Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God of Death or Love
I-am-created
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 12
From: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Joined: 02-10-2008


Message 16 of 31 (456458)
02-18-2008 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rrhain
02-18-2008 6:31 AM


Here's food for thought.
You assume that the God of the New Testament is different from the God of the Old.
Oh, Jews and pagans would love to have you believe that they're not the same god, but Christians don't seem to agree. The fact that there is this figure, Jesus Christ, who tells us that he is the Son of God IS a huge sticking point. It is clear that he is talking about the God of the Old Testament that the Jews would have known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 02-18-2008 6:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 02-18-2008 9:02 PM I-am-created has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 17 of 31 (456569)
02-18-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by I-am-created
02-18-2008 6:43 AM


I-am-created responds to me:
quote:
Here's food for thought.
No, it isn't really. Not all arguments can be reversed.
We're wandering afield. You asked a question. I gave you a way out of your dilemma. You seem to be upset that there was a way out that you didn't think of. Let's let it go at that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by I-am-created, posted 02-18-2008 6:43 AM I-am-created has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 6:39 AM Rrhain has replied

  
I-am-created
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 12
From: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Joined: 02-10-2008


Message 18 of 31 (456619)
02-19-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rrhain
02-18-2008 9:02 PM


quote:
No, it isn't really. Not all arguments can be reversed.
You're right that not ALL arguments can be reversed, but I clearly showed that this one can be. You can't say with 100% accuracy that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament. You didn't even give any argument as to why YOU think that they are different. Merely stating that you think that your position in right because there are other people (the Jews) that agree with you doesn't pull much weight. That's what I was trying to show you. I can just as easily say that my position is right because there are other people who agree with me.
quote:
You asked a question. I gave you a way out of your dilemma. You seem to be upset that there was a way out that you didn't think of.
Actually, I didn't ask a question and I don't have any dilemma. I clearly and concisely argued my point in response to the question(see post #14 in this thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 02-18-2008 9:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 8:08 AM I-am-created has replied
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2008 3:30 AM I-am-created has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 19 of 31 (456623)
02-19-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by I-am-created
02-19-2008 6:39 AM


You're right that not ALL arguments can be reversed, but I clearly showed that this one can be.
No, you really didn't. It wasn't the reverse of his argument at all (especially bringing in the pagan bit...what was the point of that?)
You can't say with 100% accuracy that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament. You didn't even give any argument as to why YOU think that they are different. Merely stating that you think that your position in right because there are other people (the Jews) that agree with you doesn't pull much weight.
Of course not, which is why you didn't show much of anything.
That's what I was trying to show you. I can just as easily say that my position is right because there are other people who agree with me.
Which is why it is pretty much useless debating theological arguments because all you can really do is pretend that your interpretation of scriptures (or that your own particular scriptures) are better or more real than others. It's all an interpretative dance that some people think is really profound but most other people think is just so much flapping around.
See my signature for the rest of my argument.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 6:39 AM I-am-created has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 5:50 PM Jaderis has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 31 (456625)
02-19-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PurplyBear
02-17-2008 4:16 PM


Purplybear writes:
God was a ruthless murder, psychotic assassin, and straight up killer.
Okay, lets have a look at your argument
He hardened hearts of people so they could do acts of evil.
Its called the wrath of God. He does this to people who insist on wickedness. It results in their headlong rush towards depravity. God is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin.
As it happens, he utilises a persons sinning in the attempt to save them. So his hardening a persons heart shouldn't be seen as a strictly negative thing.
These are not traits of a lawgiver. They are traits of a sick demented person that needs locked up. I suggest you watch "Shoot 'Em Up" - pointless murder like in the bible.
The lawgivers job is to give the law and punish according to law. Handing a person over to sin is punishment for sin. I don't see the problem.
You mention god's love towards Israel. The atrocities he committed against those who rubbed his grain are 100% unacceptable.
He chose to eliminate sinners. What's the big deal in that? That he chose to protect and care for a particular group of sinners (the Israelites) is his affair. He had his reasons. Suffice to say that sinners have no right to life before God.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PurplyBear, posted 02-17-2008 4:16 PM PurplyBear has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 9:24 AM iano has replied
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 02-24-2008 5:34 PM iano has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 21 of 31 (456630)
02-19-2008 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
02-19-2008 8:55 AM


iano writes:
purplybear writes:
He hardened hearts of people so they could do acts of evil.
Its called the wrath of God. He does this to people who insist on wickedness. It results in their headlong rush towards depravity. God is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin.
As it happens, he utilises a persons sinning in the attempt to save them. So his hardening a persons heart shouldn't be seen as a strictly negative thing.
So, God so loves his children that he will harden their hearts against him so that they may continue sinning? He is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin? Except because he loves them, maybe?
Did anyone who's hearts he hardened (using biblical text as evidence) have a change of heart? Job, arguably (although the phrase was not explicitly used). Anyone else? Why use methods which he knows will not work (being omnipotent and all)? And which were explicitly used as punishment and not for ultimate redemption?
The lawgivers job is to give the law and punish according to law. Handing a person over to sin is punishment for sin. I don't see the problem.
No wonder so many Christians (at least in America...I'm not too familiar with the Irish penal system) are against rehabilitation in the prison systems. Just give them up to sin and never forgive them for their crimes. It truly gives a new meaning to "hardened criminals," doesn't it?
Wouldn't an omnipotent God know how to turn someone away from sin individually instead of the "one size fits all" method prescribed in the Bible? I mean, if he really loved them and all.
He chose to eliminate sinners. What's the big deal in that?That he chose to protect and care for a particular group of sinners (the Israelites) is his affair. He had his reasons.
Um...maybe that he didn't give them (the non-Israelites) a choice? We don't really hear of God giving the Canaanites or the Egyptians or any of the other groups of people he wreaked destruction upon or had the Israelites execute much of an ultimatum. No warning or anything. What had he written on their hearts? What laws did he give them? No word about it either way. But God decided it so it must have been OK.
Suffice to say that sinners have no right to life before God.
But he loves us so...

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 02-19-2008 8:55 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-19-2008 10:38 AM Jaderis has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 22 of 31 (456636)
02-19-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jaderis
02-19-2008 9:24 AM


Jaderis writes:
So, God so loves his children that he will harden their hearts against him so that they may continue sinning? He is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin? Except because he loves them, maybe?
The relationship between God and a person in Adam is not father/child. One becomes a child by adoption on being placed in Christ, being born again, being declared righteous, becoming a Christian, being saved...etc.
Certainly, if sin is used as a means to save a person then restraining a person from sinning is not a loving thing to do.
Did anyone who's hearts he hardened (using biblical text as evidence) have a change of heart? Job, arguably (although the phrase was not explicitly used). Anyone else?
The mechanism of God hardening someones hearts is explained here (coming from the angle that a mans heart is totally depraved in it's natural, as-born state)
quote:
Exodus 7:3 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."
He is going to let Pharaoh be a figure, or a "type" of a kingdom of bondage which held the Lord's people captive, and show in Pharaoh someone who is completely rebellious against God (Which is exactly what Pharaoh (and all of us - iano) was by nature when not restrained). By God removing His hand of restraint, Pharaoh's heart is hardened to it's natural state. It's not that God made him do anything, God simply stopped restraining him and let him do what he wanted.
Why Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart
What is being argued is that way we sin is by God removing or limiting his restraint on us - pure evil being our natural tendency once restraint is removed. It's God "handing us over to sin", God "hardening our hearts", God "creating evil".
As to hearts softening? Well Pharaohs did, he let the Israelites go. Then his heart hardened again.
Why use methods which he knows will not work (being omnipotent and all)? And which were explicitly used as punishment and not for ultimate redemption?
I don't get how his methods didn't work. It depends upon what God was trying to achieve. Certainly Pharaoh serves as a picture of Gods patience and God's patience having limits. That a man is permitted to fall into sin as a result of the wrath of God doesn't mean the love of God cannot utilise this in the attempt to save a man.
No wonder so many Christians (at least in America...I'm not too familiar with the Irish penal system) are against rehabilitation in the prison systems. Just give them up to sin and never forgive them for their crimes. It truly gives a new meaning to "hardened criminals," doesn't it?
I think your mixing up the lawgiving aspect of God with the totality of God. God is love, justice and wrath. His love aims to totally rehabilitate men, His justice is blind and only seeks the books to be balanced. His wrath.... well it does what wrath does.
I know plenty of American Christians who see God in complete form and who do not cherry pick as you seem to.
Wouldn't an omnipotent God know how to turn someone away from sin individually instead of the "one size fits all" method prescribed in the Bible? I mean, if he really loved them and all.
I don't understand what you're getting at. God deals with everyone individually and is restraining this one from sin at the same time as he lets another sink into the pit of depravity. And vice versa the next day in a different area of their lives.
Um...maybe that he didn't give them (the non-Israelites) a choice? We don't really hear of God giving the Canaanites or the Egyptians or any of the other groups of people he wreaked destruction upon or had the Israelites execute much of an ultimatum. No warning or anything. What had he written on their hearts? What laws did he give them? No word about it either way. But God decided it so it must have been OK.
God is not obliged to give anyone anything. Everyone has a conscience and their suppression of what that says they ought to do and not do is sufficient to condemn them on the spot. Everything else is a bonus. Besides, we all die and there is nothing to suggest that his removing folk from the game renders them eternally lost. People have been saved by the gospel long before the world heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Suffice to say that sinners have no right to life before God.
But he loves us so...
Sufficient to do something dramatic to attempt to save us from our sin. But not in the sentimental way you seem to be suggesting though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 9:24 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 02-24-2008 2:30 AM iano has replied

  
I-am-created
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 12
From: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Joined: 02-10-2008


Message 23 of 31 (456718)
02-19-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jaderis
02-19-2008 8:08 AM


quote:
No, you really didn't. It wasn't the reverse of his argument at all (especially bringing in the pagan bit...what was the point of that?)
Perhaps I should have said that it was the same argument but from the opposite perspective, rather than the reverse of his argument. I hope that is more clear.
Oh, the 'pagan bit'...look it up in the dictionary. Even in Webster's it says 'anyone who isn't Christian, Muslim, or Jew...someone who has no religion.' As in, someone who is clearly against the Gospel by saying that there are 2 Gods instead of One.
quote:
Of course not, which is why you didn't show much of anything.
That WAS the point. Even you admit that what I said doesn't carry much weight, and what I said was the same argument as Rrhain, but from the opposite perspective. My point was that the argument Rrhain presented didn't carry much weight, which you just confirmed.
quote:
Which is why it is pretty much useless debating theological arguments because all you can really do is pretend that your interpretation of scriptures (or that your own particular scriptures) are better or more real than others. It's all an interpretative dance that some people think is really profound but most other people think is just so much flapping around.
Yet here you are, trying to prove every other 'metaphysician' wrong to your own satisfaction. It makes me wonder why you would join the discussions in Faith and Belief if you feel that debating theological arguments is useless.

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God that he cannot see, or a man who is offended by a God that he doesn't even believe in?"
-Brad Stine-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 8:08 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jaderis, posted 02-24-2008 2:53 AM I-am-created has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 31 (456787)
02-20-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by I-am-created
02-19-2008 6:39 AM


I-am-created responds to me:
quote:
You can't say with 100% accuracy that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament.
Yes, I can. The god of the Old Testament is singular. There is no such thing as a "son." That would violate the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The god of the New Testament is plural. There is a "son."
Thus, the god of the New Testament is not the same being as the god of the Old.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 6:39 AM I-am-created has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by I-am-created, posted 02-20-2008 6:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
I-am-created
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 12
From: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Joined: 02-10-2008


Message 25 of 31 (456793)
02-20-2008 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rrhain
02-20-2008 3:30 AM


quote:
Yes, I can. The god of the Old Testament is singular. There is no such thing as a "son." That would violate the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." (emphasis added)
These don't sound like singular words...
quote:
The god of the New Testament is plural. There is a "son."
John 14:10 (Jesus speaking) "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.
I fail to see how this is plural. Jesus repeatedly told everyone that he and the Father are one.

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God that he cannot see, or a man who is offended by a God that he doesn't even believe in?"
-Brad Stine-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2008 3:30 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2008 2:07 AM I-am-created has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 31 (456970)
02-21-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by I-am-created
02-20-2008 6:42 AM


I-am-created responds to me:
quote:
These don't sound like singular words...
Irrelevant. First commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. There is no "son."
quote:
John 14:10
Doesn't change anything. As Judaism clearly states, there is no "son" and for Jesus to claim to be god is blasphemy.
quote:
Jesus repeatedly told everyone that he and the Father are one.
Then that would mean that if Jesus were standing before you, then god is not in his heaven. Remember, Moses brought god with them in the temple as they wandered the desert.
And notice the word used: Father. There is no "father" in Judaism for there is no "son." There is only god. There is no need for a "son." If god wants to deal with you directly, then he comes down and deals with you directly. Remember Job. When things finally reach a head, god manifests directly. Page after page in the Old Testament of god saying that power is his, even Moses doesn't perform any miracles but is simply the conduit through which god works his wonders, and suddenly there's another god-being?
That's not the theology of Judaism. That's Christianity and it is not the same god.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by I-am-created, posted 02-20-2008 6:42 AM I-am-created has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 27 of 31 (457557)
02-24-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
02-19-2008 10:38 AM


iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
So, God so loves his children that he will harden their hearts against him so that they may continue sinning? He is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin? Except because he loves them, maybe?
The relationship between God and a person in Adam is not father/child. One becomes a child by adoption on being placed in Christ, being born again, being declared righteous, becoming a Christian, being saved...etc.
That's a minor quibble. The point being that God supposedly loves all of us and wants us not to sin, right? Why then would God purposely harden someone's heart so that they may continue sinning if it repulses him so? It may (possibly) work for some, but not all. Why would an omnipotent god, knowing full well that this hardening of the heart trick won't work on some of those he does it to, do such a thing? Does he want these people to fail?
Certainly, if sin is used as a means to save a person then restraining a person from sinning is not a loving thing to do.
Yes, but, certainly, using sin as a means to save a person that cannot be saved by such a tactic is evidence of either ineptitude or malevolence or both on the part of God, no?
What is being argued is that way we sin is by God removing or limiting his restraint on us - pure evil being our natural tendency once restraint is removed. It's God "handing us over to sin", God "hardening our hearts", God "creating evil".
So, we are naturally in a state of restraint? What happened to free will? Why is God restraining us? I thought that we were supposed to be able to choose? If God is restraining some and not others (those whom you say are in a "headlong rush towards depravity") and therefore interfering with the free will of those who are not so insistently depraved, then why doesn't he just restrain us all?
iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
Why use methods which he knows will not work (being omnipotent and all)? And which were explicitly used as punishment and not for ultimate redemption?
I don't get how his methods didn't work. It depends upon what God was trying to achieve. Certainly Pharaoh serves as a picture of Gods patience and God's patience having limits. That a man is permitted to fall into sin as a result of the wrath of God doesn't mean the love of God cannot utilise this in the attempt to save a man.
Why should God's patience have limits if we wants us all to be redeemed? God should know what methods would work to open someone's eyes and persuade them to stop sinning. If allowing a man to fall to the bottom of the sin pit won't save him, then why even try it? Why should there even be an "attempt" to save a man? It should be done in whatever way possible if it is so damn important!
Some say (maybe you, I don't know) that God showing himself would interfere with free will, but all the "born-again" Christians can surely say that God "showed" Himself to them, no? Only, it happened in a way that they could/would recognize. How is that not interfering in their free will? How is the Holy Spirit "filling them up" or God/Jesus/Mary/St. Whoever coming to them in a vision not interfering with their free will? Obviously, there are many people who can't or won't see Him that way. So why can't God come to them in a way that they may recognize Him just like He came to all the born-agains or other Christians?
iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
Wouldn't an omnipotent God know how to turn someone away from sin individually instead of the "one size fits all" method prescribed in the Bible? I mean, if he really loved them and all.
I don't understand what you're getting at. God deals with everyone individually and is restraining this one from sin at the same time as he lets another sink into the pit of depravity. And vice versa the next day in a different area of their lives.
So, in your opinion, God is interfering in the free will of men everyday of our lives? Why not then actually save us all? Even without severe imposition on free will, there must be a way for all of us to come to Him freely on an individual level, no?
God is not obliged to give anyone anything. Everyone has a conscience and their suppression of what that says they ought to do and not do is sufficient to condemn them on the spot.
So what was the point of the giving of the Ten Commandments and all of the other laws, if everyone knew what to do anyway? How come not all "sins" are recognized as such in all cultures, if conscience dictates it?
I agree that not everyone follows their conscience, but on the other hand, not everyone's conscience is the same.
Everything else is a bonus. Besides, we all die and there is nothing to suggest that his removing folk from the game renders them eternally lost. People have been saved by the gospel long before the world heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And those people are? And how were they saved?
Sufficient to do something dramatic to attempt to save us from our sin. But not in the sentimental way you seem to be suggesting though.
Again, why the "attempt?" Why not just do it? So many Christians say that they came to God of their own free will after some experience or another, so why can God not give everyone a "dramatic" experience that will bring them to Him? One size does not fit all and judging from the stories I hear from people who were born again, they have some wildly varying experiences. So, what's the deal? Why "attempt" something dramatic when you can just "do?"

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-19-2008 10:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 5:13 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 28 of 31 (457558)
02-24-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by I-am-created
02-19-2008 5:50 PM


Perhaps I should have said that it was the same argument but from the opposite perspective, rather than the reverse of his argument. I hope that is more clear.
Oh, it was clear what you were trying to do the first time, but thanks.
Oh, the 'pagan bit'...look it up in the dictionary. Even in Webster's it says 'anyone who isn't Christian, Muslim, or Jew...someone who has no religion.' As in, someone who is clearly against the Gospel by saying that there are 2 Gods instead of One.
I don't need to look up pagan in the dictionary to know that Pagans do not recognize the god of the OT or the NT (whether or not they are one and the same) so bringing them up in an argument about said god has no relevance on the discussion. They really have no stake in the argument about them being the same god.
BTW - when you paraphrase it is unnecessary to use quotes. Webster's dictionary does not use those exact words...the meaning is essentially the same (although you also have to include the definition of "heathen" to get the first part), but you did not quote it so you should not have used the quote marks. It is just as dishonest as plagiarizing without using quotes.
That WAS the point. Even you admit that what I said doesn't carry much weight,
No, I said you didn't say "much of anything."
and what I said was the same argument as Rrhain, but from the opposite perspective. My point was that the argument Rrhain presented didn't carry much weight, which you just confirmed.
No, I said you didn't say "much of anything."
IAC writes:
Jaderis writes:
Which is why it is pretty much useless debating theological arguments because all you can really do is pretend that your interpretation of scriptures (or that your own particular scriptures) are better or more real than others. It's all an interpretative dance that some people think is really profound but most other people think is just so much flapping around.
Yet here you are, trying to prove every other 'metaphysician' wrong to your own satisfaction. It makes me wonder why you would join the discussions in Faith and Belief if you feel that debating theological arguments is useless.
Except I don't have a metaphysical point to "prove." I haven't tried to prove anyone else wrong with my own metaphysical argument because I don't have one. I simply use the arguments put forward by those that do have them in order to understand their point of view and possibly to get them to see the logical holes or to hone their arguments (and give me something to think about while I'm in the shower).
Unless some deity comes down and puts it all straight once and for all, all you guys have is your own interpretation of old scriptures and you can all say the other guy is wrong.
I am just having fun.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 5:50 PM I-am-created has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 29 of 31 (457649)
02-24-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jaderis
02-24-2008 2:30 AM


Jaderis writes:
That's (our not being born children of God) a minor quibble. The point being that God supposedly loves all of us and wants us not to sin, right?
That is what Gods love aims towards: attempting to save all from his justice and wrath. But seeing as he is dealing with sinners - and can utilise a persons sin in the attempt to save them - it is not his key aim to prevent a person sinning. Thus..
-
Why then would God purposely harden someone's heart so that they may continue sinning if it repulses him so?
Because this world is a place where peoples eternal destinies are resolved. He is prepared to stay his wrath for the time it takes to achieve this. This time is called the time of dispensation (technically)
-
It may (possibly) work for some, but not all. Why would an omnipotent god, knowing full well that this hardening of the heart trick won't work on some of those he does it to, do such a thing? Does he want these people to fail?
Not at all. However, God knowing that a person will finally be lost is a separate issue to his attempt to save them. The argument goes: Gods knowing of our future arises out of his occupying the future - now. And in occupying it, he observes (now) what a persons final answer will be. If I may mix my time/eternity units..
It is only a persons own will that results in their being finally lost. In attempting to save them, Gods justness and fairness is vindicated. They, like anyone else, would have been saved by God except that they insisted their will be done. Incidently, this fact silences notions of appeal on the day of judgement. There are no drawing of short straws in this life: everyone has the opportunity to be saved.
-
Yes, but, certainly, using sin as a means to save a person that cannot be saved by such a tactic is evidence of either ineptitude or malevolence or both on the part of God, no?
Like I say, it's a persons will which prevents their salvation. It's not that God is inept or malevolent. It's that he is prepared to take "No" for an answer.
-
So, we are naturally in a state of restraint? What happened to free will? Why is God restraining us?
Adam and Eve had the potential for a free willed choice. And they lost it as soon as they exercised it. At that point, sin entered man and we all became slaves to sin. Our natural unrestrained state is to do evil all the time. If God took no action at all then men would all be like Hitler and worse.
As it happens, the very thing that Adam and Eve ingested (which resulted in their fall) is a central tool used by God in providing everyone post-Adam/Eve with a choice. We, unlike them, are not born with a free-will. And so the set-up of the choice is such so as to suit those who have no free will. We get what they didn't have pre-choice. A conscience.
-
I thought that we were supposed to be able to choose?
I know folk say: "chose for God" and "believe Jesus died for you" but if they genuinely think you can choose freely then they are mistaken imo. You are not expected to freely choose to believe. Rather, you'll be brought to believing by God unless you resist being brought to the bitter end. It's a little bit like fishing; it's the fishermans job to catch the fish and land it - all the fish can contribute to is his escaping being caught. In this case the fisherman is prepared to make an honourable attempt but will not dynamite the water to ensure he catches all.
-
If God is restraining some and not others (those whom you say are in a "headlong rush towards depravity") and therefore interfering with the free will of those who are not so insistently depraved, then why doesn't he just restrain us all?
As far as I can see, God does restrain just about everyone to some degree or other (perhaps a sociopath is an example of one bereft of Gods restraint?). The evidence for this would be the fact that everyone is not as evil as they could possibly be in every area of their lives. As far as I can see too, everyone resists and pulls against this restraint. The evidence for this lies in the fact that everyone is unholy to some degree or other.
I don't hold that men are born with free will. Nor need they be to effectively choose for/against God.
-
Why should God's patience have limits if we wants us all to be redeemed?
Redeemed - but not at any price.
-
God should know what methods would work to open someone's eyes and persuade them to stop sinning. If allowing a man to fall to the bottom of the sin pit won't save him, then why even try it? Why should there even be an "attempt" to save a man? It should be done in whatever way possible if it is so damn important!
We have to include an element called "the persons own will" in this. It might not be a free will but it is a will nonetheless (as I have said, the choice set up for sin-enslaved wills takes account of that wills lack of freedom to chose positively for God). The mechanics of Gods efforts to save are quite remarkable but they cannot do what is impossible to do. You cannot force someone into a loving relationship when they do not want to go into that loving relationship and call it a relationship (effectively) chosen for.
Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do the illogical
That is what is going on here Jaderis, a choice set-up for sin-enslaved beings which effectively allows them to chose for/against God - even though they lack the free-will that would normally be required to chose for/against God.
-
Some say (maybe you, I don't know) that God showing himself would interfere with free will, but all the "born-again" Christians can surely say that God "showed" Himself to them, no?
God showing up to someone who hasn't been saved is God showing up to someone whose will is in the state it was born in - which is the state of rejection of relationship with God. His showing up would destroy the (effective) choice he is giving them - which would be an illogical thing to do seeing as has gone through the trouble to provide them with a choice. I say "effective" again, to underline the fact we have no free will and that the choice provided by God is designed to take account of this fact.
God shows up after you are saved. Then you will believe he exists. You are not asked to believe in something for which you have insufficient evidence. Biblical faith is evidence based. Not empirical perhaps - but that's not the only kind of evidence.
-
Only, it happened in a way that they could/would recognize. How is that not interfering in their free will? How is the Holy Spirit "filling them up" or God/Jesus/Mary/St. Whoever coming to them in a vision not interfering with their free will? Obviously, there are many people who can't or won't see Him that way. So why can't God come to them in a way that they may recognize Him just like He came to all the born-agains or other Christians?
At the point of being saved you have effectively chosen for God. Your choice being cast (effectively) freely, there is no overriding your will in his showing up. Its a choice made once forever. There is no going back - not even if you wanted to (you won't )
-
So, in your opinion, God is interfering in the free will of men everyday of our lives? Why not then actually save us all? Even without severe imposition on free will, there must be a way for all of us to come to Him freely on an individual level, no?
Hopefully you will be getting the picture that this is a dance between God and each individual, in which Gods will restricts itself/theirself to setting up an effective choice for the person. He is effectively putting everyman in the garden and supplying them with a balanced choice. It is up to them to chose it.
The set-up for sin-enslaved individuals only requires that they don't hang onto rejection til the point where God says "thy will be done" or death. Gods aim is to silence the sin-enslaved will - not have it chose for God (which is something it cannot do). A silenced sin-enslaved will is the effective equivilent of a freewill chosing for God.
-
So what was the point of the giving of the Ten Commandments and all of the other laws, if everyone knew what to do anyway? How come not all "sins" are recognized as such in all cultures, if conscience dictates it?
I agree that not everyone follows their conscience, but on the other hand, not everyone's conscience is the same.
The law was given to Gods chosen-for-a-purpose people. A person can suppress and deaden their conscience and mould it into all manner of things. The law seems to have served to maintain the Israelites as fit to be the carrier-people of Gods messiah.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites a piece of scientific research into morality. The research posed moral-dilemma questions to people in such a way as to circumvent the influence that religion, culture, education might have. It turns out that there is surprising unanimity of morality across the world. Down deep I mean, below the radar. Even a primitive tribe, with negligable exposure to western mores, shared a common morality.
-
People have been saved by the gospel long before the world heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And those people are? And how were they saved?
Abraham springs to mind. The gospel is described by Paul (in the Epistle to the Romans) as "the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.." In that book he happens to use Abraham as the model of how salvation is brought about. It's not hard to see that Abraham had never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He just believed what God had told him regarding provision of an heir and had that belief credited as righteousness.
Clearly, you don't have to believe in God to believe what God tells you - the two things are quite separate. If God tells you and you believe then the same applies to you as it did Abraham
-
Again, why the "attempt?" Why not just do it? So many Christians say that they came to God of their own free will after some experience or another, so why can God not give everyone a "dramatic" experience that will bring them to Him? One size does not fit all and judging from the stories I hear from people who were born again, they have some wildly varying experiences. So, what's the deal? Why "attempt" something dramatic when you can just "do?"
I think people who have had such an experience are confusing the experience with the point of salvation. I would say that the point of salvation (or point of no return) happens earlier in proceedings and involves believing what God says - or more accurately - believing what God is attempting to convince you of (even if at that point you don't know it is God who is doing the convincing).
Once completely convinced you are effectively saved. A train is set in motion by that belief which results in certain experiences and "transactions" occuring. These do vary from person to person but are part of the switchover from unsaved to saved. Although the details will vary wildly, the same mechanism applies to all.
The point has be made about your own will in this - the reason why God doesn't just wave his magic wand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 02-24-2008 2:30 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 30 of 31 (457651)
02-24-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
02-19-2008 8:55 AM


Locally invented Gods
iano writes:
He chose to eliminate sinners. What's the big deal in that? That he chose to protect and care for a particular group of sinners (the Israelites) is his affair. He had his reasons. Suffice to say that sinners have no right to life before God.
The obvious reason for your God favouring the Israelites is that they invented him. Locally invented Gods from other cultures show similar tendencies. They occupy themselves with the affairs of the tribe that invented them, and often with that tribe's neighbours, but never with people from the other side of the world that the tribe inventing the God/Gods have never heard of.
And, of course, they can be hostile to the neighbouring tribes, even to the point of supporting genocide, like the God of death you worship, and who is the subject of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 02-19-2008 8:55 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 7:42 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024