|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J. Davis  Inactive Member |
Quote the OT all day if it makes you feel happy. Doesn't change what God says is good via the commandments and Jesus Christ.
Who should God accept? Unbeliever 1 or 2? This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 10:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: But actually, if belief itself is the topic, other religions DON'T ask you to believe anything in order to be saved. Most religions teach things you are to DO to be saved, but belief isn't part of that -- even if you are to believe things, they aren't promised to save you, but believing in the sacrifice of Christ IS promised to save you. You're once again making the mistake of thinking that other religions have to follow some kind of Christian template in order to qualify as legitimate religions. There is no requirement that a religion has to include a Christian-like approach to salvation to be considered a religion. Imagine what you would think if someone argued that the only way to make legitimate music was with a violin, and that no other ways counted. You ask him why a flute isn't a legitimate way to make music, and he replies that a flute doesn't have strings, and the strings aren't played with bow. But that's not the definition of legitimate music, is it? That's the definition of a violin. You're making the same mistake. You think that Chrisitianity is the very definition of legitimate religion. It isn't, at least not by the arguments you've been advancing.
And it's for your sake that anybody would bother to try to convince you. I perseonally don't need you or anybody to believe anything, but it does scare me to see how people here put themselves in danger. You're doing it out of your sincere concern for others, but you seem to think this gives the religious beliefs that underly your motivation some legitimacy. It is a human quality to have concern for others, and whether one invents a concern with a religious basis ("Accept Christ") or some other basis ("Don't let a black cat cross your path" or "Sleep beneath a pyramid") makes no difference if there is no empirical support. The concerns you have for others may seem very real to you, but they don't have anywhere near the same weight as those with empirical support ("Don't jump out a 10th floor window").
He doesn't say why. I'm sure we'll all understand it one day. I give you credit for honesty, but you only say this because the clear evidence is that God is cruel, and since you can't accept that possibility you say he is not cruel and that someday we'll understand how that reconciles with the evidence. But Christians have been saying, "We'll understand it one day" for millennia. It has become a catchall excuse for those who don't wish to follow the evidence where it leads. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
But God told people to commit genocide, kill male infants, and take women as the spoils of war in the past.
Why wouldn't he do so again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, do you or do you not agree that God has ordered genocide, the killing of male infants, and the taking of women as the spoils of war? Was it good and moral for God to have done this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J. Davis  Inactive Member |
God isn't wrong. He sees what will happen - big deal.
But my argument isn't that God's will would be proved wrong anyway, as I've said that it's not possible his will would change. You just don't get it. Read it again. He foresees every path of Shraff, but it isn't his will she burn, as that can be changed by Shraff's belief as of now.
Either it is possible that Schraf could decide to believe - which would prove God wrong Prove him wrong about what? He said he desires that she believes. Please quote anything else you think he might have said. First prove he said something before saying he's proved wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But the point (or mine, at least) is that, if belief is what is required to be saved, many do not even have this choice. And the contrary point is that if you have been exposed to the Gospel, you have the choice.
Try to believe for a little while that God doesn't exist. Easily done. I have believed that for 10 years now, another little while should be a doddle
You see, it's not that we're denying God because we don't want to believe in Him. It's that we don't believe in him That's the issue though. The argument is that you had a choice to accept Christ or not. You chose not to. Not because you wanted to choose not to, but because you rationalised and did not accept faith as applicable and so on. Which, it is argued, is the fallout from the Fall. Someone at some point said, here is the Gospel, the great sky God sent Himself down (as His son) to earth, healed a load of sick people, upset the authorities, and got executed...for your sins. If you are anything like me, you looked at that and went...sure, ok, whatever you say bub...before backing away slowly.
I simply cannot believe that the God of the Bible exists. There is no choice involved. You believe that no choice is involved, but that is not what is being said. You have been given a choice, whether it was concsious or otherwise. You were presented with the Gospel, and you chose not to accept it (due to its perceived inconsistencies etc). Think of Job, he started off believing and was given a sequence of very compelling reasons to not believe...despite these totally valid reasons he kept his faith. It can be viewed the same way here - you are being tested by the adversary who has used some inconsistenies in the writings of man to blind you to the Truth of God.
You paint an unrealistic scenario, however. Other men tell me that the Lord says that, not God Himself. Other men also tell me that Allah is the true god, that nature is to be worshipped, of Vishnu and Shiva. What is supposed to distinguish your claim from theirs in my mind? Not my claim, Christian's claim The answer is straightforward. Faith. Unsatisfactory answer? Get used to it, you are dealing with the realms of theology here. Trying to use logic in the realms of mythos is absurd, there is a thread about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Have you tried to stop believing in Jesus and God like I asked?
Were you able to be a hardcore Athiest for one hour? Was it easy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J. Davis  Inactive Member |
I don't deny it, I know what you mean, I had that same thought.
However, that doesn't mean her choices aren't real. What matters is that only if he says it's his will previously does it mean that it is his will for her to burn. But he didn't, he says to believe, infact, he said what only the God of the universe could logically say if he is omni-everything. He said it's his will for us to believe, yet that choice is ours. Therefore, his will remains intact, and our decision cannot effect his omnipotency. Get it? I hope you know what I mean. There's a difference between God knowing she will end up in hell, and it being his will she ends up there. If it was his will, then she would have no choice in the matter. The choice is real, because right now, she can believe. Therefore God becomes a spectator, and his good will and intention remains the same. Ultimately, it's our own will that is the cause. We can decide what we want, all God does is give us the chance to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But according to the bible, God has ordered people to do something very similar in the past, so why wouldn't he do so again? Many many reasons a person can only know by knowing the Bible well and believing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Modulous writes: How is that? That God is cruel for giving us the choice to damn ourselves? Would it not be better put that God is merciful to give us the choice to save ourselves? Who am I saving myself from? God, isn't it? And not for living a bad life, but for not worshipping him. This is a merciful, loving God to you?
And this is consistent with free will how? Having the free choice to accept the Word and deeds of Christ or listen to the serpent isn't free will? You'll have to show me how this isn't consistent. Sure thing! All that's required to show you how it isn't consistent is to quote the parts of the discussion you left out:
Percy writes: Modulous writes: He also creates souls with the ability to choose to either heed to the words of the temptor (with prior knowledge the existence of the temptor) or to ignore the words of the serpent and to re-embrace the Lord and come back to the flock. And this is consistent with free will how? God created the ability within us to choose. It's an obviously flawed ability that comes up with the wrong answer far more often than not. But even deeper than that, consider that he created my ability and your ability, and yet we've come to different answers. How could that be? Is my ability to choose somehow wanting, perhaps one off the back shelf, while your was top notch, first quality? I know you don't believe that, because that would be equivalent to God pre-condemning me to hell. So where does the difference between us lie? Certainly I'm not responsible, since I didn't create myself. Care to explain? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Many many reasons a person can only know by knowing the Bible well and believing it.
Sorry Faith, your answer is just a dodge, a non-answer. That's ok, I'm used to that sort of response from the faithful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But actually, if belief itself is the topic, other religions DON'T ask you to believe anything in order to be saved. Most religions teach things you are to DO to be saved, but belief isn't part of that -- even if you are to believe things, they aren't promised to save you, but believing in the sacrifice of Christ IS promised to save you.
You're once again making the mistake of thinking that other religions have to follow some kind of Christian template in order to qualify as legitimate religions. There is no requirement that a religion has to include a Christian-like approach to salvation to be considered a religion. Not to be religions, no, but to be true they do, as they are all false. Christianity is not a religion, strictly speaking, it is simply the truth God gave to humanity.
Imagine what you would think if someone argued that the only way to make legitimate music was with a violin, and that no other ways counted. You ask him why a flute isn't a legitimate way to make music, and he replies that a flute doesn't have strings, and the strings aren't played with bow. But that's not the definition of legitimate music, is it? That's the definition of a violin. Uh huh, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Truth can't coexist with contradictions as violins may work nicely with flutes.
You're making the same mistake. You think that Chrisitianity is the very definition of legitimate religion. It isn't, at least not by the arguments you've been advancing. I'm sorry my arguments are not persuasive.
And it's for your sake that anybody would bother to try to convince you. I perseonally don't need you or anybody to believe anything, but it does scare me to see how people here put themselves in danger.
You're doing it out of your sincere concern for others, but you seem to think this gives the religious beliefs that underly your motivation some legitimacy. It is a human quality to have concern for others, and whether one invents a concern with a religious basis ("Accept Christ") or some other basis ("Don't let a black cat cross your path" or "Sleep beneath a pyramid") makes no difference if there is no empirical support. The concerns you have for others may seem very real to you, but they don't have anywhere near the same weight as those with empirical support ("Don't jump out a 10th floor window"). I don't recall claiming that my concern was any kind of proof of legitimacy.
He doesn't say why. I'm sure we'll all understand it one day.
I give you credit for honesty, but you only say this because the clear evidence is that God is cruel, and since you can't accept that possibility you say he is not cruel and that someday we'll understand how that reconciles with the evidence. But Christians have been saying, "We'll understand it one day" for millennia. It has become a catchall excuse for those who don't wish to follow the evidence where it leads. I hope you have the opportunity to rethink the evidence some day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that "I don't get it".
If Schraf ACTUALLY chose to believe then it could not be the case that it was God's Will that she did not beleive - that much of your argument is sensible. But it also would be the case that God was wrong. God could only be infallibly correct if it was inevitably true that Schraf did not beleive. Thus either God is not infallible, or your argument fails.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry Faith, your answer is just a dodge, a non-answer. That's ok, I'm used to that sort of response from the faithful. And I'm used to the kind of blind debunkery I get from you and others here too, so I guess we're even.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Who am I saving myself from? God, isn't it? You aren't saving yourself from a who but from a what. Sin.
God created the ability within us to choose. It's an obviously flawed ability that comes up with the wrong answer far more often than not. The ability isn't flawed. He gave use the ability to choose. We excercise that ability fully. The ability of choice functions perfectly.
But even deeper than that, consider that he created my ability and your ability, and yet we've come to different answers. How could that be? We were both given the same ability. However we chose different paths. I have the ability to choose heads or tails. So do you. We can choose differently, yet the ability remains the same.
Is my ability to choose somehow wanting, perhaps one off the back shelf, while your was top notch, first quality? Not to labour the point here, but no. Both of us made a choice, that is what the ability granted us to do...the ability was working fine.
I know you don't believe that, because that would be equivalent to God pre-condemning me to hell. So where does the difference between us lie? Certainly I'm not responsible, since I didn't create myself. Care to explain?
Certainly. God gave you the ability to make a choice. He gave you the tools necessary to make that choice (Gospel). The adversary attempted to subvert you from the Word, and keep you in a state of falleness. You heeded the adversary's word. We are all born fallen, we are all born to sin, we are all born with judgement looming over us. God, in His mercy has given us Christ, and the Gospel so that we might reject the adversary's sibilant, seductive whispers. If we don't, that is not God's fault, he gave you tools for salvation you chose not to use them. Let me reiterate. You were born to sin. Adam and Eve's actions condemned you to hell far more than God's did. God, in His mercy, decided that he didn't want everyone to HAVE to pay for original sin, so he sent his only begotten son to die to cleanse the sin from the world. Now you have been given the Way to overcome original sin, to overcome the legacy you have inhereted. God has shown you the Way, it is up to you to follow it, or stay right were you are. He isn't condemning you to hell, He is trying to save you from it. He can't force you along the path to salvation, you have to take it yourself. This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 02-June-2005 03:49 PM --- Adversary is a singular with a possesive, what drove me to use ies rather than 's is beyond me, but I did it every time. This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 02-June-2005 04:05 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024