[tekkengod]

Love without justice is not love. True love requires justice.
Rehab is not a fitting punishment because rehab does not make up for sin. A person covered in sin before rehab will still be covered in sin after rehab. Holiness is now a big problem for him. Not good.

Because you're an eternal being who has free will.

Asked and answered: Holiness + justice. There has to be a fit punishment. No amount of rehab can make up for sin. None.

Love without justice is not love? what? thats a matter of personal preferance there bud, if you wife commited a crime would you not attempt to PREVENT her from taking punishment? i know i would.

Now we're eternal?

Then it becomes Revenge, not punishment if the intent of the punishment is not rehab.

[Capt Ann]

1. According to Christian doctrine sex before marriage is wrong and sinful. I, as does most of society, don’t think it is.Please re-read what I wrote. My point isn't that we all have violated some law somewhere, but that each of us has violated the dictates of his own conscience, and has done something he knew was wrong (not just something someone else said was wrong, and we can debate if it really is or not.) Homer, are you telling us that you have never done anything wrong?? :confused: :D

2. Nope. We learnt religion in school but I was never in the position at that age to neither hold such an opinion nor make decision like this. I think you underestimate your own ability and understanding. Believing in God is so easy that even a child can do it. To say that you were young, therefore your opinion or belief at that age somehow 'didn't count' misses the point. When you were young, you believed (inherently, innately) in God. You had to (later) change.

3. I never really believed in God in the first place (at least I remember not believing), but even if I did, how can a child make such a choice. I really think a child who says they believe in God really doesn’t know what it is they believe in.It's interesting, the younger two of my three children have the firmest conviction in God, and my middle child made a deliberate commitment of faith in Christ at age 4. When I was her age, I remember making a deliberate choice to reject God, and I told Him so. Again, please see #2 above. 'Belief in God' doesn't mean memorizing the Westminster Confession, reciting the Heidelberg Catechism, and submitting a doctoral dissertation on vicarious suffering and the atonement. We 're the ones who make it so difficult. Jesus was the one who said that unless you receive the kingdom of God like a little child, you won't enter it at all.

[Socrastein]

Ideas as abstract as metaphysics and God require some of the highest levels of intellectual development for a person to adequetely grasp. Sure, any little kid can say they believe in God, they can recite what they've heard from their parents and from church, but have you ever tried discussing God or metaphysics with a 4 year old? Or even a ten year old? Or how about a 15 year old with less-than-average intelligence? You get nothing but confusion from them. Why is that? If they so adequetely grasp these concepts, how come their understanding goes no deeper than a superficial affirmation of the propositions? Why is it that they are unable to debate the issue, or address arguments or resolve contradictions?

Because their brain hasn't reached a sufficient level of reasoning prowess for them to sufficiently understand what "God" actually means. For the first many years of a young human's life, their knowledge scarcely supercedes "monkey see monkey do".

If your children truly do grasp these concepts, how well do you think they would fair in a debate against me? Or Maverick? I predict that they would have absolutely nothing to say, and everything we say would fly right over their heads. They would be capable of saying nothing more than "Jesus loves me" and "The Bible says so" or that gem that I've heard so many times "Mommy/Daddy says it's true".

There's no such thing as religious children, just children with religious parents.

No, that's not an insult to your kids, that's just the reality of the human brain and it's capabilities at such an age.

[Capt Ann]

I don't ever want to have religious kids....just kids who love Jesus.

Jesus is easy to know. It doesn't take a doctorate degree. In fact, it's so profound that it's simple: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Simple. Yet life-changing.

[Capt Ann]

Capt Ann: Kelly, tell me about God
Kelly (age 10): He is mighty. He is strong He is caring, and He keeps no record of wrong. He is not sinful. He is perfect in every way. He is our savior and our Lord. He is 'I AM'. He is the Father. You know, Mom, this could go on for a lifetime...I could tell a bunch of good things about God. And He doesn't get angry very easy. He despises sin, too. His love is everlasting.

Capt Ann: How do you know?
Kelly: Cause Jesus tells us, the Bible tells us, God Himself tells us. But if you want to truly believe, you have to have faith.

Capt Ann: Do you mean to tell me that God actually speaks to you?
Kelly: uh-Huh!.

Capt Ann: How?
Kelly: He tells you stuff through other people, through your friends, through prayer, through the Bible, through your Pastor. He'll also tell you in visions and dreams.

Capt Ann: How do you know they're right?
Kelly: I don't. I just have faith. And you can know when God's telling you something. It's just something that He would do and not somebody else. You can feel it.

Capt Ann: anything else you want to tell me about God?
Kelly: He's very trustworthy, so you can put your trust in Him.

Capt Ann: Do you mind if I send this to other people for them to read? They might make fun of you.
Kelly: No, I don't care. At least someone will hear about Jesus.

Back to Capt Ann: Kelly doesn't have to debate you, Soc. She knows through personal experience that God is real, whether she can put together an argument or not. She is proof that God has written His law on the human heart, and she even knows the 'attributes of God', even if she can't spell them.

Where is the wise man? Where is the debater of this age?
I praise God that He has revealed these things to babes.

[Poogle]

hmm, you're pretty good at this

When I say my search for God is the first and foremost thing in my life, which for a non-religious person is really quite something, I'm serious. I've done *a lot* of thinking on the matter, and I'm capable of thinking on a fairly complex level sometimes.

Further to my earlier point: It's not just that I might be deceived by other people telling me things that are wrong, even though they may believe them to be true. What if I misinterpret something, thinking God was trying to tell me something? Will I just 'know' when it's him? How? Because what he's telling me doesn't sound ridiculous? Surely then I'm only following my own moral code, and not his at all. Maybe what he thinks is right is something I think is wrong. I'd just dismiss it as me trying to read into something.

For example: In Chapel this evening, one of the readings was Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians. Now, remembering that I spent most of today explaining on here why I didn't understand why I'd be turned away from heaven just because I couldn't believe, even though my most of my life is spent looking for God, here was 'the word of God' telling me that all I had to do was marry someone would was capable of believing, wait for him to convert to Christianity, and then through him I would become holy. Now, call me cynical, but I don't think that was God speaking to me. But I could have interpreted it as so, and made life-changing decisions based on it.

So how do I know when God saying something? How can I be sure it's him? Anyone?? Someone please give me some answers!

[Topher]

Please re-read what I wrote. My point isn't that we all have violated some law somewhere, but that each of us has violated the dictates of his own conscience, and has done something he knew was wrong (not just something someone else said was wrong, and we can debate if it really is or not.) Homer, are you telling us that you have never done anything wrong?? :confused: :D
Or course not, but what, but what a Christian might regard as wrong, most others do not. I could say I did something which you as Christian would say as wrong, but because a religion says it is wrong, doesn’t mean it is. I prefer to stick to morality, which is older than religion, and the law, rather than the rules of a religion.

I think you underestimate your own ability and understanding. Believing in God is so easy that even a child can do it. To say that you were young, therefore your opinion or belief at that age somehow 'didn't count' misses the point. When you were young, you believed (inherently, innately) in God. You had to (later) change.
I don’t think a child can make such as decision. Sure, they can “believe” in God from what they are told, but I very much doubt the really know about it. I for that matter never really believed in God as such. I was taught about religion and God in school, but cannot say I, or anyone else at school really understood it, at least to make such a vast choice when I wasn’t even 12 years old. :rolleyes: As i got older and started to question all of the possibilities and arguments I came to a conclusion based on my research, no what anyone told me.

I don’t really believe religion should be taught in school to young children as I think religion/faith teaches people, especially children, that it is a virtue to not seek evidence. I think children should be taught to be more sceptical, to question and ask for evidence about anything. At secondary/high school level students are a lot more capable to look into various religions, discuss them and make possible choices that they understand.

It's interesting, the younger two of my three children have the firmest conviction in God, and my middle child made a deliberate commitment of faith in Christ at age 4. When I was her age, I remember making a deliberate choice to reject God, and I told Him so. Again, please see #2 above. 'Belief in God' doesn't mean memorizing the Westminster Confession, reciting the Heidelberg Catechism, and submitting a doctoral dissertation on vicarious suffering and the atonement. We 're the ones who make it so difficult. Jesus was the one who said that unless you receive the kingdom of God like a little child, you won't enter it at all.
And it’s not a coincidence that their parent also has a firm conviction in God. ;) What if they reject religion/God when they get older or decide no longer go to church, would you approve or make them rethink? Do they know about Evolution? What if they later acknowledge that? I have two friends whose parents made them go to church every week, but as soon as they were 16, they stopped going. I think with regards to religion, as well as political issues, they should be made consciously, with full understanding of it and all the other sides to it. How can someone associate themselves to a belief system if why do not know of other belief system which might be better for them. If all someone knows is Christianity then it’s no surprising they take it.

We are quick to place children in the religious category of their parents, but we don’t do that with politics. Why? Because a child cannot determine which side of the political spectrum they are on.

[Poogle]

Capt Ann: Kelly, tell me about God
<snip>
Where is the wise man? Where is the debater of this age?
I praise God that He has revealed these things to babes.

Yes, but I could just as easily find a child around here who would swear blind that Santa Claus exists because she's got presents that he sent to her last Christmas as actual real proof.

It's possible that the child believes in Jesus because the idea of Jesus was put in his/her head by his/her parents. I don't know any children who say about how Jesus loves them unless their parents are religious, or they've been to religious schools.

It's the difference between believing in God, and believing everything your mother tells you without question. I don't really understand what the phrase 'believe in God' even means. You don't 'believe in God' you believe something that someone tells you, and what they tell you is that God exists. At some point in your life you stop believing everything you're told and starting questioning. Some children who have been brought up with the belief that if they turn away from Jesus they'll go to hell or that God is so wonderful it would be unbearable without him, so they're too frightened to question or they need that comfort there, the knowledge that if all else fails, Jesus the emotional safety net is there to save the day, for them that doubt remains with them all their lives, preventing them from thinking for themselves. If they did, they might stop believing what their parents told them. Others, maybe who were brought up with strict rules based on the Bible, with less emphasis on the emotional aspect of religion, may well rebel against the rules that didn't make sense to them as a child.

It's exactly the thing that I was talking about before: if you're going to 'believe in God', what is it exactly that you are believing? The words 'God exists'. Where did those words come from? From another human, from a book written down and then interpreted for me by humans, from a website, from my own head - none of which are reliable sources in my humble opinion! Do you see why I have trouble with this belief thing?

[Topher]

It's exactly the thing that I was talking about before: if you're going to 'believe in God', what is it exactly that you are believing? The words 'God exists'. Where did those words come from? From another human, from a book written down and then interpreted for me by humans, from a website, from my own head - none of which are reliable sources in my humble opinion! Do you see why I have trouble with this belief thing?
To add to that, when was he first recorded notion of God? Could God have simply been mans explanation for the world and universe around him? And who were the authors of the Bible? I don’t mean who they were, but what were they like. We’re supposed to believe a book written by some people who we only know about from that very same book. And the only evidence to the claim of God are the claims itself.

[snow_tiger]

To add to that, when was he first recorded notion of God? Could God have simply been mans explanation for the world and universe around him? And who were the authors of the Bible? I don’t mean who they were, but what were they like. We’re supposed to believe a book written by some people who we only know about from that very same book. And the only evidence to the claim of God are the claims itself.
It's better documented than Alexander the Geat. And, if the authors were gonna lie about themselves, they probably would have painted themselves in better lights, no? If they were making the stories up, they would probably have left the wrinkles out? Like Moses sinning by striking the rock so that he can't enter the promised land? The part about him being too dumb to speak to phaeroh? The part about David's adultery and murder?

What was it, a Jewish propoganda attempt that painted themselves as disobedient, obstinent people who were too selfish and dumb to follow the god they made up? Brilliant! As for the New Testament... It was made up and forged while the witnesses it speaks of were still alive? The same witnesses that (most) chose to uphold it as truth til martyrdom and death? That's some pretty good lieing.

You still can't escape the fact that the Bible is the best documented historical document, with far, far, far less discrepencies between manuscripts than ANY other historical documents known. It is a better documented history than any other that are considered fact. But the Bible is different, and can't be believed...

This is why I am getting into these discussions less and less... Neither side is in it for a change of perception. It's more like a conversation about a conversation.

[Socrastein]

Ann:

We have nothing but your word to assume your kid said those things, so I'm not sure why you would even bother with an unprovable manuscript like that. Even if Kelly did, it's irrelevent. She has shown no advanced understanding or mature grasp of the concepts of metaphysics and the "logic" behind a creator. You slip right out of the problem by simply asserting that Kelly needn't debate myself nor anyone else. It's not about whether or not she needs to, it's about whether or not she is CAPABLE of it. Two great measures of intelligence are 1) Being able to entertain an idea without accepting it and 2) Being able to adequately defend any position you claim to understand. A child is not capable of entertaining ideas fed to them by their parents or by their pastors without accepting them. They do not have the sufficient capacity of reason to objectively discern what's reasonable from what's not. This is evident in the fact that so many children believe in ridiculous things simply because they were told they were true - Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, monsters, God, angels, etc.

As for being able to adequetely defend their position, no child is capable of this. Once again, it's not about need, very few theists "need" to debate their position because they're so hopelessly convinced they're right that evidence, logic, and rationality in general is inconsequential in their mind. It's about the ability to debate the issue. Kelly wouldn't make it past a handful of questions, she would be capable of nothing more than repeating those token phrases that have been drilled into her head for so long, as is evidenced by what you claim she said about God. Sounded like she was just echoing the kind of things I heard in church when I was growing up. You've not shown, nor could you, that she, or any other young child, has a sophisticated grasp of metaphysics and the divine.

Your empty assertions fly in the face of scientific and psychological studies on children and the development of reason in a growing human being. Everything you are claiming about your children grasping such abstract concepts at such a young age is earth-shattering. I suggest you get ahold of some nearby universities and see if any local psychologists would like to get their hands on the most rational and abstractly sophisticated child known to man.

Or maybe you could just apply Occam's maxim and bet on the possibility that your kids are mimicking what they've heard, which has nothing to do with competently grasping the ideas their echoes refer to.

By the way, thanks Poogle for beating me to the Santa reductio ad absurdum ;)

[Socrastein]

Snow Tiger:

You're committing the fallacy of composition. Just because some parts of the Bible are historically accurate, doesn't mean the metaphysical and religious portions are just as accurate. You cannot infer the one from the other, it's illogical. Do you have any idea how many fiction novels reference real events, real people, and real locations in our world? Does that mean that because those parts are historically accurate, that the rest of the book, including all the fantasy and magic, is neccessarily true as well? I think not. Nobody cares about the historical accuracy of the bible, everyone is concerned with the supernatural accuracy of the bible, and sorry to say, there is absolutely none whatsoever.

[holyheadjch]

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotton, not made, of one Being with the Father"

Not been going to church on even a semi regular basis since I was 12 - this was 9 years ago, and yet I can still recite this, which I believe is part of the proclamation of faith. Did I ever know what I was reciting? No, did the rest of the congregation? I doubt it. I recited it because if I didn't I would get into trouble, that was the only motivation I had and as a child it was more than a good enough reason to.

[Poogle]

Neither side is in it for a change of perception.

Excuse me?

[Poogle]

At the confirmation of a few friends (incidentally the same service I was to be confirmed at had I not told the Chaplain at the end of the preparation period that I was not willing to make a promise to God that I wasn't able to even understand, and much less able to keep, lacking such a fundamental thing as belief) the Bishop told a story about how at one service he'd asked all the people present, during the Nicene creed, to remain standing for the parts they genuinely believed and to sit down during the parts they didn't not believe, or were not sure of. He then asked at some point afterwards if there had been anyone who had remained standing for the entire creed. Apparently no one in the congregation had.

I say the creed because I feel that as a non-believer I would be intruding on other people's worship to go to a service and refuse to stand or say the creed. If God is there, he knows I can't believe, and he knows why I still say in Chapel that I do. I have no intention of allowing my own lack of belief to be evident and affect others' belief in a place of worship. I do not intend to attempt to persuade religious people to that they should think more carefully about whether or not they believe in God. What if I cause them to question their beliefs? What if they reject God? And what if they were right all along? If they are saved by their beliefs then it's not my place to tell them that their faith is blind and that they should rethink just because I think blind faith is unwise. I don't want their souls' blood on my hands.

Incidentally, the only part of the creed I'd have stayed standing for is:

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[snow_tiger]

Snow Tiger:

You're committing the fallacy of composition. Just because some parts of the Bible are historically accurate, doesn't mean the metaphysical and religious portions are just as accurate. You cannot infer the one from the other, it's illogical. Do you have any idea how many fiction novels reference real events, real people, and real locations in our world? Does that mean that because those parts are historically accurate, that the rest of the book, including all the fantasy and magic, is neccessarily true as well? I think not. Nobody cares about the historical accuracy of the bible, everyone is concerned with the supernatural accuracy of the bible, and sorry to say, there is absolutely none whatsoever.

Since you are so quick to define inteligence, I would add to the definition that of being able to view arguments within context, and further to have the capacity to follow a discussion in its whole.

I was responding to a specific post which hinted at the Biblical authors as self-argrandizing liars. Within this context, I stated (1)the Bible is better documented with fewer variances than anything else we have (2) the authors would have done some cover-up if they were going to lie, and (3) the NT Christians would probably have recanted a lie under torture and death (hinting that they ate least believed what they professed). Nowhere in that post did I mention metaphysics, magic or fantasy. Again, that post was solely a statement defending the integrity of the authors and not the integrity of my "fantasy" beliefs. If you had cared enough to follow my statements as a whole in this thread, you would find that I said that one must come to God through faith, not a burning desire to prove the Bible right. Apologetics are for YOUR benefit, not mine.

As to your statement that --"Nobody cares about the historical accuracy of the bible, everyone is concerned with the supernatural accuracy of the bible, and sorry to say, there is absolutely none whatsoever."-- that is the most UNinteligent statement I've read in this thread yet, and it goes a long way to define your reasoning capacity. First, it's nice that you can speak for everybody and nobody. I find it very interesting when the Bible is right historically, as it adds quite a bit of flavor to the reading.

Secondly, just because you feel something is improbable (impossible) doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. You can no more disprove the supernatural to me than I can prove it to you, and your worldview has equal or more holes in it than my "supernatural" one does. The fact that you can so conclusively speak to the validity of evens that precede you, and events which you can in no way test for validity, either makes you the smartest man to enter this conversation or the dumbest.

Have a nice day.

[Poogle]

Why is everyone ignoring my posts? Someone must have some suggestions for me, surely?

Also, don't get me started on the intelligence debate. I've had that same debate countless times on other forums, and no one has ever reached a conclusion.

[holyheadjch]

I believe you may have stunned them into silence - thus ignoring your points is far easier than attempting to answer them. Of course I could be wrong (first time for everything I suppose)

[snow_tiger]

Poogle, we aren't ignoring you. We are answering you as best we can, and it doesn't seem to do it for you. This is often the case of these types of discussions-- the two sides can't seem to discuss from the same context. We answer on a Biblical response, and you answer, "but what if the Bible is wrong? What if that's not the God?" Where do you want us to go from there? Where can you expect us to go from there? Either believe or don't. It's a personal thing and there is little any of us can do for you.

You seem to believe in (a) God. You say that one of your biggest priorities is finding him. But you seem to expend more energy talking yourself out of the revelations He has given you of Himself. You have spent more typespace in this thread calling Him into question than affirming anything. You've made more statements as to what you don't believe than what you do.

God's not going to stop existing because you express doubt about Him. And I wouldn't expect him to bother further revelation when you talk yourself out of the revelation he has made. Please don't take this wrong. I don't mean this in an offending way. But the God we are talking about expects you to take Him at His word and come in faith before He reveals anything else to you. He won't talk to you through the door. Then again, He may not be the god, and all of us Christians are wrong. Then we're no help to you anyway. But either way, you're going to get answers from us from our perspective and understanding, using a Biblical basis for our answers. If you expect that this basis is wrong, then there is no use asking us.

[Poogle]

What's the point in him revealing anything to me when I am not sufficiently well equipped to recognise that revelation? It's like someone's set you a brain teaser, and you can't solve it and ask for a tip. And they send back a cryptic clue that just happens to look exactly like a bank statement. If my bank statement is due to arrive that day and I happen to get two identical copies, am I going to assume that this is a mistake by my bank, or that it's a cryptic clue? How long am I going to spend staring at that statement trying to work out what it means? Are you saying that God really was telling me to break off my current relationship and go find a Christian to marry? God isn't revealing himself if his revelation is indistinguishable from everyday events.

Another analogy: I have two books which contain different texts. The covers are identical. The 'revelation' of which is which is made by means of opening the book to reveal the first page. Now, that's a good revelation, yes? Not if the first page is a blank flyleaf.

My question then, I will simplify:

Is the revelation of God distinguishable from everyday events? If so, how?

Also, no one has made any attempt to answer my question about faith, which is a key obstacle for me in getting my head around the whole God thing. What is the virtue in faith? Christianity seems to focus an awful lot on the importance of just believing in God. Why? Is someone who follows his laws but does not believe in him ever going to get into heaven? If not, why not? What is wrong with doubting?

For the record, I do not believe in God. I thought I made that clear. I do however, believe in the possibility of a God.

[aikiMac]

Ann:
We have nothing but your word to assume your kid said those things, so I'm not sure why you would even bother with an unprovable manuscript like that. Even if Kelly did, it's irrelevent. She has shown no advanced understanding or mature grasp of the concepts of metaphysics and the "logic" behind a creator. You slip right out of the problem by simply asserting that Kelly needn't debate myself nor anyone else.
You are so wrong, and so abrasive also.
First post: "As a non-Christian I'm assuming 'worst case scenario'. That is, there is a God and that Easter happened (i.e. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead). If you want to argue against there being a God or Easter happening then that's a different thread."

Ann is giving Strafio the courtesy and respect of meeting him on his own terms, in the conversation that Strafio wanted to have. You are not doing that.

Ann made an excellent point: Knowing Jesus is not about knowing all the book answers. Knowing Jesus is about knowing Jesus. It is so simple that a young child can do it -- and that fact makes fools out of otherwise intelligent adults every day.


It's not about whether or not she needs to, it's about whether or not she is CAPABLE of it.
This is false if we respect Strafio's opening assumption.
Capt Ann respected Strafio's opening assumption.


Two great measures of intelligence are ...
That's not relevant to this topic. Wisdom would be relevant to this topic, and Kelly has wisdom.


What's the point in him revealing anything to me when I am not sufficiently well equipped to recognise that revelation?
I don't know, but neither do I accept the premise that you are not equipped to recognize a revelation. I think your question is ill-formed. :confused:


Is the revelation of God distinguishable from everyday events? If so, how?
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes it comes from the nature around you -- the way the birds sings, the way the traffic moves, something. You probably would not consider that distinguishable from everyday events, and it's probably not. Sometimes it comes from what people say to you. That might be distinguishable from everyday events, or it might not be, depending upon what they say. Sometimes the revelations are miracles, like when week after week after week there's always more hamburger meat in your freezer than what you bought at the market. That one is distinguishable.


We answer on a Biblical response, and you [Poogle] answer, "but what if the Bible is wrong? What if that's not the God?" Where do you want us to go from there? Where can you expect us to go from there?
Snow Tiger has a fair point. For someone who says she's very open and searching, you do fight the answers quite a lot. :o

[holyheadjch]

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes it comes from the nature around you -- the way the birds sings, the way the traffic moves, something. You probably would not consider that distinguishable from everyday events, and it's probably not. Sometimes it comes from what people say to you. That might be distinguishable from everyday events, or it might not be, depending upon what they say. Sometimes the revelations are miracles, like when week after week after week there's always more hamburger meat in your freezer than what you bought at the market. That one is distinguishable.
You say those things are revelations from God, whereas a shrink would probably refer to them as paranoid delusions.

Its simple, if God speaks to me in a manner I can recognise then fine, I will fall to my knees and spend the rest of my life in his service, knowing that I will be rewarded for my efforts. However if you expect me to hear a bird sing in an odd way and suddenly believe in the bible (and that is what this thread is really about, believing in the bible) then you are sadly mistaken.

And if that bird did turn out to be God trying to talk to me I would politely point out to God that for a start I dont speak sparrow and that for every reason I was given to believe in him I was provided a dozen to doubt, and if I am to be punished for finding my own path in the absence of his guidance then I will welcome that punishment

[snow_tiger]

Response to Poogle: To get to the faith bit first, and it is a repeat from earlier in the thread when I explained it.

Faith is the MOST important thing! Because faith is a person taking God at his word. Anything besides faith is a person calling God a liar. Faith comes back to: "It is impossible to please God uinless you first believe that he is." It comes back to: God says, "This is what I have done for you." You can either say (figuratively), "OK, I'll take you at your word, please explain further." Or, "You are a liar in the first place." Do you think He will speak further to you after the latter?

Faith grows. A little becomes a lot. Revelation grows. A little becomes a lot. Look at it again. God says, "This is my reveleation." You say, "OK. You are not a liar so I'll take you at your word though i don't copmpletely understand." God says, "I can help you with that."

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is there to explain after you accept it. He makes it all REAL for you. But you have to take that first step just accepting. Otherwise you call God a liar.

You can't even approach God without first having faith in Him. That is the importance of faith.

[holyheadjch]

you see faith I see gullibility

if the bible said that the only way you could enter heaven was to jump off a cliff would you do it???

Yes or no answer please.

[aikiMac]

Holyhead, you're still ignoring Strafio's beginning assumptions.

Be nice to Strafio and be nice to those of us who, unlike you, have met him on his own terms.

[holyheadjch]

Holyhead, you're still ignoring Strafio's beginning assumptions.

Be nice to Strafio and be nice to those of us who, unlike you, have met him on his own terms.
I think I'm meeting it perfectly fairly, at the moment according to biblical judgment I'm on my way to hell, I am trying to understand how this can be the case when all I am doing is using my 'god given intellect'

[Socrastein]

Snow Tiger:

How ironic that you would attack me on the basis that I am misunderstanding context when it appears that it is you who is missing the point. Homer specifically referred to the metaphysical aspects of the Bible, the "God stuff" if you will, he was not explicitly, or even implicitly from what I could tell, referring to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

To add to that, when was he first recorded notion of God? Could God have simply been mans explanation for the world and universe around him? And who were the authors of the Bible? I don’t mean who they were, but what were they like. We’re supposed to believe a book written by some people who we only know about from that very same book. And the only evidence to the claim of God are the claims itself.

Mayber Homer is just speaking in riddles that you understand and I do not, but I shall assume he means what he says, in which case he was questioning the spiritual accuracy of the Bible, and questioning why we should believe the religious writings of a bunch of guys from a couple thousand or more years ago.

If that's indeed what he was saying, then why on earth did you respond with reference to the historical accuracy of the Bible? How was it even remotely relevent for you to respond to his attack on the metaphysical aspects of the Bible by bringing up the supposed historical accuracy of it? You got so defensive and said I had no idea what the context of the discussion was and I was totally missing your point, but I understood your point, and even more, I understood Homer's point, and thus I saw that your point was irrelevent.

Now, there seem to be two possibilities here. The first is that you are actually directly addressing Homer's point by referring to what you did, which means you are trying to convince him that the "God stuff" in the Bible is to be trusted (which is what he was getting at) because the "history stuff" in the Bible is accurate. If that's what you were doing, then just like I said, you were committing a fallacy of composition.

The second possibility is that you weren't addressing his point, but were rather just randomly asserting that the Bible has a lot of historical accuracy. He was talking about metaphysical accuracy and why we should believe what it has to say about God, and you respond with a rant on how it refers actual historical events and places. In that case, your point wasn't fallacious, it was completely off topic, out of context, and irrelevent to what Homer said.

Given these two possibilities, I suggest you reconsider your OWN grasp of context before you start flipping out on me saying that I'm completely off base.

AikiMac:

I read Strafio's post. We're assuming God exists and Easter happened, roger. Now, kindly explain to me how that has any bearing whatsoever on what I posted in respond to Ann. Because we're assuming God exists, does that mean we must in turn assume that her children, who are as of yet incapable of the levels of reasoning and abstraction required to truly grasp the concept of a metaphysical being, actually do understand what "God" means? There are plenty of things that not only we can assume exist, but DO actually exist, that still are out of the mental reach of young children. As was mentioned earlier, the politics is one good example. Political parties exist, political positions and beliefs and arguments all certainly exist, but that still has nothing to do with the fact that kids simply cannot understand them until they mentally mature enough to grasp such concepts.

So Aiki, I really am stumped as to why you referenced, more than once, Strafio's "assumption" as though it made my arguments irrelevent - it does not. Whether God exists or not, whether Easter happened or not, the metaphysical concepts at work here are far too abstract and complicated than a child is capable of grasping.

You and Ann say it's as simple as "Jesus loves me". Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It is MUCH different than "Grandma loves me". Grandma exists, grandma is tangible, there is an easy association for a child to make there. Grandma is not a metaphysical being. Grandma did not defy the laws of physics by performing miracles, and rising from the dead. Grandma is not a part of a holy trinity, grandma did not somehow exist for eternity before she was born, grandma is not omnipotent, grandma is not omniscient, grandma does not pray to her father who is at the same time herself somehow, and grandma did not create the universe. "Jesus loves me" does not cover it. That statement only makes sense if one can truly grasp what "Jesus" refers to. Young children cannot. Many young adults cannot. Even a few of my peers have a hard time discussing metaphysics and religion because their understanding unfortunately never grew beyond what they heard in church.

*And as long as you're on a mission to squelch irrelevent posts in threads, could you please do something about the "Chuck Norris" crap that keeps ruining good threads on important subjects? It's terribly annoying.*

[snow_tiger]

I would differ in your opinion that you are using your God-given intellect. Biblically speaking, man was created in a wonderful state of blissful ignorance, and walked in communion with God. He knew his place, knew God's and all was well.

The first sin was partaking in the knowlege of good and evil, thus striving to promote ourselves to eaquality with God (reread the serpent's argument to Eve in Gen). You use "your God-given intellect" to promote yourself in equality with God, in judging His word and choice of revelation against Him?

Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat

Eve obtained a (God-given?) intellect by defying Him and grasping at wisdom? You use this same (God-given?) intellect to talk yourself out of submission to Him. Perhaps this is the "Original Sin" that flows through the human geneology and plagues us as a curse. Maybe Adam and Eve made us "too smart" for our own good. Maybe they gave us too much "wisdom" to realize the simplicity that God exists and He is a God of His word. Interesting thought...

In any even... You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions about what is God-given, and what rights you have to speak against Him. One of us is right. You should hope against Hell that it is you.

Socrastein:

Please bear in mind that the comment I was speaking to was this:

"And who were the authors of the Bible? I don’t mean who they were, but what were they like. We’re supposed to believe a book written by some people who we only know about from that very same book."

Now, if I had spoken to anything else in my response, you may have cause for your rant. But I didn't. The quote questioned the motives of the authors. I spoke to these motives. Anything more is just one more assumption on your part. That's OK. That seems to be your specialty. And if you can't read in my post that I am speaking to motives, then I can't help that, especially considering that most of my post was concerning their motives and a very small % even mentioned historical accuracy. Wow... Take care...

[holyheadjch]

if god didn't give me this intellect who did? seeing as god was meant to be my creator it only makes sense logically that he gave it to me.

so would you throw yourself off that cliff?

[Socrastein]

Snow:

Rather than respond again, I'll wait for Homer to come onto the scene. He's the only one who truly knew what he was saying, and therefore I'll let him be the judge of whether or not you adequetely addressed his point.

[snow_tiger]

if god didn't give me this intellect who did? seeing as god was meant to be my creator it only makes sense logically that he gave it to me.

so would you throw yourself off that cliff?

To a great extent, I'd say He did give us intelect, since Eve used intellect in deciding whether to partake or not. Adam used intellect to form a blame argument against Eve. But obviously, if we are to interpret that creation through the Bible, a certain part of that intelect was not given by Him, but grasped through the "fruit".

I'm not sure I follow what "cliff" you want me to jump off of. Do you feel that a discussion about any human attributes coming from outside of the Creator would be a nail in my Biblical beliefs? Please qualify that.

Edit:
Oh, I just found your yes/no post. Sorry.

No. I would not. There is your yes or no part of the answer. Now for the rest/ :D

I would not because that would be a HUGE contradiction in Christianity and therefor I would not adhere to Christianity. Christ spoke specifically to the cliff question in His temptations, so if the epistles told me to jump, I'd tell them to.

Further, your question is somewhat akin to asking, "Would you have married your wife if she'd been a hooker?" What difference does it make? She wasn't. Would I be a Christian if salvation was a cliff? What difference does it make, since that wouldn't be Christianity. I am a Christian because the message makes sense to me, and because I feel the power of it in my life daily. I doubt cliff-diving would make sense to me, nor would I feel its power.

Take care.

[aikiMac]

I read Strafio's post. We're assuming God exists and Easter happened, roger.
...
So Aiki, I really am stumped as to why you referenced, more than once, Strafio's "assumption" as though it made my arguments irrelevent - it does not. Whether God exists or not, whether Easter happened or not, the metaphysical concepts at work here are far too abstract and complicated than a child is capable of grasping. You and Ann say it's as simple as "Jesus loves me". Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
Incorrect. It is that simple. God is so simple that a child can understand him, yet at the same time, God is so far beyond us that great minds will be bewildered until they die. Both are true. You are ignoring the first, and I think, though I do not know, you are ignoring the first because you do not understand it. But Kelly understands it, and Capt Ann understands it, and I understand it.

[snow_tiger]

Snow:

Rather than respond again

Sounds good. ;)

And, the point is not whether I 'adequately addressed his point". That is a discussion for he and I. The discussion between the two of us is that you elbowed your way in stating my fallacies and broken logic when, in actuality you had no understanding whatsoever of the points I was making. So, the point here is not my speaking to his points, but your attempt to speak to mine. Good day, sir.

[Capt Ann]

Poogle:

You and I are a lot more alike than you might realize (PLEASE don't take that as an insult :o).

I'd like to offer three suggestions:
1. Change of vocabulary: 'Believe in God' is said so often that it can mean anything to anyone. Instead, think of 'trust'. I may 'believe' Abraham Lincoln was a great president because I know some facts about him, but I 'trust' my husband to stand by me 'til death do us part, because I know him and his character, and I am willing to make myself vulnerable enough to rely on him. Change your question from, "Do I believe in God?", to , "Am I willing to trust God?" This may help you sort out thoughts better, especially as to why this kind of belief (trust, based on a relationship) really makes a difference in how a person lives.

2. Do what you already know: You said this:Incidentally, the only part of the creed I'd have stayed standing for is:

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.If that is all you believe right now, then do something based on what you believe. Do you actually believe that we will rise from the dead and live again? If so, what would it make sense to do in order to prepare? You really believe that there are such things as 'sins' and that they can be forgiven (I won't mention Who does the forgiving, but...)? Pick one. Ask for forgiveness. Several people have mentioned it on this thread, and I think snow_tiger said it the most recently: revelation builds. Why would God reveal anything more if there are things He's already revealed that are being ignored? You can't do everything. (When it comes to salvation, you can't do anything ;) ). So, just do what you know to do.

3. I'm sure, since it's obvious that you care about the answers, that you have or are reading some/all/parts of the Bible. I don't know if you've read through it all or not - it is a thick book and can be somewhat intimidating. My third suggestion: pick just one book and read it straight through. That way, you get some context and understanding of the 'plot'. If you haven't read it already, may I suggest you start with the Gospel of John? John said what he wrote was "written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." If you've already read all of it, you might try the Gospel of Luke, the only book that point-blank states it was written as a thoroughly-researched historical account, "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Please let me know how/if any of these suggestions helps.


We have nothing but your word to assume your kid said those things, so I'm not sure why you would even bother with an unprovable manuscript like that.Socrastein:
I'm truly dissapointed that you would say such a thing. Your statement ignores eye-witness testimony and provable fact (you could call on the phone and ask her, if you really wanted to know what she said).

More importantly, your statement reveals a lot about you. Anyone who would argue over whether or not my daughter really said such a thing obviously loves debate, but has no love for truth.

[Socrastein]

God is so simple that a child can understand him, yet at the same time, God is so far beyond us that great minds will be bewildered until they die

That looks a lot like a blatant contradiction to me.

And like I said numerous times, if God is so simple to grasp, why is it that I've yet to meet a young child who was sufficiently intelligent and capable of abstract thought that they were able to debate the metaphysical and their beliefs? Saying "they don't need to" over and over solves nothing, it's like putting your hands over your ears and going "LALALA"

[Socrastein]

Ann

I never debated whether your daughter said what she did. Whether she did or not is irrelevent. If she did, it proves nothing. If she didn't, we can never know. So it's irrelevent.

Please forgive me if I do not automatically assume that every person online is to be trusted as much as you obviously think you should be. You take it so personally that someone might not believe every word you say, as if I or anyone else have any reason to.

That's why I specifically addressed the relevence of her comments, not whether or not she actually said them, because that cannot be proven so it is of no concern.

[aikiMac]

My third suggestion: pick just one book and read it straight through. That way, you get some context and understanding of the 'plot'. If you haven't read it already, may I suggest you start with the Gospel of John?
A very good suggestion, with emphasis on "read it straight through." Yes, this matters. If you stop, you'll miss something.

If John is intimidatingly long, try Mark. I can read Mark in less time than you can watch a movie. The two writers, Mark and John, give different but complimentary pictures of Jesus and God. In that sense they go well together.


And like I said numerous times, if God is so simple to grasp, why is it that I've yet to meet a young child who was sufficiently intelligent and capable of abstract thought that they were able to debate the metaphysical and their beliefs?
Not relevant. Ann's words apply here: "Anyone who would argue over whether or not my daughter really said such a thing obviously loves debate, but has no love for truth."

Rephrase it: "Anyone who would seriously argue that one must be capable of debating metaphysics before one holds a true belief, obviously loves debate but has no love for truth."

To ask what you asked shows that you are not looking for truth, but someone to pick on. I respect my own self too much to let you do that to me.

[Socrastein]

Aiki

The "truth" I'm looking for is whether or not young children can understand concepts as abstract as God and metaphysics in general. All cognitive science and psychology I've studied has said "no". You and Ann are saying "yes". The scientists have conducted experiments and analyzed statistics regarding the reasoning capacities of very young children all the way through to young teenagers. You can see such experiments on the Discovery channel, you can see them on the Science channel, and if you don't watch TV you can either read about them in a book or, my favorite, look them up online with Google. The evidence is obvious, and overwhelming, that it takes many years of experience and learning for young humans to grasp increasingly abstract concepts. Metaphysical being and God are some of the most abstract, intangible concepts that a person could possibly get their heads around. I find it quite stunning that you and Ann think a 4 year old is capable of such abstraction and reasoning.

In response to all the evidence, and all the common sense, your argument is "Well, they understand anyway, and it's really easy".

I have proposed one thought experiment to test your assertion - debate between a fully grown and intellectually developed adult and a young child who supposedly believes in and understands the idea of a metaphysical being and all that comes with the Christian versioin. I never challenged Kelly to a debate. You're simply not listening to me if you think this is the case, and thus your assertion that I'm looking for someone to pick on shows me that you have no grasp of what I've been saying.

I simply asked what you think would happen if someone like myself were to debate Kelly, or any other young "Christian" child? Do you think they would be able to hold their ground? Would they be able to adequetely deal with my questions? Do you think they'd be able to resolve any inconsistincies or logical fallacies I pointed out in their position? Would they be able to give a coherent defense that went BEYOND simply repeating what they'd heard in church and from their parents?

My position is - of course not, they would crumble and would have absolutely nothing to say because they never knew what they were talking about in the first place. Give it a few more years, and it's likely they would have a sufficient enough grasp of their views that they actually have something to say about them in response to criticism.

Your position - that's irrelevent.

Who's the one running from the truth? I'm taking a direct stab at it, trying to decide whether or not Ann has a prodigal child who cognitive research scientists would pay handsomely to get their hands on, or Kelly is simply repeating what she's heard for so many years, without yet a mature and capable grasp of what it is she is saying and referring to.

Your analogy, or "rephrase", is a false one Aiki. You two seem to be trying to slip your way out of the one decisive measure I can think of that would either validate or refute your position. My question is, why?

Repeat your mantra of irrelevence all you want Aiki, my question is QUITE relevent.

You do the same thing to people, I see it all the time. How do you decide whether or not a loud-mouth atheist who is attacking the Bible and saying it is false TRULY knows what they're talking about and has a grasp of the subject matter? You debate them. You throw verses and counter-arguments at them to see how they respond. If they have nothing to say, it was obvious they never knew what they were talking about and likely were just repeating what they'd heard from friends. If they are able to respond and counter your counterpoints, then you might suspect they do have a grasp of what they're talking about, and have sufficient understanding of the subject matter.

How is this so different?

[snow_tiger]

Socrastein, I'm not trying to belabor any points by furthering discussions with you, but I feel I may be able to add something to this.

If you go back to Ann's post concerning this, you'll see that the point she was making was the simplicity in her daughter's beliefs. She was making the point that even someone who (as you say) can't articulate or fully grasp the complexities, can grasp the important things.

Your argument that only those with complex reason abilities can grasp God is a philosophical argument. Please remember that this thread is taking the arguments on a theological platform. If you argue againts Aiki and Ann on a theological level, you will lose. Because the theology of the Bible is that one MUST approach Him as a child does. I believe this is yet another misunderstanding of the 2 sides. Ann and Aiki are repeating Christ in that only someone who discards this complex reasoning and simply "believes" will ever get it. You, as a dissenting voice, aren't seeing it from their perspective.

Take care.

[Blevunly]

Just my thought on Judgement

Man (A) grows up in a nice christian family. He believes in God and also worships and loves him, because God has given him so much. His community is also christian. He never experiences an atheist point of view. So he lives his life to God's expectations and eventually dies. He then goes to Heaven, because he lived the life God wanted him to live.

Man (B) Grows up in an atheist family. He never has a reason to believe in God, because the world is so evil to him so he doesn't see how a loving God could allow this to happen. He lives in a community of nonchristians. So he lives his life how he wants to, seeing no reason to live it any other way, and eventually dies. He then goes to Hell, because he never found Jesus. Because he never saw a reason to.

Now what would happen if you swapped (A) and (B) with each others lives. If you say (A) will still goto Heaven and (B) will still goto Hell. Then you saying (B) will always be damned and (A) will always be saved. By saying this you are admitting that God has chosen where they will be for them. Which means that there is no such thing as free will and that God has already planned out our fates for us. Now the other answer to the question would be that (A) will goto Hell because of the evil environment and that (B) will goto Heaven because of the good environment that surronds him. By saying this you are admitting that our environments shapes who we are and that people with environments that are good and lead them to christianity will goto heaven and that people with less fortunate environments will burn in Hell. In this case how can God judge us if our environments truely decide our fate.

Also if Heaven is perfect then we wont be angry, or hating, or lustful, or greedy, and I always hear people say if everything was perfect we'd be like robots. Well here's some food for thought if Heaven is perfect guess what your going to be when you get there. A robot cause eveything will be perfect. So basically God made an imperfect world with imperfect people then he added sin and now he blames us for not being good to him. He's judging us for stuff that wont even be a factor in Heaven. God sent Jesus to die for our sins so we could live with him in Heaven that's BS if he wanted us all in Heaven we'd all be in Heaven. So God obviously doesn't want everyone to goto Heaven cause he allowed Hell to be created, and he's got it all planned out cause he knows the future so he knows by sticking man (B) in his environment man (B) will end up in Hell and he knows by sticking man (A) in his environment he will end up in Heaven. Anyway you look at it God has our fates planned out in one way or another.

[Socrastein]

Are you "elbowing in" Snow Tiger? How curious.

You say if I argue against Aiki and Ann on a theological level I will lose. Are you implying that if I argue under the assumption that the Bible is true I will lose? If so then yes, you're quire right. The Bible says I am wrong. Fortunately for me I'm not assuming the Bible to be true. So I'm not arguing with them on what you'd call a theological level. I'm arguing with them, as I argue with everyone, on a logical and scientific level, in that I'm not assuming anything to be true other than that which is scientifically and logically sound.

And it's hard to simply 'believe' in something you don't understand. I could quite easily convince a child to believe in square-circles. They could go around all day repeating what I had said, talking about how all the points on the square are an equal distance from the center, and how the sides of the circle are parallel to eachother and form 4 right angles. They would have a very simplistic belief in square-circles. But they would have absolutely no clue whatsoever what they were talking about, and if someone came along and challenged them to explain how a square-circle was possible, and pointed out the inherent contradiction in it, the child would be speechless. "Simplicity" is not enough. Maybe in the Bible, but that just goes to show how ridiculous the Bible is, now doesn't it?

[aikiMac]

Aiki

The "truth" I'm looking for is whether or not young children can understand concepts as abstract as God and metaphysics in general.
"In general" ? "In general" ? That's not a relevant question to the topic at hand! You falsly believe that one needs to understand God at depth to have a relationship with God. It is beyond me why one who does not have a relationship with God would think that he is in a position to tell people how how to have a relationship with God! :eek:

This song (http://www.kididdles.com/mouseum/j008.html) is enough for a relationship with God. Love is enough. Little children understand love, and forgiveness, and the difference between right and wrong. That is enough. Look also at what the Apostle Paul preached. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015&version=31) (1 Corinthians 15 verses 1-6 only.) That is enough to know God. A little child can understand that much.

[Maverick]

Incorrect. It is that simple. God is so simple that a child can understand him,

Not really, God is a concept beyond the intellectual grasp of children.

Thus why they need to be indoctrinated to believe in it, and thus why most people who weren't indoctrinated during childhood, never start believing in God, as they can tell how absurd it is with their adult minds.

[aikiMac]

Man (B) Grows up in an atheist family. He never has a reason to believe in God ...
That assumption was rejected earlier in this thread.

[aikiMac]

Not really, God is a concept beyond the intellectual grasp of children.

Thus why they need to be indoctrinated to believe in it, and thus why most people who weren't indoctrinated during childhood, never start believing in God, as they can tell how absurd it is with their adult minds.
It is beyond me why one who does not have a relationship with God would think that he is in a position to tell people how how to have a relationship with God! :eek:

I teach "Sunday School" to adults. With one exception, all the people in my class came to have a relationship with God as adults. Some of them were in their 40s even. It's really quite simple.

[Blevunly]

That assumption was rejected earlier in this thread.

How could it be rejected? People grow up not believing in God all the time.

[Socrastein]

I never spoke of relationships, simply understanding. For one who is so adamanet about keeping things relevent, you sure are being mighty irrelevent here.

Just so I know, are you even disagreeing with me? You haven't actually refuted my claim that young children are not cognitively capable enough to fully grasp the concept of God as an ominipotent, omniscient, omnipresent metaphysical being. You just keep saying "Jesus loves me" is enough, that's all they need. That does not address my point, and my point is that kids do not understand God. And if Ann's do, she should make a contribution to cognitive science and show the world how her 4-year old has a better capability for abstraction and reasoning than many people 4 times her age.

Maybe to God it doesn't matter if little kids truly grasp Him as a concept. To Him, it may be irrelevent. But to this discussion, it's quite relevent, so I'd be absolutely ecstatic if you'd stop dodging the bullet and stay on topic. Kids can sing songs about Jesus and his love, that's incredible. I could teach my hypothetical kid a song about square-circles, and that would prove what?

I find it ironic too that you would start your post the way you did, when we both know that if I were to talk to someone like that you would have a big problem with it.

[Socrastein]

To touch on a point Maverick made:

Many kids "believe" in Santa Claus. For them, it's as "simple" as waking up one morning and there are presents signed by him. They can repeat the idea of flying around on a sleigh, sliding down a chimney, etc. However, do they truly understand what they're saying? What they believe? No. How do we know they don't? Because when they're old enough to fully understand the concept, they reject. It is not until they're later years that they truly grasp the ideas, that they truly realize the implications, and see how silly they were. But why don't we say little kids who believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, are morons? Because "they don't know any better". And what do we mean when we say that they don't know any better? We mean that they hadn't yet reached a level of abstraction, reasoning, and intelligence that would warrant our expecting them to see how stupid it is.

The only difference between the above, and God, is God is the socially acceptable myth, so little kids keep on believing it all the way through adulthood.

[aikiMac]

The only difference between the above, and God, is God is the socially acceptable myth, so little kids keep on believing it all the way through adulthood.
A myth that Strafio assumed for this thread. I respected that, and met him on his own terms. So did Capt Ann. You're fighting that assumption. Hmmm.

[Blevunly]

That assumption was rejected earlier in this thread.

Ok I see what you were saying now so instead of "he never has a reason to believe in god" ill say "he never chooses to believe in god" the point is still valid either way

[Socrastein]

A myth that Strafio assumed for this thread. I respected that, and met him on his own terms. So did Capt Ann. You're fighting that assumption. Hmmm.

Way to split irrelevent hairs Aiki. Would you mind addressing something meaningful, or can I expect just more of the same empty attacks from you?

[aikiMac]

Ok I see what you were saying now so instead of "he never has a reason to believe in god" ill say "he never chooses to believe in god" the point is still valid either way
Actually choice makes a huge difference.
We assumed free will earlier in the thread. Free will ---> choice ---> you did it, it's your fault ---> punishment should fall on you. Now we're back to a discussion earlier in the thread on whether there should be punishment, and what sort of punishment. We get into the interplay between justice (giving a person what he is due) and mercy (not giving a person what he is due) and love and patience. That part of the thread might be of interest to you.

[Poogle]

Response to Poogle: To get to the faith bit first, and it is a repeat from earlier in the thread when I explained it.

Faith is the MOST important thing! Because faith is a person taking God at his word. Anything besides faith is a person calling God a liar. Faith comes back to: "It is impossible to please God uinless you first believe that he is." It comes back to: God says, "This is what I have done for you." You can either say (figuratively), "OK, I'll take you at your word, please explain further." Or, "You are a liar in the first place." Do you think He will speak further to you after the latter?

Faith grows. A little becomes a lot. Revelation grows. A little becomes a lot. Look at it again. God says, "This is my reveleation." You say, "OK. You are not a liar so I'll take you at your word though i don't copmpletely understand." God says, "I can help you with that."

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is there to explain after you accept it. He makes it all REAL for you. But you have to take that first step just accepting. Otherwise you call God a liar.

You can't even approach God without first having faith in Him. That is the importance of faith.

No no, you've missed my point entirely. Faith is NOT taking God at his word - faith is taking other men at their word, the men who wrote down the Bible, the guys who run the sunday school, the guys who wrote the website about Jesus. I'm not calling God a liar, I'm suggesting that the very fallible human beings out there spreading the word of God might have dropped a couple of stitches somewhere.

And yes, I can appreciate why faith is important. According to Christianity, you cannot know God without having faith, that is, believing that he exists. I know that, it's what the Bible teaches. That is why it troubles me so much. Why will God only reveal himself to people who believe in him in the first place? He is rewarding people for being willing to accept what another human tells them about the existence of God. I want to know God. But because I am unable to say that there is no doubt in my mind that god exists, he doesn't want to know. If he is not going to, to use your own words, 'bother further' with me simply because I am unable to be utterly convinced by the idea that God exists, even though I'm looking for him all the time? Why reward faith? Why reward a willingness to trust the words of other men? Why not reward a desire to truly know God? This is a question about the nature of God here, not about my own disbelief. That question is 'why does God reward faith?'

[Poogle]

Actually choice makes a huge difference.
We assumed free will earlier in the thread. Free will ---> choice ---> you did it, it's your fault ---> punishment should fall on you. Now we're back to a discussion earlier in the thread on whether there should be punishment, and what sort of punishment. We get into the interplay between justice (giving a person what he is due) and mercy (not giving a person what he is due) and love and patience. That part of the thread might be of interest to you.

Do you think I will be punished for not believing in God? Won't God take into consideration that fact that I can't just accept waht other people tell me, because it's not in my nature? Instead I have to work a hell of a lot harder to try to convince myself. I really don't think I've got a choice in this. I can't *make* myself believe something when I really don't know if it's true. If I told you to believe that I have a picture on John Wayne tattooed on my left forearm, could you make yourself believe that? It's perfectly feasible, and it makes sense that I'd pick something that I believe is true to illustrate my example, but you can't be sure. So do you believe?

And if I can't just decide to believe, then is it my fault?

[Blevunly]

Actually choice makes a huge difference.
We assumed free will earlier in the thread. Free will ---> choice ---> you did it, it's your fault ---> punishment should fall on you. Now we're back to a discussion earlier in the thread on whether there should be punishment, and what sort of punishment. We get into the interplay between justice (giving a person what he is due) and mercy (not giving a person what he is due) and love and patience. That part of the thread might be of interest to you.

Still in the end your environment or God decides your fate. Do you think Adolf Hitler would've became the leader of Nazi Germany if he had grown up in a nice an american christain family?

Your environment is a much bigger factor than free will seeing how it shapes your free will. So how can we be blamed for what we do when we are just reacting to our environments? Do you think you would be a christain right now if you were raised in a muslim family in the middle east?

I see free will as a scapegoat used to blame us for his doings. How can he blame us for what we've done when since the beginning of time he knew which of us would turn out the right way and the wrong way he knew which would turn their back on him, and he wants us to feel bad about turning on him when he is the one that has set us up to take the fall in another environment we would've made different choices but thats not what he wanted, so why does he blame us for the choices he knew we would make?

God is greatest good ever but he is also the greatest evil ever, because evil only exists because he wishes it to.

[Poogle]

Poogle:

I'd like to offer three suggestions:
1. Change of vocabulary:
2. Do what you already know:
3. pick just one book and read it straight through.

Please let me know how/if any of these suggestions helps.


That change of vocabulary is a very useful idea. Only trouble is, while I am willing to trust in God, I don't trust men to relay his wishes to me. So all I know is that I can trust in God, but I have no way of acting on that trust, because there's nothing that I can be sure he has actually told me to.

The key part of that bits of the creed I am willing to stand up for are that they don't involve belief. I do acknowledge baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but I'm not certain it actually means anything. And I do look for the world to come etc, but again, I'm not sure I'm ever going to see it.

I do not find the Bible intimidating. I have read part of it, and have had parts of it read to me. I read a simplified version of it it as a child, with pretty, but inaccurate, pictures. I have never read it cover to cover tho, so I have started doing that. (If you want an intimidating book, I suggest Nielsen and Chuang's Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. That's an absolute monster!)

[Maverick]

It is beyond me why one who does not have a relationship with God would think that he is in a position to tell people how how to have a relationship with God! :eek:


Who mentioned relationship?

But you can't have a relationship with something that doesn't exist anyway.

[aikiMac]

Your environment is a much bigger factor than free will seeing how it shapes your free will. So how can we be blamed for what we do when we are just reacting to our environments? Do you think you would be a christain right now if you were raised in a muslim family in the middle east?
Depends upon the assumptions we agree to make. In context, the "God" that Strafio assumed in the original post was the Christian God. If therefore we assume Christianity, then the answer is that I still would be in Christian had I been raised in the Middle East. If instead we do not assume Christianity, then the answer might be different.

"The environment" is not a defense to sin. To blame the environment is to completely ignore the nature of people. We sin in good environments and we sin in bad environments -- both. The environment is, therefore, irrelevant.


But you can't have a relationship with something that doesn't exist anyway.
For the purpose of this thread God exists. It's the assumption of post #1. I am honoring that assumption out of respect to Strafio. (Why are you not doing the same? :confused: )


Do you think I will be punished for not believing in God?
...
And if I can't just decide to believe, then is it my fault?
On the hypothetical assumption that you will be punished by God, it would be for your wilfull thoughts and actions. It will not be for mere disbelief. As to the second question, one would have to know your mind to answer it. I can't step into your head so I can't answer you. :o

[Blevunly]

Depends upon the assumptions we agree to make. In context, the "God" that Strafio assumed in the original post was the Christian God. If therefore we assume Christianity, then the answer is that I still would be in Christian had I been raised in the Middle East. If instead we do not assume Christianity, then the answer might be different.

It might be the same God but I highly doubt you would've converted from islam to christianity

"The environment" is not a defense to sin. To blame the environment is to completely ignore the nature of people. We sin in good environments and we sin in bad environments -- both. The environment is, therefore, irrelevant.

True there is sin in both but check out he difference between Nazi Germany and some saburban neighborhood. Also what do you think governs your "free will"? how do you make decisions if it has nothing to do with your environment then God made each of us different and he made some of us compatible with our surroundings and some of us not. Taking environment out fo the equation amkes God seem really evil.

[aikiMac]

It might be the same God but I highly doubt you would've converted from islam to christianity
Then you can't have the Christian God as your basis, for this is contrary to Christian belief. We fall back on initial assumptions: which God are we assuming?

[Blevunly]

Then you can't have the Christian God as your basis, for this is contrary to Christian belief. We fall back on initial assumptions: which God are we assuming?

Ok the Christian God and the Muslim God are one and the same they both came from the Jewish God which of course is the same but the christians and muslims worship differently for instance christians believe you have to accept Jesus as the son of God muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet.

But to save us time on talking about those two instead of growing up in the middle east with a muslim family we'll just switch it to a buddhist family in China. Now if you grew up in China in a buddhist family do you think you would still turn out as a christian?

[aikiMac]

Ok the Christian God and the Muslim God are one and the same they both came from the Jewish God which of course is the same but the christians and muslims worship differently for instance christians believe you have to accept Jesus as the son of God muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet.
The Christian God and the Muslim God are not one and the same. Jesus is God to a Christian, but not God to a Muslim. That difference makes all the difference in the world.


But to save us time on talking about those two instead of growing up in the middle east with a muslim family we'll just switch it to a buddhist family in China. Now if you grew up in China in a buddhist family do you think you would still turn out as a christian?
Yes. My answer is the same as that for the Muslim family. You could put a hypothetical AikiMac anywhere on the planet, and my answer would not change.

[Blevunly]

The Christian God and the Muslim God are not one and the same. Jesus is God to a Christian, but not God to a Muslim. That difference makes all the difference in the world.

What I meant was both religions believe in God the father but only the christian believes in God the son (Jesus).


Yes. My answer is the same as that for the Muslim family. You could put a hypothetical AikiMac anywhere on the planet, and my answer would not change.

In that case your saying that no matter what you will be a christian, so no matter what i'll be damned. This means God favors you over me and it also means God has damned me no matter what because if environment isn't a factor then God has made us different and chosen our paths for us.

[snow_tiger]

Ok the Christian God and the Muslim God are one and the same they both came from the Jewish God which of course is the same but the christians and muslims worship differently for instance christians believe you have to accept Jesus as the son of God muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet.

But to save us time on talking about those two instead of growing up in the middle east with a muslim family we'll just switch it to a buddhist family in China. Now if you grew up in China in a buddhist family do you think you would still turn out as a christian?

For the record, one of my dearest friends is a native born East Indian, raised from birth in a devout Hindu home by devout Hindu parents. He converted in his mid-20s to Christianity, because the theology of a God that wants a personal relationship with him struck a chord.

Another close friend is a Taiwan-born Chinese gentleman who was raised devout Buddhist, and converted as an adult to Christianity for roughly the same reasons.

Yet another friend converted as an adult to Christianity from Orthodox Judeism, after being taught tha Jesus was a false-prophet. Maybe it's just the diversity of my group of friends, but I truly do not understand your argument.

[Blevunly]

For the record, one of my dearest friends is a native born East Indian, raised from birth in a devout Hindu home by devout Hindu parents. He converted in his mid-20s to Christianity, because the theology of a God that wants a personal relationship with him struck a chord.

Another close friend is a Taiwan-born Chinese gentleman who was raised devout Buddhist, and converted as an adult to Christianity for roughly the same reasons.

Yet another friend converted as an adult to Christianity from Orthodox Judeism, after being taught tha Jesus was a false-prophet. Maybe it's just the diversity of my group of friends, but I truly do not understand your argument.

I never said it was impossible to convert just unlikely the majority of a religion will not convert to another(ex muslim to christian, buddhist to christian).

But what I'm getting at in my arguement is that our environment shapes our "free will" thus controlling our destiny. Either that or God has hand picked our paths.

[Gajah Silat]

Ok the Christian God and the Muslim God are one and the same they both came from the Jewish God which of course is the same but the christians and muslims worship differently for instance christians believe you have to accept Jesus as the son of God muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet.

Agreed 100%.

Historically at least, Jews, Chritians and Muslims worship the same God.

What I find amusing is the 'selective belief' of religious texts which furthermore enforces the fact the majority of religion is culturally constructed and interpreted.

For example, let's take the abhorations of leviticus. Surely any orthodox Christian should have the same dietary restrictions as an orthodox Jew! Yet how many Christians freely consume pork?

To ignore such biblical laws is surely sinful. Or do certain cultures merely choose to ignore the areas of religious text that do not work on a cultural level?

This brings us back to the point religion is interpreted via cultural frameworks often regarldless of the actual text.

[Maverick]

Yes. My answer is the same as that for the Muslim family. You could put a hypothetical AikiMac anywhere on the planet, and my answer would not change.

Totally wrong.

99.9% of religious people (christians, muslims, jews that is etc) are the same religion as their parents.

the explanation is obvious.

[Blevunly]

Totally wrong.

99.9% of religious people (christians, muslims, jews that is etc) are the same religion as their parents.

the explanation is obvious.

exactly!

[tekkengod]

so in this instance, if the enviroment is "irrelavent" then it comes down to the way our mind is built, and in your eyes, god built it, so if, by design, we have a hard time believing that, whose fault is it? His or mine?
How can you so boldy claim that if you where raised elsewhere leaning on a diffrent religion, that you wouldn't be indocternated into that one?
Aiki, one day you're going to have to accept that its not a simple game of pick and choose, and you can't load the gun that way, anyone capable of supreme kindness is equally capable of supreme cruelty.

[Blevunly]

so in this instance, if the enviroment is "irrelavent" then it comes down to the way our mind is built, and in your eyes, god built it, so if, by design, we have a hard time believing that, whose fault is it? His or mine?
How can you so boldy claim that if you where raised elsewhere leaning on a diffrent religion, that you wouldn't be indocternated into that one?
Aiki, one day you're going to have to accept that its not a simple game of pick and choose, and you can't load the gun that way, anyone capable of supreme kindness is equally capable of supreme cruelty.

thank you!

[snow_tiger]

Agreed 100%.

Historically at least, Jews, Chritians and Muslims worship the same God.

What I find amusing is the 'selective belief' of religious texts which furthermore enforces the fact the majority of religion is culturally constructed and interpreted.

For example, let's take the abhorations of leviticus. Surely any orthodox Christian should have the same dietary restrictions as an orthodox Jew! Yet how many Christians freely consume pork?

To ignore such biblical laws is surely sinful. Or do certain cultures merely choose to ignore the areas of religious text that do not work on a cultural level?

This brings us back to the point religion is interpreted via cultural frameworks often regarldless of the actual text.
Actually, when you have Christian New Testament statements that Jesus fulfilled the law... That God has instituted a new law of faith... Which sate that the old law was merely a roadsign to Christ... When these same texts say to eat whatever you wish, because it is what is inside that defiles and not what is put in... These same texts say not to let anyone judge you on diet, sabath or days.

I would caution you as I have everyone else to learn a bit about the religion you try to discredit, else you run the risk of just looking silly. I would be more than happy to PM the relevant scriptures to you if you actually care to put these thoughts to rest. Or would you rather hold onto the false arguments?

[snow_tiger]

anyone capable of supreme kindness is equally capable of supreme cruelty.

I would be interested in the proof of this statement. Besides sounding deep, what do you have to base it on?

[tekkengod]

I would be interested in the proof of this statement. Besides sounding deep, what do you have to base it on?

Oh i don't know gee....oh, wats that word, the one religion seems to have a problem with....oh...logic, no, no thats not it. oh! Reality! observations! thats another one. That and the common duality of the human mind. Because people can be affected by things such as enviroment. age, experiances. peers, ect. anyone and everyone can do "evil" or "good" The pope is just as capable of becoming a homicidal dictator as Hitler was, in fact hes got both motive, resources AND a few billion soldiers who are already more than willing to die! Hey folks, keep your eye on that guy! :yeleyes:

[snow_tiger]

Oh, I got it. I misunderstood your reference as pertaining to something else. My bad.

[tekkengod]

Oh, I got it. I misunderstood your reference as pertaining to something else. My bad.

Oh, ok. What'd u think i was saying? i was kinda pissy in last post cause thats all just common sense to me.

[Topher]

Just out of interest, if God created everything, I presume he created hell.

As to your statement that --"Nobody cares about the historical accuracy of the bible, everyone is concerned with the supernatural accuracy of the bible, and sorry to say, there is absolutely none whatsoever."-- that is the most UNinteligent statement I've read in this thread yet, and it goes a long way to define your reasoning capacity. First, it's nice that you can speak for everybody and nobody. I find it very interesting when the Bible is right historically, as it adds quite a bit of flavor to the reading.
Fair enough. What accuracy do we have for the supernatural events stated in the Bible?

You can no more disprove the supernatural to me than I can prove it to you,
And that is exactly why so many people do not believe in them. People should ideally start with a sceptical attitude, then work from there. Just like we dont assume a person a guilty until we have the evidence to confirm it.

Tell me, do you accept anything without any sort of evidence or proof for it.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes it comes from the nature around you -- the way the birds sings, the way the traffic moves, something. You probably would not consider that distinguishable from everyday events, and it's probably not. Sometimes it comes from what people say to you. That might be distinguishable from everyday events, or it might not be, depending upon what they say. Sometimes the revelations are miracles, like when week after week after week there's always more hamburger meat in your freezer than what you bought at the market. That one is distinguishable.
Is it a coincidence that a believer in God can associate so much as revelation and miracle? ;)

Holyhead, you're still ignoring Strafio's beginning assumptions.

Be nice to Strafio and be nice to those of us who, unlike you, have met him on his own terms.
As a non-Christian I'm assuming "worst case scenario". -- Strafio

It appears that Strafio’s assumptions were his own, and not a requirement for all participants.

Mayber Homer is just speaking in riddles that you understand and I do not, but I shall assume he means what he says, in which case he was questioning the spiritual accuracy of the Bible, and questioning why we should believe the religious writings of a bunch of guys from a couple thousand or more years ago.

If that's indeed what he was saying, then why on earth did you respond with reference to the historical accuracy of the Bible? How was it even remotely relevent for you to respond to his attack on the metaphysical aspects of the Bible by bringing up the supposed historical accuracy of it? You got so defensive and said I had no idea what the context of the discussion was and I was totally missing your point, but I understood your point, and even more, I understood Homer's point, and thus I saw that your point was irrelevent.
Correct! We only know about the authors of the Bible from the Bible. There is no way or corroborating its content. Historical stuff we can, but most of the rest we cannot. The only evidence to the claims in the Bible (i.e the metaphysical claims) are the claims themselves. I for one will not treat claim as evidence. If someone wrote a book, and that’s all we had, why should we instantly assume the accuracy of it. The irony of that is the people who believe in the Bible are quick to ask for evidence for such things as evolution. If someone can believe something as absurd as what is claim in the bible I cannot comprehend why they cannot acknowledge stuff that we DO actually have evidence for, thousands and thoudends times more evidence to be exact!

The quote questioned the motives of the authors.
I wasn’t questioning the movies of the authors, I was questioning modern mans belief in them.

[Yama Tombo]

Just out of interest, if God created everything, I presume he created hell.

Good statement. God didn't create hell and hell as a firey place of torture for souls is a myth. Hell derived from Gehenna.

Gehenna as defined in the dictionary:

(originally Ge bene Hinnom; i.e., "the valley of the sons of Hinnom"), a deep,
narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their
children in sacrifice to Molech (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2-6). This
valley afterwards became the common receptacle for all the refuse of the city.
Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were
cast and consumed by fire kept always burning. It thus in process of time
became the image of the place of everlasting destruction. In this sense it is
used by our Lord in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45,
47; Luke 12:5. In these passages, and also in James 3:6, the word is uniformly
rendered "hell," the Revised Version placing "Gehenna" in the margin.

You also find that fire is symbolic of destruction in the bible.

[tekkengod]

God didn't create hell and hell as a firey place of torture for souls is a myth.


Well isn't that{as our christian friends would say} ironically off-topic pre-modern factual misunderstood misinterpritated unapplied and overlooked?

Or as the atheist would say "Conveniently self-serving" :rolleyes:


Hell is a myth but god isn't? thats an ackward conclusion.

[Yama Tombo]

Originally Posted by Yama Tombo
God didn't create hell and hell as a firey place of torture for souls is a myth.



Well isn't that{as our christian friends would say} ironically off-topic pre-modern factual misunderstood misinterpritated unapplied and overlooked?

Or as the atheist would say "Conveniently self-serving"

Hell is a myth but god isn't? thats an ackward conclusion.

God is independent of his creation. God created one man and one woman, but he did not create the rest of us. God did not create hell.

Gehenna [hell] was a real place that ended up wrapped up in rumours.

Instead of hell being a valley to burn trash, dead animals, or unworthy people. [much like a landfill] Hell turned into a place where satan and demons are allowed to torture "bad" souls forever. See where I'm getting at?

[Yama Tombo]

I didn't mean to throw this thread off topic I was just replying to someone elses' posts.

[tekkengod]

God is independent of his creation. God created one man and one woman, but he did not create the rest of us. God did not create hell.

Gehenna [hell] was a real place that ended up wrapped up in rumours.

Instead of hell being a valley to burn trash, dead animals, or unworthy people. [much like a landfill] Hell turned into a place where satan and demons are allowed to torture "bad" souls forever. See where I'm getting at?

ok, that makes slightly more sense in where you meant to aim it.

[Topher]

Good statement. God didn't create hell and hell as a firey place of torture for souls is a myth.
So if hell is a myth then i guess the idea that sinners are deemed to eternal torture is a load of crap :D

[holyheadjch]

sinners - lets party

[snow_tiger]

Oh, ok. What'd u think i was saying? i was kinda pissy in last post cause thats all just common sense to me.
Seriously much apology... I somehow connected the "infinite good"/"Infinite cruelty" suggestion to the description of God, and thus couldn't find a base for it. I guess I did so, since I see no person as capable of infinite good. But that's beside the point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[aikiMac]

In that case your saying that no matter what you will be a christian, so no matter what i'll be damned. This means God favors you over me and it also means God has damned me no matter what because if environment isn't a factor then God has made us different and chosen our paths for us.
Remember our assumption for this whole thread: God exists.
For a narrower part of this thread we have assumed the Christian God.
Given those two assumptions, your statement about being damned is not necessarily correct for at least two reasons. The first is that it cannot be supported from the Bible. God did not actually say it, and it does not necessarily follow from the first statement. (Don't make stuff up from your head -- study the actual Bible.) The second reason is that, duh, you're not dead yet, so we cannot assume that you'll be damned.


For example, let's take the abhorations of leviticus. Surely any orthodox Christian should have the same dietary restrictions as an orthodox Jew! Yet how many Christians freely consume pork?

To ignore such biblical laws is surely sinful.
You gotta read the whole Bible, not just selective parts, and you gotta read them in context, not just piecemeal. You're doing yourself a disservice, and you're being rude to other people, by making up accusations about something you don't know anything about.


99.9% of religious people (christians, muslims, jews that is etc) are the same religion as their parents.
Missionary societies would disagree, and I'll take their word over your word on this particular subject, thank you.

As a non-Christian I'm assuming "worst case scenario". -- Strafio

It appears that Strafio’s assumptions were his own, and not a requirement for all participants.
Read the other part of Strafio's opening post. He asked everyone to accept his assumptions for the sake of this entire thread. Courtesy, dude. Courtesy.

[Gajah Silat]

Actually, when you have Christian New Testament statements that Jesus fulfilled the law... That God has instituted a new law of faith... Which sate that the old law was merely a roadsign to Christ... When these same texts say to eat whatever you wish, because it is what is inside that defiles and not what is put in... These same texts say not to let anyone judge you on diet, sabath or days.

I would caution you as I have everyone else to learn a bit about the religion you try to discredit, else you run the risk of just looking silly. I would be more than happy to PM the relevant scriptures to you if you actually care to put these thoughts to rest. Or would you rather hold onto the false arguments?

Are you saying the new testament surplants the old testament with regard to law of faith then?

Or is it a usual case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards?

I still find it amusing, that in previous threads Leviticus is oft quoted for homophobic arguements but as soon as I mention dietary restrictions it conveniantly becomes superceeded by New Testament law.

It seems to be a case of "the lady doth protest too much".

Also, I was certainly not trying to discredit a religion, I was merely asking a relevent question. And thanks for the offer but I'll have a look in my own Bible ;) It's next to the Koran, the Bhagavad gita and Tao Te Ching!

So this is OK
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

But this and the rest of Chapter 11 is not OK.
"And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you"

Selective quotation to justify your own beliefs.

I would also say that most cultures have remarkably similar moral codes and social taboos regardless of religion. I therefore believe that 'morality' is merely a human condition that is inate in most of us, to allow societies to function. It is not a religious pretext.

[aikiMac]

Or is it a usual case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards?
...
Selective quotation to justify your own beliefs.

Yes, that is what you are doing. You are picking to justify your own standards, and selectively quoting to justify your own beliefs. Quite true, quite true. It's good that you see it.

The Tao Te Ching is a good read, by the way.

[Gajah Silat]

Yes, that is what you are doing. You are picking to justify your own standards, and selectively quoting to justify your own beliefs. Quite true, quite true. It's good that you see it.


Maybe I'm starting to get the hang this religion lark after all :)

So, only Christians can use Biblical quotes.....interesting.

Anyway, a hypothetical question with the pretext that God exists and Christ's teachings are 'the way'.

A Kombai child in Irian Jaya is brought up with traditional animist beliefs. Due to the secretive and reclusive nature of this people, they are unaware the Bible exists. Therefore they do not accept Christ as their saviour. How can they, they do not know he existed.

Would this child be subject to God's judgement? Even though the child is unaware of this God?

[tekkengod]

Seriously much apology... I somehow connected the "infinite good"/"Infinite cruelty" suggestion to the description of God, and thus couldn't find a base for it. I guess I did so, since I see no person as capable of infinite good. But that's beside the point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No big deal. I see what you mean, thats where i was headed with it though, and i used observations of society and the polars of extremes to get that across.

[snow_tiger]

Are you saying the new testament surplants the old testament with regard to law of faith then?

Or is it a usual case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards?

I still find it amusing, that in previous threads Leviticus is oft quoted for homophobic arguements but as soon as I mention dietary restrictions it conveniantly becomes superceeded by New Testament law.

It seems to be a case of "the lady doth protest too much".

Also, I was certainly not trying to discredit a religion, I was merely asking a relevent question. And thanks for the offer but I'll have a look in my own Bible ;) It's next to the Koran, the Bhagavad gita and Tao Te Ching!

So this is OK
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

But this and the rest of Chapter 11 is not OK.
"And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you"

Selective quotation to justify your own beliefs.

I would also say that most cultures have remarkably similar moral codes and social taboos regardless of religion. I therefore believe that 'morality' is merely a human condition that is inate in most of us, to allow societies to function. It is not a religious pretext.
(1) I'm not sure what "usual" is for you, but please do not define what "usual" is for me until you have something deeper to base it on.

(2) To answer your question, read Romans, chapters 1-3. You would then find that the "law" was given to define sin and point out man's need for a better salvation-- i.e. Christ being the only one who could fulfil it for us.

(3) Believing that homosexuality is wrong is FAR different than homophobia. You are just being insulting with such generalizations. Just as I can hang out with a filanderer while feeling their adultry is wrong, I can hang out with a homosexual while feeling their conduct is wrong. I find it interesting that you are so judgemental of Christians while accusing them of such judgement...

(4). Any Christian with a passing aquaintance with the Bible could point you to Romans 1:26, 27 without the need for Leviticus.. But again, this in no way means that Christians should fear himosexuals. Are you a Christainaphobe?

(5) I'll take it that you are the "lady protesting too much" with such biased and uneducated points made?

(6) The Bhagavad gita and Tao Te Ching would do wonderfully in a discussion about Christianity. I can see now why your arguments are so half-empty and uneducated, since you refuse to fill up on info relevant to the discussion.

(7) Thanks, but I have spoken to the "selective quotations". I would SERIOUSLY recommend you become more educated on the points you try to argue with me, or you will be the proverbial fish in the barrel.

(8) The only thing that your belief about a standard moral structure does, is prove Romans 1-3-- where Paul says that God has written these moral mandates on every man's heart. He makes the same point as proof of God. It would make sense that if the same being that created the morality also created everyone, that everyone would have the shared morality? Thanks for noticing!

(9) As to the child who never heard of the Bible, this point has been doggedly covered throughout this thread, particularly by me. Feel free to review the thread.

I'm more than willing to see an end to this discussion. You don't want to argue these points any more than I want to argue the finer points of the Bhagavad gita with you. My biggest point to you was to inform yourself better before firing over the bow of something you obviously have little understanding of.

Good day.

[snow_tiger]

No big deal. I see what you mean, thats where i was headed with it though, and i used observations of society and the polars of extremes to get that across.
Gotcha. I guess my point would have been that (A) God is not people/society, and should not be based on such but as a higher standard, and (B) that the Bible's description of Him cancels out "cruelty" as an attribute for Him.

I'm aware of, and respect your right not to believe the Bible. That's cool. But any definition of God outside of the JudeoChristian Bible is not the Judeo-Christian God.

Take care!

[aikiMac]

So, only Christians can use Biblical quotes. interesting.
Come on, you know the answer. The answer is that only people who know what they are talking about should be using biblical quotes. That means that before you quote the Bible for support of a proposition, you know (1) who is speaking in that passage, (2) who the audience is for that passage, (3) their relationship, (4) their history -- that is, what's the story between them and how did they get where they are, (5) and the context of the passage -- where are they, when, and what's going on at that point in the story.

It's elementary honesty: if you don't know this stuff, you're just putting words in the character's mouths, and we all know that's dishonest.

[Gajah Silat]

Come on, you know the answer. The answer is that only people who know what they are talking about should be using biblical quotes.

OK, so now none but Biblical scholars may discuss or quote the Bible :confused:

So, as I am among Biblical experts please enlighten me with regard to my question. Which section of the New Testament allows the former dietary restrictions in Leviticus to be overturned?

[Strafio]

Ahem...

My PC is broken for now and I've not had access in a couple of days.
Is it me or did this thread triple in it's size? :eek:

Anysway, I'll be back soon enough with a couple of new angles. :cool:
Hang tight.

:)

[aikiMac]

OK, so now none but Biblical scholars may discuss or quote the Bible :confused:
Why would you suggest that? That's ridiculous. The very question suggests that "your cup is full."


So, as I am among Biblical experts please enlighten me with regard to my question. Which section of the New Testament allows the former dietary restrictions in Leviticus to be overturned?
That's the wrong question to ask. You should be asking, "Would you tell me what was going on in OT days such that those OT laws were given? And what was the purpose of those OT laws?"

Context, dude. You can't ask why the laws were changed if you don't first know why the laws were there.

[snow_tiger]

OK, so now none but Biblical scholars may discuss or quote the Bible :confused:

So, as I am among Biblical experts please enlighten me with regard to my question. Which section of the New Testament allows the former dietary restrictions in Leviticus to be overturned?
Uhm... Didn't I already answer that? A couple of times? And haven't you refused to visit it in favor of holy texts that have no bearing on the discussion?

Read Romans 3:19-31, the entire fourth chapter, and the 5th. You will see a progression concerning sin, the law and justification. You will see that sin was the problem, the law pointed the problemn out to us, and Christ solved the problem. More specifically to the point you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp, is that Christ's work freed humanity from a religion of legalism and into a religion of relationship.

See also Romans 14:1-23. This is VERY specific to your question of food, as it was answering the same questions 2000 years ago. You could also visit 1 Cor 8, as Paul made some very specific satements in answering the question of eating meat sacrifice to idols. One of the statements is to eat anything you like as long as you do it in thanksgiving. Would that answer your question?

You may also want to read through Acts, since it speaks about the council held within the early church. You see, some early apostles wanted to make the gentile Christian converts adhere to Jewish law. This was overturned as Paul argued against it. Galatians 2 also describes this council, along with renewed arguments as to purpose of the law and the new justification through Christ.

"15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified F9 not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. F10 And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, F11 and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law."

I could go on and on and on there, GS. But it does no good. I've covered this already and you've refused it. I give you more here to refuse. And I could give you as much more to refuse. The problem is still that you discuss subjects you are ill-equipped to discuss, and are receiving answers you are ill-prepared to accept.

It's sad, really.

[Gajah Silat]

Why would you suggest that? That's ridiculous. The very questions suggests that "your cup is full."



That's the wrong question to ask. You should be asking, "Would you tell me what was going on in OT days such that those OT laws were given? And what was the purpose of those OT laws?"

Context, dude. You can't ask why the laws were changed if you don't first know why the laws were there.

I would suggest many of the dietary restrictions were in fact due to environmental determinalism. With reference to pork and shellfish they are not the most practical foods to eat in a hot environment, they spoil easily! Thus it is more practical for such foods to become forbiden altogether.

Of course one could take the view that restricted animals were deemed 'socially unclean' by their actions, pigs are self explanatory as are most others such as carrion eaters that are unclean by proxy.i.e. they themselves eat animals that have died by an unclean process.

That would be my context.

Now may I ask when Christians were allowed to eat pigs and prawns?

[snow_tiger]

I would suggest many of the dietary restrictions were in fact due to environmental determinalism. With reference to pork and shellfish they are not the most practical foods to eat in a hot environment, they spoil easily! Thus it is more practical for such foods to become forbiden altogether.

Of course one could take the view that restricted animals were deemed 'socially unclean' by their actions, pigs are self explanatory as are most others such as carrion eaters that are unclean by proxy.i.e. they themselves eat animals that have died by an unclean process.

That would be my context.

Now may I ask when Christians were allowed to eat pigs and prawns?
1 Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, 26 for "the earth and its fullness are the Lord's."

Shall I keep going, or do you want to admit right now that you'll keep ignoring it?

[Poogle]

1 Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, 26 for "the earth and its fullness are the Lord's."

Shall I keep going, or do you want to admit right now that you'll keep ignoring it?

Historical question, but relevant: would pigs and shellfish have been sold in meatmarkets when that was written? The Bible was written for Jews, so isn't it possible that they weren't sold?

[Gajah Silat]

When Paul states that nothing is "unclean of itself," he is not saying that "nothing is unclean," as this is contrary to Torah. The premise behind Paul's teaching is that a pig is not unclean "because it is a pig." Rather, a pig is unclean because God has deemed it so. It is God who separates by divine command what is allowed and not allowed. Purity is not intrinsic, it is imputed. Everything in creation was created "good," yet God told Adam, Noah and Moses what not to eat.

However, I still go with the environmental determinalist approach and think God is a reflection of society. Ok, you got me...I'll interpret the passages in the same way as you. They still strike me as very unspecific in comparison to the 'shalt not' approach in Leviticus which leaves very little to interpretation.

The point is still pretty much the same however. The shift in belief system, Jew to Christian, forced a shift in law to make it possible for the new belief system to expand. Converts from outside the Jewish traditions had to be accomodated. This is syncretism, the belief system adapts to the cultural framework. Therefore, although the culture may not actually change religious text it will inevitably interpret it via it's own cultural filter.

OK how about this then. Same religion, same Bible. An American, a Georgian, A Fillipino and an Ethiopian. All Christians. The same text. But all interpret it via thier own cultural perspective. All convinced their own interpretation is 'correct'. Who is?

[Gajah Silat]

Historical question, but relevant: would pigs and shellfish have been sold in meatmarkets when that was written? The Bible was written for Jews, so isn't it possible that they weren't sold?

Wish I'd thought of that ;) Of course it would have to be kosher.

[snow_tiger]

Uh, actually Poogle, that was written to the Corinthians (thus the book name...), who sold every sort of meat imaginable. A reading of context should show that he meant all as all.

Gajah, you are just wrong in your interpretation of what Paul is saying. A look at Paul's writing AS A WHOLE should be what you use to interpret that, and not your narrow focus. For, the same author says the same thing in a different way elsewhere when He says that it is not what goes into the body that defiles, but what comes out of it (the mouth, our words, etc...) Your interpretation shows that you didn't take the effort to look the quote up and read it within its immediate surroundings, and instead applied a wrong meaning that would support your argument. I would ask that you take part in this discussion seeking truth instead of trying to impede the truth. Thanks.

As to the "environmental determinism". I would have to disagree, since Paul actually uses the Old Testament to PROVE his points in the New Testament concerning Christ and His fulfilment. And to state that it was a shift to accomodate the hethens from without is equally unbased. Because Paul dedicates whole books denying hethen practices (gnosticism, mystery religions, sexual depravities) within the church (christian body). A full reading and study makes it clear that Paul had a great understanding of the process which was pre-Judeic revelation, Judeic revelation, into Christianity. You, yourself alluded to these varying covenants between God and man by mentioning the Adam Covenant, the Noah/Post-Noah Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Israel Covenant, and the final realization-- Christianity.

There is a valid point in Paul's arguments that God pronounced Abraham justified by faith before the law, just as He pronounces us justified by faith after the law. As it began, it is now, with a time of law in between to prove to us that we can't do it ourselves, and show us that Christ was needed to right things.

To speak to the point of nationalities and interpretation... It is irrelevant. How we as humans "read" the Bible has no impact on what its intent is. Further, you can't say tha Christianity was a "new slant" by different cultures, since it came from the same Jewish culture. That's rediculous!

I hope that this explanation may clear things up a bit.

Take care.

[Topher]

Read the other part of Strafio's opening post. He asked everyone to accept his assumptions for the sake of this entire thread. Courtesy, dude. Courtesy.
Sorry, I didn’t find the part where he told everyone to make the same assumption. Maybe you point it out.

Come on, you know the answer. The answer is that only people who know what they are talking about should be using biblical quotes.

It's elementary honesty: if you don't know this stuff, you're just putting words in the character's mouths, and we all know that's dishonest.
I fine this extreme ironic considered the Christians (both in general and on MAP) who discuss, discredit, mislead, falsify science and evolution when they don’t have the faintest clue what they are talking about.

That's the wrong question to ask. You should be asking, "Would you tell me what was going on in OT days such that those OT laws were given? And what was the purpose of those OT laws?"

Context, dude. You can't ask why the laws were changed if you don't first know why the laws were there.
OK, based on who much the world, including morality has changed since the time of the OT and NT, how much have God’s nature/laws/opinions changed? Therefore how much has Christian law changed? If a change in society can cause the change in law between the OT and NT then there must have been big changed since then to now.

[Capt Ann]

When Paul states that nothing is "unclean of itself," he is not saying that "nothing is unclean," as this is contrary to Torah. The premise behind Paul's teaching is that a pig is not unclean "because it is a pig." Rather, a pig is unclean because God has deemed it so. Actually, that doesn't have anything to do with what he was saying in this passage, but it's a good thought. I don't know how much you really want to get into this discussion. For the most part, it just doesn't matter. We can debate small points of Jewish law and Bible interpretation, but the real central issue is 'Who is Jesus Christ, and what are you going to do about Him?"

That issue is central to Christianity, central to salvation, central to a relationship with God, and central to the issue of 'judgment', which this thread is kinda-sorta about.

[aikiMac]

That would be my context. [post 164]
That's not the OT context. That's a fictional context. Somebody, maybe you or maybe not you, made it up.


Sorry, I didn’t find the part where he told everyone to make the same assumption.
(First post, and thereafter repeated many times.)


I fine this extreme ironic considered the Christians (both in general and on MAP) who discuss, discredit, mislead, falsify science and evolution when they don’t have the faintest clue what they are talking about.
Was I one of them? Noooooo. ;)


... how much have God’s nature/laws/opinions changed?
You have to narrow your question, because words have different meaning. By "law" do you mean civil law, or ceremonial law, or moral law? These are all valid uses of the word "law" in the context of the OT. You'll get a different answer depending upon what you're really asking about.

As for God's nature -- unchanged, dude. Unchanged.

As for opions, I don't know what you mean. Like, what ice cream is his favorite? What he thinks about my neighbor? Those aren't realistic question. If you mean "morality," that's been asked and answered already.


Therefore how much has Christian law changed?
:confused: Give me a Christian law that came from the text of the New Testament rather than from the pen of a priest. All that I can think of is "love other people." That one has not changed.


If a change in society can cause the change in law between the OT and NT then there must have been big changed since then to now.
Society did not cause the change from OT to NT. What school graduated you? :eek: You've now lost the privilege of picking on people for their lack of scientific knowledge, because with that statement you displayed an equally appalling lack of historical knowledge!

[Poogle]

Uh, actually Poogle, that was written to the Corinthians (thus the book name...), who sold every sort of meat imaginable. A reading of context should show that he meant all as all.

OK, it was written to the Corinthians, that changes my question somewhat. (I question that they sold all meat imaginable, tho, kangaroo meat, anyone?) Paul presumably knew these people and knew what their markets sold. If he knew that there was nothing unclean sold at their markets, then he would have told them to 'eat freely'. If he knew that the market sold unclean foods, might he have told them to eat them anyway to make them shut up and stop bickering about things like which meats they should and shouldn't eat, and focus instead on loving each other? That seems to be the whole point of that letter, to get them to stop arguing about the bits of religion that he, for whatever reason, thought weren't as important. Paul is well known for his 'ends justify the means' ethics. The other option, of course, is that those meats weren't unclean anymore. But he was just a man, inspired by God, maybe, but nevertheless just a man. Why does his word supersede God's?

[Gajah Silat]

How can the question of morality in the religious sense have been answered, when that very morality was itself subject to change?

As for environmental determinalism, I do not believe it is 'fictional' rather I believe it is a totaly rational explanation, humans are indeed a product of their environment.

Let me take a non-Christain example. Hindus do not eat beef. They believe the cow is the earthly representaion of Krishna and therefore a holy animal.The question of whether the cow is holy or not is irelevent. From an entirely practical perspective a cow is much more use alive in India. Milk can be used to produce, curd, Yoghurt, paneer whereas killing a cow would produce a lot of meat in one go. This would again have to be preserved or be spoiled.

As for morality, I do not believe it stems from God, rather the other way around. It's a simple functional explanations. Humans live in social groups and are largely reliant on others for survival, especialy in an original hunter gatherer environment. Certain activities, murder, rape, incest, stealing would be detrimental to the survival of the whole group and are therfore taboo. These taboos largely exist on a worldwide scale regardless of religion.

OK, let's take one of the few remaining hunter gatherer peoples that have managed to evade the destructive influence of missionaries (I will explain what I mean here a little later). The M'baka people of the Ituri forest region of central Africa have until recently had very little contact with the 'outside' world. No Christian teachings, they are animists.

So, do they have a moral code? Yes, pretty much the same one as almost everyone else on the planet. Furthermore, they have a very egalitarian society, all food is shared and acts of violence are almost unheard of.

It is further interesting to note, that previously unheard of antisocial behaviour only arose with the advent of conversion of some M'Baka by Christian missionaries. To date the Christainized M'Baka are a poor and marginalised group fraught with social problems. Much the same happened in Australia, PNG, Melanesia...I can give you endless examples and provide some good academic reading references if you like.

I do find the fact that if I use a Biblical quote or present perfectly rational explanation, terms like insulting and uneducated seem to crop up from the Christianity camp. I have not insulted anyone, and furthermore it is your right to believe what you will. However, please respect my right not to be a Christian :eek:

Um I think my arguement has now crossed over too the Athiest Morality thread :confused:

[snow_tiger]

OK, it was written to the Corinthians, that changes my question somewhat. (I question that they sold all meat imaginable, tho, kangaroo meat, anyone?) Paul presumably knew these people and knew what their markets sold. If he knew that there was nothing unclean sold at their markets, then he would have told them to 'eat freely'. If he knew that the market sold unclean foods, might he have told them to eat them anyway to make them shut up and stop bickering about things like which meats they should and shouldn't eat, and focus instead on loving each other? That seems to be the whole point of that letter, to get them to stop arguing about the bits of religion that he, for whatever reason, thought weren't as important. Paul is well known for his 'ends justify the means' ethics. The other option, of course, is that those meats weren't unclean anymore. But he was just a man, inspired by God, maybe, but nevertheless just a man. Why does his word supersede God's?
(1) A historical look at Corinth shows it as a Roman province, revitalized around 44BC. The inhabitants were Romans, and grand feast serving everything from lobster to slugs, to beef to eel to pork; it is very safe to say that He was not figuring on the Roman Cornths only having kosher markets. Like Gajah, I'll ask why you invent interpretations to protect your mindset. Is it that important to you?

(2) To an extent, that letter was about bickering, but not ALL of his letters were. He stated the same principles elsewhere in different contexts. And, I would be interested in debating the circle you run in that "know well" Paul's theology of "end justifies the means", since this is blatantly and completely WRONG, and shows an UTTER ignorance of Paul's theology.

(3) Your last point is illogical. You say that Paul, though inspired by God is only a man, and thus has no right to change the Old Tesament, which was written by...? Men, inspired by God.

This point falls flatter when further scrutinized. Let's call Moses a man inspired by God, and realize that he authored Genesis. He wrote down the covenant that God made Adam in the garden. He wrote down the covenant that God made Adam and Eve after the "fall." He wrote down the covenant God made with Cane after the murder of his brother, the covenant God made with Noah and the survivers after the flood, the covenant God made with Abram when pronouncing him justified by faith (this is when his name was changed to Abraham). This same author wrote down the levitical covenant. So, we have the same author setting down 5 covenants God made. And you guys are getting stuck on pork and shellfish when this is specific to ONE covenant God made? Even in context of JUST the Old Testament, it is plain that God established different covenants at different times.

The New Testament theology jives perfectly with that of the Old, and the Old does nothing but SUPPORT the New. Paul points this progression out, and explains the reasoning.

If ya'll will broaden your rationale a litle, you will see the progression here, and the reason for the law. The law could not save us becasue it is impossible for us to keep it. God gave the law to shine a light on our condition and prove to us that we needed help. Once this was accomplished, it opened the door for Christ to work His atoning work for "whosoever will."

The "law" was a road-sign to Christ. Christ has come. If you are following road-signs to, say, Atlanta, GA-- when you arrive and hit the city-center, do you need these road-signs anymore? No. You're there!

If you don't believe me, forget about Paul and back up a few chapters to the red letters (Jesus' words). He said that He preached a new law. When asked, He said that obeying two commandments obeyed them all. Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. If Paul has no right to change the rules, does Christ-- God incarnate? We see scripturally that Christ lived a sinless life, and was the unblemished sacrifice. But elsewhere we see that He was chastised for breaking the Jewish Levitical law (breaking the sabath).

Levitical law demanded death for adultery. Did Christ demand this obligation at the stoning of the prostitute, or did He institute His new law of love and forgiveness? So, Poogle, you tell me. Was Paul off on a heretical tangent? Or was he in agreement with both the OT and the viewable actions of God Himself on Earth? (Remember this is a theological Christian discussion about the Bible agreeing with itself. Either accept for the sake of the argument the claims of Jesus, or it is no longer a valid argument within context.)

Think about it, and take care...

[snow_tiger]

Gajah, you have been reduced from an argument of absolutes to one of "I believes".

Absolutes:
"What I find amusing is the 'selective belief' of religious texts which furthermore enforces the fact the majority of religion is culturally constructed and interpreted."

"To ignore such biblical laws is surely sinful. Or do certain cultures merely choose to ignore the areas of religious text that do not work on a cultural level?"

"Or is it a usual case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards?

I still find it amusing, that in previous threads Leviticus is oft quoted for homophobic arguements but as soon as I mention dietary restrictions it conveniantly becomes superceeded by New Testament law."

I'll quit there, but could go on. On one hand it's nice to see that you are now containing your argument within what you believe, as opposed to stating in absolutes the hypocracy and underhandedness of religious texts you obviously have no understanding of, on the other you want now to play the martyr when your absolute assertions are shot down within the contexts of the texts you are accusing. You, sir, are no martyr. Let me repeat a few of your astatements again.

"What I find amusing is the 'selective belief' of religious texts which furthermore enforces the fact the majority of religion is culturally constructed and interpreted."

"To ignore such biblical laws is surely sinful. Or do certain cultures merely choose to ignore the areas of religious text that do not work on a cultural level?"

"Or is it a usual case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards?

And most recently...

"I do find the fact that if I use a Biblical quote or present perfectly rational explanation, terms like insulting and uneducated seem to crop up from the Christianity camp. I have not insulted anyone, and furthermore it is your right to believe what you will. However, please respect my right not to be a Christian"

Oh, how could those mean old Christians possibly be offended? How could those mean old Christians possibly call you insulting or uneducated when you are typing insulting and uneducated statements? Boo! Boo!!!!!!

I have many non-christian friends. But there is a diference between diferences of belief, and attacking the beliefs you do not share. How can you possibly find it within yourself to instruct a group of people in the belief system you don't share, nor understand?

I'll repeat... You, sir, are no martyr.

Take care.

[Gajah Silat]

:confused: So where are the insults?

Most of my quotes below are questions. Since when is a question insulting?

I stand by my arguement that within most cultures Christianity, and indeed all religion is subject to selective belief of text. Why is that an insult?

Why do I seek to be a martyr because I do not share your views?

I would consider the most, as you put it, "absolute assertion" to be the one that morality stems from God. I do not believe this.

Chimpanzees and gorrilas have a social system. Is this decreed by God? No, it is a functional aspect thet is conducive to group survival.

I view religion as a mirror of society.

I suppose ultimately it is not possible to argue that anything doesn't stem from God, as you will believe everything does. That is your faith and the essence of that is that it trancends proof(in the scientific sense at least), if your faith improves your life and makes you a better person then it is 'good'. But do not condenm me or accuse me of being uneducated because I do not share your faith. They are insults.

So again, selective Christian belief has been used throughout history to justify atrocities, the crusades, the inquisition, the KKK all the way to GWB & TB praying together before invading Iraq.

The point being cultural and national interests have superceeded the ultimate cornerstone of any morality, thou shalt not kill. This is not an insult it is fact, and they have been justified by selective use of Christian text. Therefore, belief mirrors society, society constructs belief.

All text is subject to both personal and cultural interpretation, and in being so the interpretation of that text comes to represent the culture or indeed the individual in relation to the text.

If this was not the case all Christians would 'believe' in exactly the same way. They do not. Christianity is the most fragmented and sectarian belief system on earth.

Now, I am not saying the Bible is a result of cultural construction, I wont even go there, but the interpretation of the Bible is determined by the culture it is interpreted within. Therefore the morality does not stem from the Bible but from the culture that preceeds it.

[snow_tiger]

Whatever Gajah. Your "questions" assume negative and insulting prerequisites in the Christian worldview. The cornerstone of your argument was that the "usual" for Christian religious interpretation is a "case of pick and mix to justify your own cultural standards."

That WAS insulting, especially considering that the question from you has not been, "have I interpreted your texts, and further, your motives correctly?" Your question has basically been, "how can you do usch things when I understand your motives and texts so well?" And your STATEMENTS have been patronizing amusement that we are such hypocrites. THAT is you playing the martyr. "Oh, I have only been asking you quations, and you are so so mean about it!" When in fact, you have been doing far more trhan asking questions.

I have never asked you to believe that all morality comes from God, and in fact, that is not the reason for this thread. All I've asked from you is to know what you are talking about before assainating the belief systems of an entire group of people. There is a difference, sir. Nor have I asked you for validation of my faith or whether it is good for me or not. But thanks.

Lastly, you seem to make the feeble argument against religion by tying the atrocities of the past done in its name? That is a tired argument, since it is unfair to blame a religion for the evil done by men who may or may not have truly followed it. If you want to judge a religion or worldview, judge it on what it (the religion) tells people to do, and not the failures of men to do as they should. The fact that cultures and national interests fail in a moral context in no way condemns religion, but in FACT points to these cultures' NEED for religion.

Now, since I have no interest in a debating against the "you're so mean" points of a failed viewpoint, shall we let this one end? It seems pretty clear that you have no understanding of the theological perspectives you questioned in context of the Judeo-Christian agreement. Your "you're so mean" debating tactic implies that you now realize this and are limping out of a meaningful discussion. And you are blatantly lieing when you state that you have only asked questions and have been in no way insulting to those who do not share your viewpoint, while taking the time to paint an entire group of people as homophobic hypocrites who twist their religious viewpoints for personal and social reasons.

So, I say we let this one end, and you carry on with the martyr syndrome?

[Gajah Silat]

"Lastly, you seem to make the feeble argument against religion by tying the atrocities of the past done in its name? That is a tired argument, since it is unfair to blame a religion for the evil done by men who may or may not have truly followed it. If you want to judge a religion or worldview, judge it on what it (the religion) tells people to do, and not the failures of men to do as they should."

I do not believe it is a feeble arguement but I'll leave that be. I have not said all Christians 'do this' or 'that' have I? Maybe I should have said "usual in my own experience'.

You still don't get the point. I am not saying religion is bad, in fact to the contrary. What the religion "tells people to do" is subject to interpretation. Aw C'mon that is surely valid? Who decides the correct interpretation? Surely God and not man? So, what if you've got it wrong? Wouldn't the fact that you need to question your own personal interpretation strengthen your faith?

Point being even if I take Christian morality as the absolute word of God it cannot be absolute because it is subject to interpretation.

You seem to think that you as a believer have a monopoly on interpreting God's word, and I as an 'uneducated' non believer do not have the capacity to interpret it in my own way. Anyway at least you've got a lost soul reading the Bible :)

[snow_tiger]

You still don't get the point. I am not saying religion is bad, in fact to the contrary. What the religion "tells people to do" is subject to interpretation. Aw C'mon that is surely valid? Who decides the correct interpretation? Surely God and not man? So, what if you've got it wrong? Wouldn't the fact that you need to question your own personal interpretation strengthen your faith?


Actually, there are tried and true, and very specific rules within the Christian theological community that speak to this point. One of the rules that pertain to this is that of interpreting the IMPLICIT by the EXPLICIT. If one follows certain rules of interpretation, especially rules defined within the Bible, then a reasonably clear interpretation should emerge.

Example: Jesus said to love your neighbor, and more, to love your enemy. He blatantly said to do good to those who use and persecute you. Now, shouldn't this have been used in any interpretation that may have fueled the crausades? Or any interpretation the Nazi regime may have had? It is my assertion that it is VERY possible to have a clear understanding of what God said as He was very explicit the majority of the time, and this explicit theology can shine light on any vague of implied thoughts one may find. In other words, use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

And, I would hope it would be apparent in my posts that I have done MUCH study of the Bible in forming my theology. This study has been in question of my interpretation, in search of a TRUE understanding, and has definitely strengthened my faith.


Point being even if I take Christian morality as the absolute word of God it cannot be absolute because it is subject to interpretation.

You seem to think that you as a believer have a monopoly on interpreting God's word, and I as an 'uneducated' non believer do not have the capacity to interpret it in my own way. Anyway at least you've got a lost soul reading the Bible :)
You seem to make the assumption that the external perception of something changes its true properties. This is not true in the least. A forest is still a forest, even if you or I can only narrowly see the lone tree. Our understanding in no way changes God's message or intent.

Do you remember the kids' game where one person whispers something in person A's ear who then whispers it in person B's who in turn... This goes on for 10 or 15 people and the last one telss the whole group what they heard. Almost invariably it has totally changed. Does this perception change the initial message?

So, I would definitely argue against your supposition that the Word of God is not absolute. It is! How some people interpret it does not change that it was given with absolutes.

And, I have in no way inferred that believers have a monopoly on interpretation. I have illuded to the fact that only those who have made an honest effort to FULLY study it and have a basis of TOTAL CONTEXT have a monopoly on CORRECT interpretation. Could you tell me the literary nuances of War and Peace after reading 5 or 6 sentences and hearing someone describe their opinions about the basic plot lines? No! Of course not. What makes you think you can interpret the Bible with a passing glance? THAT was my point.

And, you are more than welcome to form your own interpretation of the Bible. That does not mean that your interpretation is anywhere near correct, and that does not give you the right to use that incorrect intepration to liable the group of people who have dedicated immense time and energy to getting it right.

With all that said... I appreciate the direction you've taken with this discussion, and would be happy to offer input on any serious questions you may have.

Thanks.

[Gajah Silat]

I would not demean your obvious hours of study or your Biblical familiarity, but I am not sure if someone's interpretation can be deemed correct or incorrect. A more in depth interpretation, yes. Please do not assume I have only Biblical knowledge from a passing glance, I would say I have a reasonable knowledge although a bit rusty these days.

Let's take a Methodist, an easy one for me as my mother's family are Methodists and my Grandfather was a preacher :) Then we'll take a Catholic. Although both are Christians there perspective on that faith is very different indeed. Can we say one is right and one is wrong?

Even if I for arguements sake, accept the word of God as absolute, I still cannot accept it will be interpreted as an inherent truth in the same manner globally. It just wont be. So, somewhere the interpretation of thet absolute truth may be as you say right but does that make all the others wrong?

I don't think so :confused:

Remember, some may look at a forest and see timber but it is still a forest ;)

[Topher]

(First post, and thereafter repeated many times.)
Where in the first post, I fail to see it :rolleyes:


You have to narrow your question, because words have different meaning. By "law" do you mean civil law, or ceremonial law, or moral law? These are all valid uses of the word "law" in the context of the OT. You'll get a different answer depending upon what you're really asking about.

As for God's nature -- unchanged, dude. Unchanged.

As for opions, I don't know what you mean. Like, what ice cream is his favorite? What he thinks about my neighbor? Those aren't realistic question. If you mean "morality," that's been asked and answered already.

:confused: Give me a Christian law that came from the text of the New Testament rather than from the pen of a priest. All that I can think of is "love other people." That one has not changed.

Society did not cause the change from OT to NT. What school graduated you? :eek: You've now lost the privilege of picking on people for their lack of scientific knowledge, because with that statement you displayed an equally appalling lack of historical knowledge!
Well the OT and NT shows that the word of God has changed. This is according to Christian here on MAP, as evident when someone has had an issue with something in the OT, its claimed this was changed by Jesus. Likewise, when someone has an issue with something in the NT, they are referred to the OT.

The point being, if Gods word has changed, what’s to say it hasn’t changed again since then?

What did cause the change in the OT and NT?

[Topher]

If you want to judge a religion or worldview, judge it on what it (the religion) tells people to do, and not the failures of men to do as they should.
Many people have killed or sinned in other ways because God or the Bible "told me to do it." Many of the beliefs are fine but i dont see why someone needs to join a religion in order to get this belief, as people outside of that religion also have the same religion. Religion can and has also drives people to extremes. As i've said, religious people have commited offences such as murder because the victim did not follow the person belief system.

[Topher]

You still don't get the point. I am not saying religion is bad, in fact to the contrary. What the religion "tells people to do" is subject to interpretation. Aw C'mon that is surely valid? Who decides the correct interpretation? Surely God and not man? So, what if you've got it wrong? Wouldn't the fact that you need to question your own personal interpretation strengthen your faith?
I agree. If the Bible/Gods word was not subjected to interpretation then why is there such a difference in Christian belief all around the world?

[tekkengod]

if they didn't "interpritate" {Also known as "spinning" something} they would have to accept the contradictions and flaws. this way, they don't have to. Wouldn't it be fun if, oh say....the constitution or court orders spoke in parables. Sure it would, you'd have the option to not do it...and say you thought it was a riddle....but then you'd be executed....just like the bible... :rolleyes:

[aikiMac]

Where in the first post, I fail to see it :rolleyes:
There's no need to tease.


Well the OT and NT shows that the word of God has changed. This is according to Christian here on MAP, as evident when someone has had an issue with something in the OT, its claimed this was changed by Jesus. Likewise, when someone has an issue with something in the NT, they are referred to the OT.

The point being, if Gods word has changed, what’s to say it hasn’t changed again since then?

What did cause the change in the OT and NT?
That's actually a very intelligent and very fair question. In honest truth, I would need five hours to answer you. Really, look at the page number of the last page of the OT. It's a big number. From the life of the first writer to the life of the last writer, something like 1000 years passed. That's a lot of ground being covered. In school how many hours did your history teacher spend covering 1000 years of British history, or European history, or whatever? You gotta be fair: to explain a history of that many years, recorded on that many pages of text, requires a good deal of time. Yes, I've done it before, twice actually, but it takes me five hours. I cannot conceive of a way to present that volume of information on an internet forum.

Sorry dude.


If the Bible/Gods word was not subjected to interpretation then why is there such a difference in Christian belief all around the world?
I hear what you're saying, but, let's look at it from another perspective: Do they bicker over big points that matter, or do they bicker over little points that don't matter? What? ;) They bicker over little points that don't matter.

[Topher]

I hear what you're saying, but, let's look at it from another perspective: Do they bicker over big points that matter, or do they bicker over little points that don't matter? What? ;) They bicker over little points that don't matter.
If they dont matter, why all the problems and bickering? ;) One issues that comes to mind, homosexuality, seems like a very big issue in Christianity.

[Maverick]

That wouldn't be a 'big issue' for aikimac because he's not gay, and probably believes it's a choice and their own fault for being gay.

[Gajah Silat]

That wouldn't be a 'big issue' for aikimac because he's not gay, and probably believes it's a choice and their own fault for being gay.

That one's been done before. I used this arguement & the thread ground to a convenient halt!
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43552&highlight=kinsley

And on a completely off thread note..If anyone notices me making UFC comments on a Saturday night it is probably the result of alcohol :o Please make me stop :o

Back to Maverick. As far as I'm concerned, it is now accepted that homosexuality is genetic and therefore is not a moral issue.

[Yama Tombo]

Where in the first post, I fail to see it :rolleyes:



Well the OT and NT shows that the word of God has changed. This is according to Christian here on MAP, as evident when someone has had an issue with something in the OT, its claimed this was changed by Jesus. Likewise, when someone has an issue with something in the NT, they are referred to the OT.

The point being, if Gods word has changed, what’s to say it hasn’t changed again since then?

What did cause the change in the OT and NT?

Alright, if you look at the Old Testament and the New Testament. You'll see that the only thing that changed was the ceremonial and ritual ways of following the Law of God. Jesus had elder rabbis mad at him for defying traditions common in judaism practice. Jesus really never changed the law, he preached the same Law's of God throughout the new testament.

It's evident in a conversation between Jesus and a Samaritian woman:

John 4: 7- 27:

7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."

8 For His (K)disciples had gone away into (L)the city to buy food.

9 Therefore the (M)Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For (N)Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you (O)living water."

11 She said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that (P)living water?

12 "You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who (Q)gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?"

13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;

14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him (R)shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to (S)eternal life."

15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, (T)give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw."

16 He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."

17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband';

18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are (U)a prophet.

20 "(V)Our fathers worshiped in (W)this mountain, and you people say that (X)in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, (Y)an hour is coming when (Z)neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

22 "(AA)You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for (AB)salvation is from the Jews.

23 "But (AC)an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father (AD)in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship (AE)in spirit and truth."

25 The woman said to Him, "I know that (AF)Messiah is coming ((AG)He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."

26 Jesus said to her, "(AH)I who speak to you am He."

27 At this point His (AI)disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been speaking with a woman, yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why do You speak with her?"

[Poogle]

I'll ask why you invent interpretations to protect your mindset. Is it that important to you?

I'll not concede you this point. If you had read my post and taken it as it is intended, you will have see that actually I invented three scenarios - the three that immediately sprang to mind as possibilities. One, that Paul knew they'd only sell acceptable meats, two, they he knew they didn't and he told them to eat them regardless, and three, the all meats were now acceptable. The only one I questioned was the one that I thought was worth questioning (read:considering) - the one that I assumed you took to be correct. (That is, the third one).

(2) To an extent, that letter was about bickering, but not ALL of his letters were. He stated the same principles elsewhere in different contexts. And, I would be interested in debating the circle you run in that "know well" Paul's theology of "end justifies the means", since this is blatantly and completely WRONG, and shows an UTTER ignorance of Paul's theology.

I will grant you this point, as far the facts regarding Paul's theology go. My comment about Paul's ethics was a throwaway remark, and I did not actually write what I meant. I meant that the interpretation that Paul had 'ends justify the means' ethics is a popular one, and as such, should you not address this point, rather than expecting those present to take your word as gospel, so to speak? I assumed you'd realise that I was not in fact suggesting that you were wrong, but that the whole point of you being here, I would have thought, if you are indeed as knowledgable as you claim, is to correct those present who do not know about Paul's theology. Simply quoting a Bible verse when there are many that contradict it, and many rational reasons (for people who don't know anything about Corinth) that it might not mean literally what it appears, is not particularly useful. I was 'playing Devil's Advocate', if you will. I have no particular interest in this issue, I was attempting nudge you in the direction of having someting ressembling a meaningful discussion which may challenge or even change the viewpoint of one or more parties.

Having read your response to my last post, and skim read what you have written to others, may I suggest that if you truly are knowledgable on the subject, you are not doing yourself justice. Calling someone ignorant, when all they did was ask a few questions about hypothetical scenarios which really amounted to nothing more than 'couldn't it be interpreted this way, tho?' is really not a good way to convince people that they want to listen to you. All you will achieve is making them angry with you, and make them refuse to concede any point, they will attempt to provoke you into saying something without thinking just so that they can prove you wrong on one irrelevant little point. And what does that do for the discussion? I will also point out that it is really not necessary to put EMPHASIS in your sentences to make it look like you are SPITTING your proclamation of your 'correctness' to the person you have deemed to be less knowledgable than yourself. It is perfectly acceptable to tell someone that actually they have their facts wrong and to politely suggest that they consider reading/studying a little more of the material considered in order that they gain a better insight. The former method of saying that you are right does not make you any more correct than the latter method, but it does make you a little bit ruder. My knowledge of Paul may or may not be inferior to yours (I can't really tell how well you understand Paul, you haven't really demonstrated any understanding, you just seem to shout at people telling them they don't know anything about Paul, and make a few statements with very little in the way of justification), but I have the intelligence to appreciate what is and is not good for a discussion and the good manners and respect for the rules to not make a personal attack on anyone. So, with all due respect, do not call me ignorant. Never, ever call me or anyone else ignorant.

Past this point in your post, I concluded that you were only interested in demonstrating your superior knowledge, and saying 'oh look, I can prove you wrong'. As such I am ending my participation in this discussion as far as you are concerned. Your offensive remarks are not helpful, so there is no reason for me to subject myself to reading them. Thank you for your time.

[tekkengod]

As far as I'm concerned, it is now accepted that homosexuality is genetic and therefore is not a moral issue.

So, by religious thought process, we can blame god for it. no wait, its a part of a parable somewhere. :rolleyes:

[Capt Ann]

Actually, that's a really good issue to look at, from the Biblical standpoint of judgment (I am determined to get this thread back on the original topic ;) ).

In this case I am not talking about God judging homosexuals, because God puts homosexuality in the same category as adultery or fornication, or stealing, or being a drunkard, or being greedy (see 1 Cor 6:9-11). From the discussion on this thread, you would think that there is this GREAT BIG SIN (bold capital letters) of homosexuality, and a lot of these other 'little sins' that we can all deal with. As far as I can see, God doesn't view it that way: whether it's homosexuality, or lying on your job application, or shaving a bit off your taxes, it's all 'sin', and at its root, it's all about rebellion (not about the specific form the rebellion takes).

As far as judgment goes, though, I would like to ask, "How do you 'know' what is right or wrong?" As a Christian, that's an easy one to answer for me: God revealed it in His word, the Bible. Most of us know right from wrong, even if we don't acknowledge Him, because He has also written His law in our hearts. For the non-Christians on this thread, it's a little more nebulous to come up with reasons why some things should be considered 'right' and some things should be considered 'wrong'. Certainly just getting a consensus of societal views won't help much: heck, the majority of voters here picked Bill Clinton twice, then picked George Bush twice, four years later.

Anyway, going back to judgment: In this case, homosexuality provides a good 'case study' (as long as we can discuss it calmly, without getting ugly, or putting down specific individuals who may/may not engage in such), since we obviously disagree on whether or not it's 'wrong'. I am curious: why do you say that homosexuality is OK? As far as the scientific evidence, the latest research available shows no solid link between genetics and homosexuality, with an indication in some research of the possibility (not certainty) of a hereditary tendency towards homosexuality (not unlike the genetic disposition to other addictive behaviors, such as alcoholism). With no clear scientific data showing that it is, in fact, genetic, why do you say it is OK? I can at least appeal to a 'Higher Source' for my opinions/beliefs about morality, whether you agree with that belief and Higher Source or not. If you are just pulling an opinion about right or wrong out of the air, isn't it a bit egotistical to proclaim the 'rightness' of your judgment, much less assume that anyone else should share your private morality?

[tekkengod]

I am curious: why do you say that homosexuality is OK?

Because:

A: Everyone has the right to be happy within the bounds of societal law.
B: No one is harmed.

[Capt Ann]

Fair enough, and your reason is consistent with other things I've seen you write.

But just one more, then I'll quit on this topic: up until very recently, in your home state, homosexual relations were against societal law. I assume you believe it was an unjust law, so can I shorten your list of 'why' to 'because no one gets hurt'?

1. If so, then any time that I would propose a new 'law', should I be able to show how violating the law gets somebody hurt? (I'm trying to understand how I can tell which items in any particular moral code we might both agree were 'right' or 'wrong'.)

2. Is 'morality' in your view, the same thing as 'social constraint' which should be the basis for 'legality'? (Asking this one, because I see them as all different: For instance, I would never want someone to make a law against lying about the size of the fish you caught, but even though it's socially acceptable, I would teach my kids not to do it.)

[Capt Ann]

Even if I for arguements sake, accept the word of God as absolute, I still cannot accept it will be interpreted as an inherent truth in the same manner globally. It just wont be. So, somewhere the interpretation of thet absolute truth may be as you say right but does that make all the others wrong?I think a better approach would be to recognize that all interpretations will be incomplete. The moment I think that I have God 'all figured out' is the moment I become a total idiot. He is infinite, and He has this habit of not staying in whatever box I define as 'the-way-I-think-God-should-act-in-every-situation'.

For the most part, the message of the Bible is clear, which is why all Christians anywhere on planet earth will be able to agree on the key principles and doctrines. God Himself is infinitely more complex than anything we can imagine, which is why individual Christians will always be able to find things they don't know or don't understand fully, and can disagree about, while still being Christians. So my suggestion: read the whole book through for yourself and get the basic message. Then you can spend as much time/effort as you want learning more about God in the details.

[tekkengod]

But just one more, then I'll quit on this topic: up until very recently, in your home state, homosexual relations were against societal law. I assume you believe it was an unjust law, so can I shorten your list of 'why' to 'because no one gets hurt'?

1. If so, then any time that I would propose a new 'law', should I be able to show how violating the law gets somebody hurt? (I'm trying to understand how I can tell which items in any particular moral code we might both agree were 'right' or 'wrong'.)

2. Is 'morality' in your view, the same thing as 'social constraint' which should be the basis for 'legality'? (Asking this one, because I see them as all different: For instance, I would never want someone to make a law against lying about the size of the fish you caught, but even though it's socially acceptable, I would teach my kids not to do it.)

Actually my "home" state would be Florida :D

1. Both are very good questions. Not necessairly hurt, but taking away someone liberties, or affecting them negatively. You see where i'm going with that, i don't think i need to define crime. :) Everyone has the right to be happy, i firmly believe that, which is why i {even though i strongly disagree, and often disrespect} tolerate and accept your freedom of religion. {despite the damage i feel it has done}. As well as speech, and homosexuality. a moral code we both agree on? is that what your asking? The american constitution seems to stand just fine with me {despite the fact that its based on christianity} If you choose to be gay, or catholic, or christian, or FSMist, it is after all your right to be happy.

2. I say that things such as pursuit of happiness must be done within societal constraint to avoid the "well what about the cannibal/rapists happiness argument. Do i view morality the same as i do 'social constraint' hmmm....i suppose so yes. There is no law against lying, there is no law against lying about the size of a fish you caught. If its socially acceptable, and the level of damage, collateral or otherwise is nil. Then your on the right track. Of course i suppose there might always be "extremes".

[Socrastein]

I can at least appeal to a 'Higher Source' for my opinions/beliefs about morality, whether you agree with that belief and Higher Source or not. If you are just pulling an opinion about right or wrong out of the air, isn't it a bit egotistical to proclaim the 'rightness' of your judgment, much less assume that anyone else should share your private morality?

Two can play that game...

An omnipotent, invisible pink elephant whispered in my ear last Saturday that homesexuality is okay, among other things. Man, it's fun to appeal to erroneous "high powers".

How is it any less "pulling an opinion about right or wrong out of the air" when you're just deriving your opinions through some make-believe, unevidenced, unproven metaphysical being?

[Strafio]

As far as judgment goes, though, I would like to ask, "How do you 'know' what is right or wrong?" As a Christian, that's an easy one to answer for me: God revealed it in His word, the Bible. Most of us know right from wrong, even if we don't acknowledge Him, because He has also written His law in our hearts.
Say our conscience is God's law being written into our hearts, (I'll make it another one of my "worst case scenario" assumptions) I don't quite that's sufficient to give us "no excuse" for ignorance.
More often than not, the conscience doesn't kick in until after we've done something and seen what we've done. However, I'll admit that atleast once I've done something against my conscience (although if that was the definition of sin then mine, and I presume everyone elses, would be fairly few and far between).

Another point I'd make is if all you've got to work on is conscience alone, what are you going to make of it? It's a very similar feeling to doing something you're afraid to do. Also, it's an intuition and our intuition can often lead us astray (people can get phobias and the like). People will generally follow their conscience but sometimes you're given the choice between two situations that make you feel equally bad inside. I mean, if God wrote it into our hearts then it was a good way of giving us some basic intuitive guidance, but I'm not convinced that it's given us "no excuse" for the "bad" we've done.

If you are just pulling an opinion about right or wrong out of the air, isn't it a bit egotistical to proclaim the 'rightness' of your judgment, much less assume that anyone else should share your private morality?
It's never quite out of the air but you're right in one respect.
One of the reasons why people like to stress that it's a relative opinion is to give reasons why people should be less "dogmatic" over what's "right" and what's "wrong". There are some things that more or less all of us can agree with and relate to (everyone wants themselves and others to be protected from physical harm for example).

[Topher]

In this case I am not talking about God judging homosexuals, because God puts homosexuality in the same category as adultery or fornication, or stealing, or being a drunkard, or being greedy (see 1 Cor 6:9-11). From the discussion on this thread, you would think that there is this GREAT BIG SIN (bold capital letters) of homosexuality, and a lot of these other 'little sins' that we can all deal with. As far as I can see, God doesn't view it that way: whether it's homosexuality, or lying on your job application, or shaving a bit off your taxes, it's all 'sin', and at its root, it's all about rebellion (not about the specific form the rebellion takes).

But aikiMac claimed (when i asked about the different Christian groups) that the "big issues" are same and the "little issues" are what they squabble about. If everything is on the same level, why do so many Christian see it different? Why do some see homosexuality as OK, while others dont?

As far as judgment goes, though, I would like to ask, "How do you 'know' what is right or wrong?" As a Christian, that's an easy one to answer for me: God revealed it in His word, the Bible. Most of us know right from wrong, even if we don't acknowledge Him, because He has also written His law in our hearts.
How do you know that the Bible 100% contains the word of God? Secondly, If God's law was written in our hearts, there would be no homosexual people as everyone woud naturally see it as wrong.

If you are just pulling an opinion about right or wrong out of the air, isn't it a bit egotistical to proclaim the 'rightness' of your judgment, much less assume that anyone else should share your private morality?
Now this is ironic. A Christian accusing a non-Christian of pulling morals from the air and assuming everyone else should share our belief.

Anyway, it appears that there is a Darwinian explanation for morality.

[Topher]

Even if I for arguements sake, accept the word of God as absolute, I still cannot accept it will be interpreted as an inherent truth in the same manner globally. It just wont be. So, somewhere the interpretation of thet absolute truth may be as you say right but does that make all the others wrong?
I agree. This is interesting as looking at all the different messages of the supposed God(s), both as religion as a whole and within religions, there are vast difference of opinions to downright contradictions.

[aikiMac]

But aikiMac claimed (when i asked about the different Christian groups) that the "big issues" are same and the "little issues" are what they squabble about. If everything is on the same level, why do so many Christian see it different? Why do some see homosexuality as OK, while others dont?
Because at the time I was thinking of denominational divisions: Southern Baptist vs Conservative Baptist vs Missouri Synod Lutheran vs Evangelical Lutheran Synod vs United Methodist vs Nazarene vs ---

When you said "groups," I thought "denominations." Sorry for the confusion.


Secondly, If God's law was written in our hearts, there would be no homosexual people as everyone woud naturally see it as wrong.
Oh, so murder and rape are not "wrong" either? That's where your argument goes, and I don't like that destination.

[Strafio]

Or maybe he's saying that God's written no law in our hearts.
Although the simple answer is that it's written as conscience and it's up to free will which to do. I still think that the conscience isn't absolutely reliable, I mean, I don't personally believe that it is a result of God writing laws. I can actually remember the first few times I noticed my conscience. I'd done things that I knew I wouldn't get into trouble, that no one would even know what I'd done, but I still felt kind of bad for what I'd done.
Oh, and notice that it didn't bother to say anything until after I'd already done it and it was too late to change things!

Even if God is influencing our conscience, well, see what I replied to Capn Ann. :)

[Poogle]

Oh, so murder and rape are not "wrong" either? That's where your argument goes, and I don't like that destination.

I thought his argument would end up being directed towards: there would be homosexual people but they would not act on it. Or rather, they would feel bad about acting on it because they'd be giving into sin. I know someone who felt bad about his homosexuality. He was a Christian and terribly, terribly depressed because he was constantly being told he would go to hell. He abstained from relationships for a long time, and everytime he fell in love with someone his depression got worse because he had to choose between giving up his love and going to hell. He did eventually get over the problem, when someone persuaded him that the people who interpreted the Bible might have got it wrong. Not really sure what the moral of this story is. It's a real life experience which I'm not really sure how to interpret.

[Blevunly]

Remember our assumption for this whole thread: God exists.
For a narrower part of this thread we have assumed the Christian God.
Given those two assumptions, your statement about being damned is not necessarily correct for at least two reasons. The first is that it cannot be supported from the Bible. God did not actually say it, and it does not necessarily follow from the first statement. (Don't make stuff up from your head -- study the actual Bible.) The second reason is that, duh, you're not dead yet, so we cannot assume that you'll be damned.



I know the Bible didn't say that you did

"Depends upon the assumptions we agree to make. In context, the "God" that Strafio assumed in the original post was the Christian God. If therefore we assume Christianity, then the answer is that I still would be in Christian had I been raised in the Middle East. If instead we do not assume Christianity, then the answer might be different." aikiMac

Right their you said you would be a christian no matter what so if we use that system then a nonchristian would be a nonchristian no matter what and would end up in hell.

So my point remains valid

[aikiMac]

Right their you said you would be a christian no matter what so if we use that system then a nonchristian would be a nonchristian no matter what and would end up in hell.
No. The one does not follow from the other.

[Blevunly]

No. The one does not follow from the other.

How so? As I understood it you were saying that no matter what senario you were put in you would always become christian. If this is not correct please explain.

[Strafio]

I assumed that Christianity was true but not that everybody knows it to be so.
One of my main arguments was that even if God is as the Bible says then we still have good reason not to believe that the Bible is right.

I promise that once my exams and studying is finished I'll pick up where we left off into a nice summary to get us back on track again. :)

[Topher]

Because at the time I was thinking of denominational divisions: Southern Baptist vs Conservative Baptist vs Missouri Synod Lutheran vs Evangelical Lutheran Synod vs United Methodist vs Nazarene vs ---

When you said "groups," I thought "denominations." Sorry for the confusion.
"Groups"; "denominations" - call them what you will. The point is all these people all believe in one God and one book, yet most have different beliefs from small to straight contradictions. Even people with the same group/denominations.

Oh, so murder and rape are not "wrong" either? That's where your argument goes, and I don't like that destination.
Well in fact some tribes consider murder socially acceptable. I believe in ancient China it was socially expected to gain revenge (i.e kill) a person who killed a member of your family. Social animals also kill. One could also argue that crime organisations consider murder acceptable.

[tekkengod]

Aiki, is it ever possible for you to just say "I was wrong, thats not what the bible said"

[aikiMac]

Well in fact some tribes consider murder socially acceptable. I believe in ancient China it was socially expected to gain revenge (i.e kill) a person who killed a member of your family. Social animals also kill. One could also argue that crime organisations consider murder acceptable.
Hannibal Lecter. :D

[aikiMac]

How so?
Read the lessons of John Wesley, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham. If you don't like their answers, study John Calvin or RC Sproul (still an active preacher and author in Florida).

[Blevunly]

Read the lessons of John Wesley, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham. If you don't like their answers, study John Calvin or RC Sproul (still an active preacher and author in Florida).

That still doesn't explain what you were trying to say. Why are you avoiding my question?

[holyheadjch]

hmm, he does that a lot I've noticed,

[Blevunly]

If God is an all knowing being then he knows what choices we'll make he knows by placing someone in an environmnet what they'll do and he knows if he was to place them in another environment what they'd do there.

So he places us in our environments much like you would hold a stone over a lake. Then he releases us knowing exactly if we will pass or fail his test and everything we will do along the way, just like you would know the stone is going to hit the water. Now can you really blame the stone for hitting the water when you knew by placing it above the water and dropping it that it would hit the water?

[aikiMac]

That still doesn't explain what you were trying to say. Why are you avoiding my question?
I answered your question and I directed you to the sources. Not every question has a kindergarten answer. This is one of them. You're avoiding knowledge by not acting on what I told you. It's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." It's up to you.

[Blevunly]

I answered your question and I directed you to the sources. Not every question has a kindergarten answer. This is one of them. You're avoiding knowledge by not acting on what I told you. It's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." It's up to you.

Ok lets take a recap on your great answers to my question.

"No. The one does not follow from the other." aikiMac

"Read the lessons of John Wesley, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham. If you don't like their answers, study John Calvin or RC Sproul (still an active preacher and author in Florida)."

Wow that's an amazing answer totally explained everything I wanted to know I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Why don't you just admit this is way over your head and you have no more good responses left reffering me to other people just shows this is way beyond you it's not so bad you used them in your debate but you can't even find where it says anything about what I'm talking about so you want me to go on a wild goose chase so I can debate myself. Well I don't think I'm gonna do that so if you want to make a point then make it otherwise don't waste my time.

Here's a quote for you "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain

[Poogle]

I answered your question and I directed you to the sources. Not every question has a kindergarten answer. This is one of them. You're avoiding knowledge by not acting on what I told you. It's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." It's up to you.

But you can do a little more than say to your horse: 'The river's five miles in that direction, off you go!' Give the general idea of what the authors you've cited said, I'm sure it can be discussed. Don't feel that you always have to be able to give a definite answer under which you may draw a line and write 'case closed'.

I think that a question like that *can* be given some consideration in a thread like this. Does this notion of being a Christian no matter what apply to only you, or to everyone?

If it applies only to you, then we must dismiss it as 'coincidence' and conclude that environment can be significant in determining the religion someone follows. If it applies to everyone, there are two possibilities:

1. Consider a hypothetical Poogle who exists in a different environment. Is it possible that she is a Christian? If it is, let us suppose that we pick a hypothetical Poogle who is Christian. Then this Poogle may imagine all the different environments into which she might have been born. If your hypothesis is correct, Poogle may conclude that no matter which of these environments she lived in, she would always be Christian. The Poogle sitting in this reality is not Christian, and therefore we must conclude that hypothetical Poogle cannot be Christian either.

2. Consider the situation above. The glaring assumption that has been made is that there is an inherent symmetry existing between hypothesised and real existences. Then we get into the realms of philosophy, or perhaps even to the many worlds theory. What is it about our existence that makes it fundamentally different from the existences that never were?

I can only really guess what you are alluding to when you mention the name of someone who wrote about the topic. If I have misunderstood your hypothesis, it is possible that I will not have to read the texts you mentioned in order to appreciate why you have said what you have said. Thus, to elaborate on your statement regarding Christians being Christian regardless of their environment would be useful. I think it's also a fair comment to say that a useful test of someone's conviction and understanding of a viewpoint they hold is their willingness and ability to defend it. If someone appears to be not 100% convinced by their viewpoint, and to not understand it, there is a tendency on the part of the listener to question the validity of the undefended viewpoint. That's not to say you're necessarily wrong, but in a debate, you're not going to get anyone to see your point of view if you just declare your viewpoint right and tell other people that they are 'avoiding knowledge' if they are unable (even due to something such as time constraints) to go read what you read and reach the same conclusion as you. (On the other hand (with regards to my 'willingness' remark), if this is just a case of you thinking that your audience requires a 'kindergarten answer' in order to understand then let me change your audience, you may speak to me instead. I assure you that my mind can ascend to the necessary levels of abstraction to meaningfully discuss the topic.)

[Poogle]

I think it's also a fair comment to say that a useful test of someone's conviction and understanding of a viewpoint they hold is their willingness and ability to defend it. If someone appears to be not 100% convinced by their viewpoint, and to not understand it, there is a tendency on the part of the listener to question the validity of the undefended viewpoint.
Why don't you just admit this is way over your head and you have no more good responses left reffering me to other people just shows this is way beyond you it's not so bad you used them in your debate but you can't even find where it says anything about what I'm talking about so you want me to go on a wild goose chase so I can debate myself. Well I don't think I'm gonna do that so if you want to make a point then make it otherwise don't waste my time.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Blevunly]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

What's with the other language? You could of just said this demonstrates it.

[aikiMac]

Why don't you just admit this is way over your head and you have no more good responses left reffering me to other people
It's not way over my head. I'm the seminary student, remember? I'm the guy who even knew the names of the people, remember? This response here by you shows to me that you have no idea what you are even asking. People write entire books about the question you are asking, yet you think that I can address it in detail on MAP?

No, I do not believe that MAP was created for me to hammer out in full completeness Calvin's "five points" or their rebuttals at a level of detail that a non-Christian with biblical illiteracy could understand. I believe that would be inappropriate. That you cannot understand that shows that you do not have any idea what you are asking.

You don't explain calculus to a 1st grader, and you don't explain the details of Calvinism or Arminianism to someone illiterate in the Bible. It's inappropriate.


Give the general idea of what the authors you've cited said, I'm sure it can be discussed.
The general idea:
(1) God will find you wherever you are. This is a clear teaching in the Bible.
(2) God will send to you sufficient information for you to know him. This also is clear.
(3) Faith is ultimately an act of God. No person understands it fully. We understand it only partially. We can't explain it all the way. The best we can say is that in the final analysis, God plays a significant role. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
(4) Put them all together: I would have been a Christian even if I was raised somewhere else.
(5) If you reject God, don't blame God. This is a clear teaching in the Bible. In contrast, dude wanted to make the conclusion "place of birth necessarily determines religious faith + God controls place of birth = some people are necessarily damned." This is contrary to plain biblical teaching.


If someone appears to be not 100% convinced by their viewpoint, and to not understand it, there is a tendency on the part of the listener to question the validity of the undefended viewpoint.
...
(On the other hand (with regards to my 'willingness' remark), if this is just a case of you thinking that your audience requires a 'kindergarten answer' in order to understand then let me change your audience, you may speak to me instead. I assure you that my mind can ascend to the necessary levels of abstraction to meaningfully discuss the topic.)

Accepted. Consider this idea also: we don't understand everything about faith. We just don't. Within that part that we don't understand people are free to make their own reasoned conclusions, bounded of course by that which we do understand. Some people will inevitably disagree with each other.

I'll give two popular examples: John Calvin and John Wesley. I believe Calvin was right with respect to "soteriology," but I also have huge, huge, huge respect for John Wesley. He was not stupid. There, now you know where I stand. I'm a Calvinist when it comes to soteriology. Here you come asking me for a definitive answer on a question of soteriology. Shall I give you Calvin's answer? Shall I give you Wesley's answer? Shall I give you both?

If I give you Calvin's answer, then someone with Arminian tendencies might come along and say that I'm wrong. At that point you would be confused. (How can Christians disagree, huh?) Likewise if I give you Wesley's answer, a Calvinist might come along and say that I'm wrong. If instead I give you both answers, then you'll say I'm waffling.

Someone who is biblically literate would understand the nature of the dispute and understand the arguments for both sides and understand why I don't want to talk about the details of soteriology on MAP. Someone who is biblically illiterate will not understand anything about anything to do with soteriology.

Most everyone on MAP is biblically illiterate. Therefore I cannot win.


If your hypothesis is correct, Poogle may conclude that no matter which of these environments she lived in, she would always be Christian.
I take issue with the word "always." The finish line is death, and you are not dead yet, so we shouldn't be voting on you yet. It would be better to say "she would always end up Christian."

[Blevunly]

The general idea:
(1) God will find you wherever you are. This is a clear teaching in the Bible.
(2) God will send to you sufficient information for you to know him. This also is clear.
(3) Faith is ultimately an act of God. No person understands it fully. We understand it only partially. We can't explain it all the way. The best we can say is that in the final analysis, God plays a significant role. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
(4) Put them all together: I would have been a Christian even if I was raised somewhere else.
(5) If you reject God, don't blame God. This is a clear teaching in the Bible. In contrast, dude wanted to make the conclusion "place of birth necessarily determines religious faith + God controls place of birth = some people are necessarily damned." This is contrary to plain biblical teaching.


So what your saying is that our environments don't control anything about our lives so if they have nothing to do with it what governs your so called free will? What makes one person decide to do evil things and another to do good. Something has to trigger it unless your saying some people are born good and some evil which would mean God decided their fates. The bible also teaches that God is all loving and all good so how could an all loving all good being allow evil to come about this would dispell him being all good and as for all loving would you throw your children into a fire for not obeying you because of your bad parenting. You can't say God try's to get us all to accept him because when you try one of two things happen you either suceed or fail and how can an all knowing all powerful being fail?

You can sit on your high horse all you want and tell me that I'm illiterate and how I don't know what I'm talking about but unless you start putting down some evidence your the one who looks illiterate and in denial. You talk big talk but you sure don't walk it. So go ahead tell me me I'm dumb and that I don't know anything and tell me all about how you've got it all figured out but you can't tell anyone because they wouldn't understand.

[aikiMac]

So what your saying is that our environments don't control anything about our lives ...
I did not say this. You and I need to find a point of common ground. Have you taken a course in logic yet? Do you understand syllogisms? I need to know where you are so I can match up with you on your terms.


What makes one person decide to do evil things and another to do good.
Let's make you the person. Now answer the question about yourself.


The bible also teaches that God is all loving and all good ...
I need the specific verses to prove this. Can you give me them?


... one of two things happen you either suceed or fail and how can an all knowing all powerful being fail?
Oh, so he's all-knowing and all-powerful as well? Can you give me the Bible verses to prove that? I need to read them, so that I know what you're talking about, so that I can meet you on your terms.


unless you start putting down some evidence your the one who looks illiterate and in denial.
Well, it goes both ways. What Bible verses are you relying on to support your claims about God? I want to meet you on your terms, so, tell me where you are. I will then do my best to come to the place where you are.

[Blevunly]

I did not say this. You and I need to find a point of common ground. Have you taken a course in logic yet? Do you understand syllogisms? I need to know where you are so I can match up with you on your terms.

No I've never taken a course in logic not sure what syllogisms are I might understand them.

Let's make you the person. Now answer the question about yourself.

My environment mixed with human emotions decide what I do.

What about you?

As for verses I have none I just rely off information that all the christians around me tell me. That's just what I've always been told. If it's wrong then please clear it up for me using scriptures of course.

[aikiMac]

My environment mixed with human emotions decide what I do. What about you?
I would add intellect and choice to the list.


As for verses I have none I just rely off information that all the christians around me tell me. That's just what I've always been told. If it's wrong then please clear it up for me using scriptures of course.
The characteristics that you named are accurate.
This raises a question: If you can't find the characteristics of God in the Bible, why would you want biblical support for a position on soteriology? :confused: The one necessarily comes before the other.

[Blevunly]

I would add intellect and choice to the list.

I figured intellect would be a combination of the environmental efect on human emotion and that choice is the product of free will.

[/QUOTE]The characteristics that you named are accurate.
This raises a question: If you can't find the characteristics of God in the Bible, why would you want biblical support for a position on soteriology? :confused: The one necessarily comes before the other.[/QUOTE]

I've never looked them up in the bible, but it doesn't change the fact that I understand what it was saying about what God is and what he can do. A person doesn't need to read an algebra book to know algebra they must only be taught it.

[Blevunly]

If the characteristics I named were acurate then my points would still be valid.

[aikiMac]

If the characteristics I named were acurate then my points would still be valid.
Not if your list was incomplete. ;) This is where Strafio was tripping up at the start of the thread. Like I said to him much earlier, if you're not taking into consideration all of God's stated attributes, then you're not going to form a conclusion about God. You're going to form a conclusion about some made-up straw man.

And now we can probably just repeat the entire thread, eh?

[Blevunly]

Not if your list was incomplete. ;) This is where Strafio was tripping up at the start of the thread. Like I said to him much earlier, if you're not taking into consideration all of God's stated attributes, then you're not going to form a conclusion about God. You're going to form a conclusion about some made-up straw man.

And now we can probably just repeat the entire thread, eh?

Ok then give me the missing peices to the puzzle Mr. Wizard :D What characteristics (attributes) am I leaving out?

[Strafio]

Not if your list was incomplete. ;) This is where Strafio was tripping up at the start of the thread. Like I said to him much earlier, if you're not taking into consideration all of God's stated attributes, then you're not going to form a conclusion about God. You're going to form a conclusion about some made-up straw man.

And now we can probably just repeat the entire thread, eh?
Tripping? :eek:
I still hold that if you have a set of numbers with "3" in it, saying that the set has no odd numbers is contradictory no matter what other numbers are in the set. I'll be back to it all as soon as my exams are done...

[Topher]

(4) Put them all together: I would have been a Christian even if I was raised somewhere else.
So by your definition aiki, wherever you were born, you would have been a Christian. That means if you were born and raised in Turkey, you would have been a Christian, not a Muslim? So by the same logic, wherever I were born, I would be an Atheist?
If God does decide a person’s religion, this brings an additional problem: why does God only make some of this “children” Christian, and not others?

Your hypothesis is akin to fatalism (fate), in that your life is planned and was always meant to be this way. Do you believe God predetermines everyone’s existence? If so, you cannot believe in free will.

(2) God will send to you sufficient information for you to know him. This also is clear.
Sufficient information, as in…..? How does one get this information?

Most everyone on MAP is biblically illiterate. Therefore I cannot win.
It’s not about winning. ;)

I take issue with the word "always." The finish line is death, and you are not dead yet, so we shouldn't be voting on you yet. It would be better to say "she would always end up Christian."
But this contradicts your suggestion that you would always be born as a member of your particular religion. It also fails because while she could in fact end up as a Christian, millions of people die without religious conviction.

Let's make you the person. Now answer the question about yourself.
I’ll have a stab of this if you don’t mind.

What makes a person good or evil? My opinions of good/evil, right/wrong (i.e. morals) come mainly from my upbringing (in a non religious environment). As I got older and had the intellect I began to develop these ideas for myself, which are usually based on personal deliberation, education and knowledge, social climate, world climate, media. I’m a firm believe that someone should not set their views and beliefs in stone and be open minded to change, and that its generally up to the indevidual to make their own decisions.

[Maverick]

Have you taken a course in logic yet?


:rolleyes:

[Topher]

I would add intellect and choice to the list.
As a Christian your idea of good and evil come from the Bible, right? But according to you some posts back, you are Christian regardless of anything, so you never chose this religion and hence morals.

[Blevunly]

aiki I am still waiting to hear what God's missing attributes are. If there aren't any then my scenario would be true.

You also never disproved this statement.

God places us in our environments much like you would hold a stone over a lake. Then he releases us knowing exactly if we will pass or fail his test and everything we will do along the way, just like you would know the stone is going to hit the water. Now can you really blame the stone for hitting the water when you knew by placing it above the water and dropping it that it would hit the water?

[aikiMac]

Ok then give me the missing peices to the puzzle Mr. Wizard :D What characteristics (attributes) am I leaving out?
Read pages 2 and 3 of this thread. Several are mentioned.


I still hold that if you have a set of numbers with "3" in it, saying that the set has no odd numbers is contradictory no matter what other numbers are in the set.
I agree, but, you know, that's not the question we're facing. The question we're facing is, "How do you describe the entire set?"


So by your definition aiki, wherever you were born, you would have been a Christian. That means if you were born and raised in Turkey, you would have been a Christian, not a Muslim? So by the same logic, wherever I were born, I would be an Atheist?
I get tired of repeating myself. For once, I'm just going to ignore you, 'cause you know what? I don't want to repeat myself. There, I said it. :woo:


But this contradicts your suggestion that you would always be born as a member of your particular religion.
Huh? :confused: The girl in that hypo was a Christian; thus, my conclusion was totally consistent with my prior statement.


As a Christian your idea of good and evil come from the Bible, right? But according to you some posts back, you are Christian regardless of anything, so you never chose this religion and hence morals.
Free will is a basic assumption of Christian. Very basic. The whole religion requires free will.


God places us in our environments much like you would hold a stone over a lake. Then he releases us knowing exactly if we will pass or fail his test and everything we will do along the way, just like you would know the stone is going to hit the water. Now can you really blame the stone for hitting the water when you knew by placing it above the water and dropping it that it would hit the water?
This is a variation of "how could a good God allow evil in the world?"
The answer, if you want to call it an answer, is in Job and in the Psalms.
If you do not allow the assumption that God exists, and that God has all of the attributes that the Bible ascribes to him, then you will not understand the answer. First things first, you know. First things first. Before you ask a question like this you have to allow God to be who he says he is. If you're not willing to allow that, then you've no business asking this question about him. You should instead pick a different deity to ask question about.

[holyheadjch]

It's not way over my head. I'm the seminary student, remember? I'm the guy who even knew the names of the people, remember? This response here by you shows to me that you have no idea what you are even asking. People write entire books about the question you are asking, yet you think that I can address it in detail on MAP?

No, I do not believe that MAP was created for me to hammer out in full completeness Calvin's "five points" or their rebuttals at a level of detail that a non-Christian with biblical illiteracy could understand. I believe that would be inappropriate. That you cannot understand that shows that you do not have any idea what you are asking.

You don't explain calculus to a 1st grader, and you don't explain the details of Calvinism or Arminianism to someone illiterate in the Bible. It's inappropriate.



The general idea:
(1) God will find you wherever you are. This is a clear teaching in the Bible.
(2) God will send to you sufficient information for you to know him. This also is clear.
(3) Faith is ultimately an act of God. No person understands it fully. We understand it only partially. We can't explain it all the way. The best we can say is that in the final analysis, God plays a significant role. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
(4) Put them all together: I would have been a Christian even if I was raised somewhere else.
(5) If you reject God, don't blame God. This is a clear teaching in the Bible. In contrast, dude wanted to make the conclusion "place of birth necessarily determines religious faith + God controls place of birth = some people are necessarily damned." This is contrary to plain biblical teaching.



Accepted. Consider this idea also: we don't understand everything about faith. We just don't. Within that part that we don't understand people are free to make their own reasoned conclusions, bounded of course by that which we do understand. Some people will inevitably disagree with each other.

I'll give two popular examples: John Calvin and John Wesley. I believe Calvin was right with respect to "soteriology," but I also have huge, huge, huge respect for John Wesley. He was not stupid. There, now you know where I stand. I'm a Calvinist when it comes to soteriology. Here you come asking me for a definitive answer on a question of soteriology. Shall I give you Calvin's answer? Shall I give you Wesley's answer? Shall I give you both?

If I give you Calvin's answer, then someone with Arminian tendencies might come along and say that I'm wrong. At that point you would be confused. (How can Christians disagree, huh?) Likewise if I give you Wesley's answer, a Calvinist might come along and say that I'm wrong. If instead I give you both answers, then you'll say I'm waffling.

Someone who is biblically literate would understand the nature of the dispute and understand the arguments for both sides and understand why I don't want to talk about the details of soteriology on MAP. Someone who is biblically illiterate will not understand anything about anything to do with soteriology.

Most everyone on MAP is biblically illiterate. Therefore I cannot win.



I take issue with the word "always." The finish line is death, and you are not dead yet, so we shouldn't be voting on you yet. It would be better to say "she would always end up Christian."
So in order to understand the bible we need to do all that??? Wow, and there I was thinking the bible was meant to be understandable by one and all. All you have done throughout this thread (and many others) is pass over the difficult questions and point people at books, this alone proves that the bible has to be interpreted, since the only accepted source of reference in the christian community would be the bible.

You claim you would have been a christian no matter what you're environment, this shows the strength of your faith but the weakness in your reasoning ability. If you were born in kuwait, or iran, or saudi arabia, you would have been brought up muslim. you would have read the Quran, and listened to the preachers. To say that you would have come out of this environment believing that everything you were told is wrong is just plain stupid. But IF this is the case, then surely a case would exist for all faiths, a muslim would be a muslim no matter what his environment, and an atheist would be an atheist no matter what his environment. Or wait, let me guess, it only works for christianity.

[Poogle]

I take issue with the word "always." The finish line is death, and you are not dead yet, so we shouldn't be voting on you yet. It would be better to say "she would always end up Christian."

OK, what if we had a person who lived and died as an atheist? An hypothetical person could not be Christian, otherwise we would have to conclude that the hypothetical dead person died as a Christian.

Perhaps we should focus less on your statement, and more on the statements you wish to disprove.

1. Environment necessarily determines religion.
2. God chooses your environment.
3. Some people are therefore necessarily damned.

I disagree with 1. I think that environment necessarily affects religion is more likely. Let's apply some simple physics to the situation. If we've got a person who is more likely to become Christian than not, take a whole bunch of people, and put them together. Then, statistically speaking, more will become Christian than not. The macrostate reflects the probabilities of the microstate.

So, if in Turkey, you have very few people who are Christian, we have individuals with a low probability of becoming Christian. Trouble is when you ask how you select your macrostate - which arbitrary lines will you choose? I'm sure if you selected a small group of Turks, you could persuade someone that no one in that group has any chance of becoming Christian. If your group is small enough, you no longer have enough for a macrostate. But I think that the point is nevertheless worth addressing. If environment is not what is causing Turks to become Muslim, then what is? Or is it coincidence?

2. Might not be true, but even if it is not, the point is effectively still valid if *we* do not choose our location.

3. 'Necessarily' - I think it's a matter of probabilities. Some people are more likely to turn to Christ than others. What we need to establish is why. But as far as this point goes, what happens when the probability of turning to Christ approaches zero. Is this 'fair' on the individual? I suspect you will respond that there are no probabilities involved, because it is a choice. I think that there are effective probabilities - that is, factors that determine how easily convinced someone is, how much evidence they see. If someone is born with a genetic disorder that puts them in a wheelchair from the age of about 16 upwards, might they be less willing to consider the possibility of a God who loves us all, than someone who, say, spends all day marvelling at the wonders of the universe revealed in physics, but otherwise had an identical upbringing to the first individual? Is that the fault of the individual?

[Maverick]

Free will is a basic assumption of Christian. Very basic. The whole religion requires free will.


Actually it requires the indoctrination of children to continue existing...otherwise it would perish.

[Poogle]

What's with the other language? You could of just said this demonstrates it.

I have never met anyone older than 13 who didn't know what QED means. It is as good as using English words, because it is so frequently used. Although for those into the art of subtlety, I was implying that I had intended to demonstrate it, rather than just noting that it had been demonstrated (quod erat demonstrandum, that which was to be demonstrated, rather than saying in English: 'this proves my point'). There is a certain irony there, given that I was not the one actually doing the demonstrating, but was the only person who was observing that it would be demonstrated. I did not have to do anything to make it happen, only to watch it happen, because I was so sure that it would play out just as I said - demonstrated by the fact that the post I had not seen arrived before I had even posted my prediction.

And now what about the reflections of this in what we were actually discussing? Could you have chosen not to question his ability to defend is viewpoint?

Or maybe I was just letting you know that I had made my post before I saw the post demonstrating my point?

Who knows what I meant? But aren't the many levels of interpretation and hypothesising absolutely delicious?

[aikiMac]

1. Environment necessarily determines religion.
2. God chooses your environment.
3. Some people are therefore necessarily damned.

I disagree with 1. I think that environment necessarily affects religion is more likely.
Agreed. Environment has an affect.


So, if in Turkey, you have very few people who are Christian, we have individuals with a low probability of becoming Christian. Trouble is when you ask how you select your macrostate - which arbitrary lines will you choose?
The trouble is when you try to play God and work it all out in your head. No person understands everything about faith. Let's take this to a PM.


2. Might not be true, but even if it is not, the point is effectively still valid if *we* do not choose our location.
Yes.


3. 'Necessarily' - I think it's a matter of probabilities. Some people are more likely to turn to Christ than others. What we need to establish is why.
We could do a market study. :p


Wow, and there I was thinking the bible was meant to be understandable by one and all.
Will you be so kind as to present Calvin's Five Points in words that a Presbyterian would accept? I'd like to see it right here, in this thread.

That is the topic at hand, as I know that you know, because you know the Bible very well.

I'd like to see you present the Five Points in words that a Presbyterian would accept. That would be extraordinarily enlightening. I would get a lot out of it, so much so that I would probably print it off my screen and save it for my own use later!

[holyheadjch]

have you missed my point? why when the bible is meant to be such an unambiguous document would I need to read a book to understand it.

[aikiMac]

have you missed my point? why when the bible is meant to be such an unambiguous document would I need to read a book to understand it.
You missed the point. Some questions cannot be supported with a sentence, but instead require the assimilation of many passages. You're obviously not there yet. That's fine. No insult to you. A book will lay out all of passages for you so that you can see for yourself how it all fits together.

[holyheadjch]

so you are saying that the bible requires a level of interpretation, that only by reading these books can I fully understand the message the bible is trying to convey?

[aikiMac]

so you are saying that the bible requires a level of interpretation, that only by reading these books can I fully understand the message the bible is trying to convey?
How many times do I have to repeat myself?!
NO!!!!!
By reading other books you'll get the benefit of all pertinent passages being grouped together for you.

If you want to do that grunt work yourself, do it. If you don't want to do that grunt work yourself, then you've no business complaining that someone else already did it for you. Right now you are complaining that someone else already did it for you. That equates to "My cup is full. You cannot teach me anything. I already decided that I don't like you, and you're not going to change my mind."

[holyheadjch]

the only thing in my cup is the healthy cynicism that stops me from crossing the street just because someone else is. I dont buy the whole "the books will just group the relevant passages together" there will inevitably be a commentary, which will be an interpretation of the bible passages, there always is. Any book that requires companion guides is open to interpretation, and any book that is open to interpretation is open to the wrong interpretation.

[tekkengod]

Any book that requires companion guides is open to interpretation, and any book that is open to interpretation is open to the wrong interpretation.

Someone should sticky that. :)

[Blevunly]

The general idea:
(1) God will find you wherever you are. This is a clear teaching in the Bible.
(2) God will send to you sufficient information for you to know him. This also is clear.
(3) Faith is ultimately an act of God. No person understands it fully. We understand it only partially. We can't explain it all the way. The best we can say is that in the final analysis, God plays a significant role. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
(4) Put them all together: I would have been a Christian even if I was raised somewhere else.
(5) If you reject God, don't blame God. This is a clear teaching in the Bible. In contrast, dude wanted to make the conclusion "place of birth necessarily determines religious faith + God controls place of birth = some people are necessarily damned." This is contrary to plain biblical teaching.


Ok so in 1 and 2 you say he will find you and send sufficient information for you to know him(while I may not completely agree with this I'll just go with it for the sake of argument) and we both agree that environment and human emotion is what decides what choice you make you said intellect and choice but intellect is determined by your environment a person who is better educated will be more intellectual than one who isn't and choice is the product of the other two (environment with emotion in the end they combine to make your choice) so in this case environment would still choose your fate since human emotions are the same with all some might have stronger emotions but only because of the effects their environments have had on them. so in the end environment would be the dominate factor. So if God judged everyone the same it would be unfair to those who grew up in a bad environment it's liek telling one guy to step over a crack and the other to jump from one side of the grand canyon tot he other.

Also you said you would be a christian no matter what yet you also said a nonchristian wouldn't be a nonchristian no matter what. This makes no sense if it works for one why not the other. If you are always a christian then God must love you more then the people who won't always be christians and this would dispell him being just because he can't be just to all if he automatically saves a few but does not for others.

[Topher]

I get tired of repeating myself. For once, I'm just going to ignore you, 'cause you know what? I don't want to repeat myself. There, I said it.
Look if you don’t have a answer just say so. You are not repeating yourself as you have not answered this once.

Huh? :confused: The girl in that hypo was a Christian; thus, my conclusion was totally consistent with my prior statement.
Who Poogle? She is an agnostic and this was her point. She hypothesised a Christian Poogle, but if your original assumption was correct, the hypo Poogle couldn't be a Christian because if she was, the real Poogle would also be Christian, which is isn't.
You say the hypo Poogle "could become a Christian". Yet your original argument was that people are born Christian.

Free will is a basic assumption of Christian. Very basic. The whole religion requires free will.
If you have ‘absolute’ free will as Christianity defines it, you have the power to choose anything such as what morals you follow, how you act, what religion(s) you accept… etc. This is needed in order for sins to mean anything.

But if someone’s life is already mapped out, right down to place of birth, their religion and morals that they will live by, their character and actions, how can they then have free will??? You couldn’t get a bigger contradiction even if you tried.

Now, you said your life would be no different if you were raised in any part of the world because God would have always made you the same way. If this is true, people would not have the ability to knowingly sin and rebel against God, as they would have always been made the way they are by God.

So either:
1. God determines who you are; in which case, you have no choice in that decision as that decision belongs to God. Therefore you have no decision in whether you will sin.
2. Or… you do have choice, which is determined according to your environment and society.

You cannot have both of these in your assumption.

If you do not allow the assumption that God exists, and that God has all of the attributes that the Bible ascribes to him, then you will not understand the answer. First things first, you know. First things first. Before you ask a question like this you have to allow God to be who he says he is. If you're not willing to allow that, then you've no business asking this question about him. You should instead pick a different deity to ask question about.
THIS is the point I’ve been making! That one must have faith in it, in order to see and accept the answer. I’m sorry but I WILL NOT make any assumption such as this before seeing any reason (i.e. evidence) to do so.
The evidence should cause you to believe. “Evidence” that can only be seen as evidence after one assume is not evidence in my book.

If your religion (or any religion) cannot prove itself with such assumption(s) then it doesn’t have a lot going for it.

Although, your last point is interesting… “different deity”. Are you, as a Christian, saying there is other Gods?

[Blevunly]

So either:
1. God determines who you are; in which case, you have no choice in that decision as that decision belongs to God. Therefore you have no decision in whether you will sin.
2. Or… you do have choice, which is determined according to your environment and society.


Finally someone see's it my way!

[tekkengod]

Look if you don’t have a answer just say so. You are not repeating yourself as you have not answered this once.

Who Poogle? She is an agnostic and this was her point. She hypothesised a Christian Poogle, but if your original assumption was correct, the hypo Poogle couldn't be a Christian because if she was, the real Poogle would also be Christian, which is isn't.
You say the hypo Poogle "could become a Christian". Yet your original argument was that people are born Christian.

But if someone’s life is already mapped out, right down to place of birth, their religion and morals that they will live by, their character and actions, how can they then have free will??? You couldn’t get a bigger contradiction even if you tried.

Now, you said your life would be no different if you were raised in any part of the world because God would have always made you the same way. If this is true, people would not have the ability to knowingly sin and rebel against God, as they would have always been made the way they are by God.

So either:
1. God determines who you are; in which case, you have no choice in that decision as that decision belongs to God. Therefore you have no decision in whether you will sin.
2. Or… you do have choice, which is determined according to your environment and society.

You cannot have both of these in your assumption.

THIS is the point I’ve been making! That one must have faith in it, in order to see and accept the answer. I’m sorry but I WILL NOT make any assumption such as this before seeing any reason (i.e. evidence) to do so.
The evidence should cause you to believe. “Evidence” that can only be seen as evidence after one assume is not evidence in my book.

If your religion (or any religion) cannot prove itself with such assumption(s) then it doesn’t have a lot going for it.

So we've effectively dispelled:
1) The original question
2) The Hypothetical birthplace/specific religion theory
3) The idea that those assumptions have any evidence.
4) The theory that Aikimac can't be wrong
5) The idea that the religious twist can't be undone.
Now, some people call this a Checkmate.