Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)
J. Davis 
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 306 (213453)
06-02-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
06-02-2005 10:02 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 06-02-2005 10:02 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by nator, posted 06-02-2005 10:21 AM J. Davis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 107 of 306 (213454)
06-02-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
06-01-2005 9:27 PM


Re: You left out one important bit
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 9:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 10:38 AM Percy has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 306 (213457)
06-02-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by J. Davis
06-02-2005 10:13 AM


Re: Schraf I can tell you a couple things for sure about salvation.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by J. Davis, posted 06-02-2005 10:13 AM J. Davis has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 109 of 306 (213458)
06-02-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by J. Davis
06-02-2005 10:16 AM


quote:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by J. Davis, posted 06-02-2005 10:16 AM J. Davis has not replied

J. Davis 
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 306 (213459)
06-02-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
06-02-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Check mate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2005 10:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 06-02-2005 10:27 AM J. Davis has not replied
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2005 10:39 AM J. Davis has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 111 of 306 (213460)
06-02-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Morte
06-02-2005 2:48 AM


Re: Free will
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Morte, posted 06-02-2005 2:48 AM Morte has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Morte, posted 06-06-2005 1:58 AM Modulous has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 306 (213461)
06-02-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by J. Davis
06-02-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Check mate
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by J. Davis, posted 06-02-2005 10:21 AM J. Davis has not replied

J. Davis 
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 306 (213465)
06-02-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Asgara
06-02-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Check mate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Asgara, posted 06-02-2005 10:14 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by lfen, posted 06-02-2005 11:02 AM J. Davis has not replied
 Message 142 by Asgara, posted 06-02-2005 1:00 PM J. Davis has not replied
 Message 159 by nator, posted 06-03-2005 9:50 AM J. Davis has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 306 (213466)
06-02-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by kjsimons
06-02-2005 10:05 AM


Re: Schraf I can tell you a couple things for sure about salvation.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kjsimons, posted 06-02-2005 10:05 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by kjsimons, posted 06-02-2005 10:34 AM Faith has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 115 of 306 (213467)
06-02-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Modulous
06-02-2005 1:34 AM


Re: Free will
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2005 1:34 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2005 10:43 AM Percy has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 116 of 306 (213468)
06-02-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
06-02-2005 10:28 AM


Re: Schraf I can tell you a couple things for sure about salvation.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 10:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 10:40 AM kjsimons has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 306 (213469)
06-02-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
06-02-2005 10:16 AM


Re: You left out one important bit
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 06-02-2005 10:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 06-02-2005 11:01 AM Faith has replied
 Message 125 by lfen, posted 06-02-2005 11:08 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 306 (213470)
06-02-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by J. Davis
06-02-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Check mate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by J. Davis, posted 06-02-2005 10:21 AM J. Davis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by J. Davis, posted 06-02-2005 11:10 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 306 (213471)
06-02-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kjsimons
06-02-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Schraf I can tell you a couple things for sure about salvation.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kjsimons, posted 06-02-2005 10:34 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by kjsimons, posted 06-02-2005 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 120 of 306 (213472)
06-02-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
06-02-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Free will
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 06-02-2005 10:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 06-02-2005 11:25 AM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024