Once an atheist, always doomed?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Socrastein, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. Aikikai Novice

    Aikikai Novice New Member

    Aside from the idea that I was posting on earlier, that perhaps some sins stay "stuck" to a saved person for one reason or another and are paid for instead of forgiven, I think the conversation so far has actually toutched on a more fundamental point.

    That being that God has invited all of us to come to Him, and the only thing that bars us from intimacy with God is our own rejection of him. Of course, most people will say, "that can't be right. You have to have a CHANCE to 'know' this God, before you can accept or reject Him. And it's obviously not fair that someone who never even had the chance to be saved gets doomed."

    Well, I (and lots of other Christians) believe that everyone is born with enough innate knowledge (due to our being made in the likeness of God) to understand what we need to approach God. We can deny it. We can try to rationalize it, or pretend that science somehow explains it away, when it obviously never has in the history of the world and still does not to this day. The fundamental choice that everyone has then, is to make God the God of your life, or to set yourself up as a god or demi-god of your own life.

    Can you reject God, refuse to submit to being part of that Greater Whole right from the get go of your life? Sure. We all do, really. Could you have a relationship with God and then throw it completely away? Probably.

    God made us to fellowship with Him. Like equals. God didn't (couldn't, perhaps?) recreate Himself, so he made us instead, the only creatures in the universe that could choose to act in a way contrary to His will (including, I believe, the Devil). We can grow in God-likeness as we encounter trials, and thus become better able to fellowship with Him. But no matter our level of maturity, we're still invited to go to the Source. And we're allowed to separate ourselves from God completely.
    Eternally, if we choose it.

    That would be a good thread in itself - The purpose of humanity, and why God created evil.
     
  2. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    If that was true then I'd understand that I can choose or reject God.
    As it is, the idea of "choosing or rejecting" God doesn't make sense to me at all.
    Does that prove to me that your theology is false?
     
  3. Aikikai Novice

    Aikikai Novice New Member

    Perhaps you have an image of "the Christian God" that seems unrealistic to you; probably very humanized, and dishing out some kind of "justice" and "judgement" based on a universal standard that our morally relative world culture insists is outdated. I'm guessing that whatever type of trancendant divinity you envision can easliy define itself as "unchoosable" or "unrejectable."

    But this is not a game of semantics.

    I'm sure you believe in something greater than yourself. Something trancending you.
    And I'm sure that that imbued into your being is a sense that you can pay some kind of attention to it or ignore it. Seek after it or just let the human animal you live in to bring itself to homeostasis.

    To wax sentimental, almost anyone who looks up at the stars and the planets and really considers their place in the universe has an inate and overpowering sense that...
    there's something BIG. OUT THERE. And I want to know what it is.

    I didn't just state that that's what "a lot of Christians" believe because it's some kind of convenient theological teaching that helps wrap up the loose ends to keep God looking fair to us. That's just what we know.

    I've known it my whole life.
    My agnostic friends knew it their whole lives.
    My wiccan friends knew it their whole lives.
    My new age friends knew it their whole lives.
    And when you strip away the distractions, circumvent the barriers and punch through the ego, most athiests balk at this issue - because deep down, they know it too.

    It's impossible for me, as an external force, to alter your world view to be just like mine. The only thing that could cause that would have to come from inside of you.

    But if you keep telling me that nothing in you knows that there's something out there, like you and not like you, that you somehow or another have the capacity to relate to in a personal way, then so be it.

    But I truly, truly believe that you're fooling yourself. And I'm not the only one.
     
  4. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    And I truly believe you're fooling yourself into believing that there's more than there really is. We can both tell ourselves that the other is "secretly deluding themselves" all we want. But that won't do much good, will it. How about instead we deal with something concrete and substantial. Can you prove, or even provide credible evidence or arguments, that there is "something bigger out there"? Or do you have little more than personal feelings and the nagging feeling that everyone believes the same thing you do, whether they say so or not.
     
  5. mojo shorin-ryu

    mojo shorin-ryu Valued Member

    blasphemy:

    Noun
    Inflected forms: pl.blas·phe·mies 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

    blasphemy isnt denial, its what i just showed you. its forgivable to deny the holy spirit but its unforgiveable to blasphemy the holy spirit if you have known the fullness of the holy spirit. end of thread
     
  6. Aikikai Novice

    Aikikai Novice New Member

    Ah, there're those distractions, barriers, and ego. :p

    My statement wasn't an attempt to change anything. In fact, I said I couldn't change strafio's world view in my post. I was just explaining myself in a direct response to his subtle challenge of how I should recieve his direct contradiction of something so personally important to me.

    It was a long way of saying, "It doesn't change a thing for me."

    *sigh* Again with the 'concrete evidence' demand. Do you want me to argue Intelligent Design versus Neo-Darwinism with you? (I can feel the groan those words provoke from where I'm sitting :rolleyes:. Maybe in a different thread ). I've read the arguments, the counter arguments, the counter to those and to those and to those, and any halfway intelligent, well informed person could argue at least to a stalemate on this issue.

    Do you want me to argue from the viewpoint of psychology and world history?
    To cite some of the more impressive prophesies that have been fulfilled?
    From physics or metaphysics? Do you want a philosophical argument?

    Do you want to see a miracle, or something? A fossil of an angel? :Angel: :Alien:

    You may imagine, Socrastein, that your worldview is logical and mine is not, and you might feel intellectually superior about it. But for all the 'concrete evidence' you think you have -

    It takes at least as much faith to believe what you believe as opposed to what I believe. :D
     
  7. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, and.... yes. In another thread, of course. Pick your favorite one, we'll start from there.

    You oversimplify me perceptions regarding our two worldviews. It's more along the lines of, I have not seen a single shred of credible scientific evidence for anything supernatural, and I've never heard a single sound argument either. As such, I haven't any reason, much less sufficient reason, to believe that there is anything supernatural - Gods, ghosts, fairies, intelligent models...

    As for it taking faith to not accept something that isn't reasonably supported - well what kind of faith is that? By faith, do you mean "believing or not believing something"? If so, well then everyone has faith, and the word loses all meaning. Most people would define faith along the lines of believing in a proposition for which there is no, or insufficient, evidence and reason to believe. I don't need evidence not to believe in the supernatural. I simply need an immense, staggering, continuous lack of evidence, and lo and behold - that's exactly what I have. Unless of course, you give me this evidence. Then I'll happy change my mind, for certainly it would take faith to deny something that is plainly evidenced and rationally supported.

    Simply put, if you know something I don't know, do tell. I find the subject matter to be incredibly interesting as well as important, so don't leave me hanging.
     
  8. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I think you heard my groan and I seriously doubt that you could do what you say. We have had long discussions about evolution and ID on here and they all end up with the same incredulous points being rehashed... roundly defeated, repeated, roundly defeated and so it goes on. The recent in depth ruling on the ID vs. evolution case in America has made the issue clear- ID is not science, its creationism in a fancy dress and evolution is science.
     
  9. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    No. If our culture influence anything then it tells us not to accept things blindly. Christianity used to be the religion. You either understood and accepted it or didn't understand it but accepted it as that what you were supposed to do in culture. Nowdays what we accept depends on what we find believable.

    The Christianity presented to me by evangelicals just doesn't make sense to me at all. Even if there's a God

    The possibilities cross my mind sometimes, I toy with the idea of a God but I also find myself sometimes thinking that there's no reason to believe he exists. (it's perfectly plausable that the universe ticks on by itself)

    Because of God's nature, knowing anything about 'him' can only be down to a lucky guess (especially when there's so many conflicted theories on who God is) so any theology that demands you guess correctly just makes me feel that if there is a God then it hasn't got a realistic measure of him at all.
     
  10. Topher

    Topher allo!

    My view exactly!

    Furthermore, we can only have knowledge of the natural. So if we had evidence/knowledge of something ‘supernatural’, it follows that that something would be natural, for we have knowledge of it.

    In short, there is no reason/evidence to even believe anything other than the natural exists. At all. So 'supernatural' merely begs the question.

    The word ‘supernatural’ was created merely to contradistinct the word ‘natural’ just as ‘dark’ is to contradistinct ‘light.’ Dark isn’t actually anything itself, it’s just the absent of light.


    Exactly. If faith is believing based on reason/evidence, why bother with the word to begin with!
     
  11. PopeCoyote

    PopeCoyote The words of the fool

    This actually depends on your personal religion- Speaking in generalities here, most Christians I know of would consider (real) magic "supernatural" Where most Neo-Pagans would consider perfectally natural, almost indistinguishable from our "chi" energy manipulation as MAs.

    I disagree. Light isn't anything by itself, it's just the absence of dark. Dark is the natural state of the world. It takes outside interference (the Sun, lightbulbs to create light)
     
  12. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    Isn't that exactly what would make dark the absence of something, I mean you did just say that light was a "outside interference" hence something.......
     
  13. PopeCoyote

    PopeCoyote The words of the fool

    My point is to challenge the commonly held beliefs. Most people in this world think in terms of "light good, dark bad" and therefore in a attempt to live good and purge the bad from their lives, praise the light and curse the dark. But.... What if they have it backwards? What if, in truth, the dark was good and the light bad? What if they've been decieved all their lives and never thought about what they were told? By posting something like "light being the abscence of dark," which reverses the commonly held beliefs, I challenge people to re-examine themselves and their beliefs. This particular one is relatively easy IMHO. Yin and Yang - Light and Dark are equal. Neither is the absence of the other. They are both their own forces, neither can exist, neither can have meaning without the other.

    Challenge thyself! A faith unchallenged is a faith not worth having!
    And Yes, I am aware that I sometimes contradict myself. In my view, being able to hold contradictory views as both true is an exercise in growth. Maybe someday I'll explain how I can believe Darwinism and Creationism at the same time.
     
  14. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    I don't think attempting to change the association between the two is going to do that. People associate darkness, with bad, for alot of reasons. I mean just look at the deffinition of the word.

    dark

    1 a : devoid or partially devoid of light : not receiving, reflecting, transmitting, or radiating light <a dark room> b : transmitting only a portion of light <dark glasses>
    2 a : wholly or partially black <dark clothing> b of a color : of low or very low lightness c : being less light in color than other substances of the same kind <dark rum>
    3 a : arising from or showing evil traits or desires : EVIL <the dark powers that lead to war> b : DISMAL, GLOOMY <had a dark view of the future> c : lacking knowledge or culture : UNENLIGHTENED <a dark period in history> d : relating to grim or depressing circumstances <dark humor>
    4 a : not clear to the understanding b : not known or explored because of remoteness <the darkest reaches of the continent>
    5 : not fair in complexion : SWARTHY
    6 : SECRET <kept his plans dark>
    7 : possessing depth and richness <a dark voice>
    8 : closed to the public <the theater is dark in the summer>

    I do understand what your saying. I just dont see why the words light and dark would have to change, the subjects that fall under them, would make more sense, to me at least......
    Wow we are way off topic......................
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2006
  15. Topher

    Topher allo!

    No, it doesn’t. The definition doesn’t change per religion, only the way the religion chooses to interpret it.

    I notice you state “(real) magic” Any reason for the inclusion of “(real)”? What is magic anyway?

    Incorrect.

    I suggest you read this: Light and Darkness

    And to add, I was not talking in a philosophical manner (i.e. yin/yang, good/bad) but rather in the scientific sense, where dark is the absence of light particles.
     
  16. PopeCoyote

    PopeCoyote The words of the fool

    Related questions. In Neo-Pagan traditions, _most_ religions believe in some sort of energy work, which is termed magic. Real magic (usually spelled magick in this case) which is considered perfectally natural, an outgrowth of nature's inherent power. This is opposed to stage magic, the art of illusion that they consider "fake" magic (although that term is seldom used)

    _Most_ Christian traditions, on the other hand, consider any non-stage magic (if they even acknowledge the possibility of it) a supernatural force, made through associations with un-natural beings, usually the devil.


    In that case, we were talking in different terms. I was speaking philosophically, but as blind mentioned, that's way off-topic, so I'd rather not pursue it further in this thread. My apologies.
     
  17. Topher

    Topher allo!

    In which case, why bother with the term “magick” at all them?

    No problem :) Aside from the above question ;)
     
  18. PopeCoyote

    PopeCoyote The words of the fool

    Actually, that's one of the disagreements I have with the Neo-Pagan movement. In general, they use the term "magick" to draw the distinction between energy work and stage magic. Personally, _I_ don't believe we need a separate term. But to bring this back to where we started, I was using this as only one example as to how we define natural, supernatural, and unnatural can shift depending on the personal beliefs of the person. In this case, a Pagan and a Christian defining the same thing in two different terms.
     
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    No i mean if "magick" is simply natural, as you claimed, why bother with the term "magick" at all. Why not just use the word "natural" for that as you claim, is all it is.

    Supernatural and unnatural are the same thing.
     
  20. lightninrod

    lightninrod Valued Member

    The problem with the definition you're posting here is that it is taking popular and common usage into consideration (as dictionaries must do), and not adhering strictly with its usage in the bible. In the bible, blasphemy refers strictly to part b of definition 1, or part a when done under the pretense of part b. Part 1a in and of itself, and part 2 (strictly biblically) are actually sacrelige.
    The Pharisees and Sadducees called Jesus a blasphemer specifically because he was claiming to be the Messiah - i.e. the son of GOD - and claiming that his power was from GOD (which would have been of the Holy Spirit) - which, if not true, would have put him under part b of definition 1.
    Being that the Holy Spirit is the part of GOD that goes forth into the world to carry out GOD's will, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would specifically be if one were to intentionally claim to have GOD's power and thereby mislead or decieve others.
    Speaking against God or denying HIM just doesn't fall into this category.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2006

Share This Page