|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Charismatic Chaos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Iano writes: Phat might be expected to believe as I believe on the matter of lost men being ruled by satan. If he believed that then my point might resonate with him. It can't be expected to resonate with you (unless of course you believe the Bible on the matter of Satans dominion over you - for the sake of discussion) Phage0070 writes: Look, I don't care! Just because he believes as you do that unbelievers are on the side of Satan does not make your thought process logical. It can resonate all you want, but it is still poor thinking! I used to be very much a believer in the Satanic influence argument, but cannot find enough evidence for it in the Bible, so, for the purposes of this particular argument, I will state that I believe that people..be they believers or unbelievers, are legally and practically responsible for their behavior and cannot nor should not be allowed to use Satan as an excuse. This does not mean that I am 100% convinced that Satan does notexist or that humans are not prone to practice evil behavior...be it greed, selfishness, or territorial dominance. One question for Iano: IF the hypothesis was confirmed that lost men were ruled by Satan whereas "found" men were rescued solely by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that the overall behavior of said found men would be measurably better than that of their lost counterparts. Sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise. I know a lot of people who could arguably claim to be saved, and yet I see that they struggle with evil tendencies as much as any lost group does. It may be true that they drink alcohol, smoke and gamble a bit less, and that they are more faithful to their wives, but there is no definite measurable evidence that this is so. You may argue that behavior need not nor should not be an indicator of salvation, and I'll go with that for a moment. IF God only chooses those whom chose Him, I maintain that this should be questioned...and find no evidence that God would object. If, as Phage0070 maintains, God is nothing but an illusion of the human mind, I might remind him that if he is right, nothing I could ever say would prove otherwise, yet if he is wrong, no amount of logic would refute nor correct that fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
I would remind you that illusions, mirages, and hallucinations are known phenomenon. They can be recognized, quantified, and ultimately logically discounted to yield a more accurate view of reality. If, as Phage0070 maintains, God is nothing but an illusion of the human mind, I might remind him that if he is right, nothing I could ever say would prove otherwise, yet if he is wrong, no amount of logic would refute nor correct that fact. I know you may not be a fan of the fact but reality *can* be distinguished from imagination. Illusions don't have to fool people forever. ICANT writes:
If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.Phat writes:
Phage0070 writes: I can tell. I just don't want to. ...it seems like you cannot tell the difference between reality and your imagination. Or at least you don't want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
My argument is that you insist that we label God as an imaginary fantasy, whereas i say that you don't have that right to frame the issue in such a context. You are approaching the debate asserting God to be entirely within human imagination, whereas I am suggesting that IF God exists, no amount of imagination can refute the fact.
Keyword: IF Not keyword: Imagination The issue needs to be framed from an agnostic point of view...where God is possible.(apart from our imagination)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Phat writes: I used to be very much a believer in the Satanic influence argument, but cannot find enough evidence for it in the Bible, so, for the purposes of this particular argument, I will state that I believe that people..be they believers or unbelievers, are legally and practically responsible for their behavior and cannot nor should not be allowed to use Satan as an excuse. That unbelievers are under the dominion of satan doesn't mean they are absolved of responsibility for their sin. They know what is right but suppress that truth in order to do evil. And are responsible, personally, for that suppression, and the evil that results from supprssion. Satans role is to optimalise environmental conditions so that the individuals desire to sin is stimulated at every turn. God hates sexual immorality so Satan works to surround us in a world in which sex is treated as a commodity and all kinds of perversions have become the norm. God hates greed, Satan works to make personal aquisition a goal by which our success is measured. God hates our putting ourselves first, L'Oreal tells us that 'we're worth it'. The whole world is exposed to that influence. And the unbelieving world finds it can't but respond to that influence. The sinful nature is stimulated by sin and thrills at suppressing what it knows to be right in order to partake in sin. Satan might have waved the $20 baggie at the unbeliever. The unbeliever is responsible for injecting the contents of that bag into his arm. -
One question for Iano: IF the hypothesis was confirmed that lost men were ruled by Satan whereas "found" men were rescued solely by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that the overall behavior of said found men would be measurably better than that of their lost counterparts. A couple of points in response. 1) We must note the issue of No True Christian. In Ireland, for example, but a small fraction of self-proclaimed Christians (typically Catholic) actually are Christians. And though the label might differ (where the term 'born again' would replace 'Catholic'), cultural Christianity can be expected to produce sufficient quantities of professing-Christian-who-aren't-actually so as to seriously muddy the waters. 2) Being born again doesn't mean you don't sin. Nor is it expected that you won't sin. Being born again is the beginning of a journey in which Gods desire and aim is that you move from away from your old ways and head down the narrow path towards Gods ways. Being narrow, it is very easy to wander off it that path. How you do is up to you, at the end of the day, and provision is made for dealing with the fact that many of the saved will end their lives not having travelled very far along the path set out for them. There is such a thing as greater and lesser in heaven and ones earthly work appears to be the way in which heavenly reward is assigned. 3) Who will Satan be most interested in: a) a lost man happily tipping his way along the road to damnation. b) a found man eagerly telling the world the good news. -
Sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise. I know a lot of people who could arguably claim to be saved, and yet I see that they struggle with evil tendencies as much as any lost group does. In many ways I struggle with the same things now that I struggled with before I was saved (part of the reason for that is my unwillingness to go into unrestrained battle with those things). Whilst the intensity of the battle appears unrelentingly the same I do note that the frontline has shifted somewhat. To use Jesus' example of murder/adultery (so as to hide my darkness under a bushel ). - Whereas before I'd have struggled with murder, I now struggle with hateful anger. - And whereas before I'd have struggled with adultery, I now struggle with lustful thoughts. -
You may argue that behavior need not nor should not be an indicator of salvation, and I'll go with that for a moment. A persons salvation should appear to the world (ie: not hiding your light under a bushel). And the saved are urged to let their light shine. But if I back off on the gas then that is my perogative. I will experience less of the joy that comes from walking in step with God. And I can expect less reward in heaven (making my sloth a terrible investment) It's not as if anothers salvation relies on my shining whatever light I've got. God will use another more willing than me if I decline. -
IF God only chooses those whom chose Him, I maintain that this should be questioned...and find no evidence that God would object. What should be questioned? -
If, as Phage0070 maintains, God is nothing but an illusion of the human mind, I might remind him that if he is right, nothing I could ever say would prove otherwise, yet if he is wrong, no amount of logic would refute nor correct that fact. The only person who's going to convince Phage that God exists is God. Either this side of the grave or on the other. Unfortunately for Phages no-god-of-any-kind position, he can never be proved right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Satan might have waved the $20 baggie at the unbeliever. The unbeliever is responsible for injecting the contents of that bag into his arm. I would doubt that very much since the non believer does not accept any gods, good or bad, and to the no-believer, Satan does not exist. How can I listen to a being that isn't. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
You are not using that term properly. Both an agnostic and an atheist have considered the possibility of God existing, an atheist just does not consider it to be true.
The issue needs to be framed from an agnostic point of view...where God is possible.(apart from our imagination)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable.
Unfortunately for Phages no-god-of-any-kind position, he can never be proved right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: How can I listen to a being that isn't. You mean: "how can I listen to a being I don't believe in?". Surely? Well, if Satan is the one behind that which entices you into that which another being you don't believe in calls Sin then you are, in effect, listening to Satan. I wouldn't let a few layers of separation between the source behind the enticement (the hammer blow) and the enticement itself (the point of the nail) deflect you from what the source is. If Satan exists, that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Phage writes: I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable. When your opponent isn't trying to prove anything then the issue of falsifiablity doesn't arise. You're boxing with an argument of your own making - not with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That unbelievers are under the dominion of satan doesn't mean they are absolved of responsibility for their sin. They know what is right but suppress that truth in order to do evil. And are responsible, personally, for that suppression, and the evil that results from supprssion. Do you really believe that? And if so, wouldn't this make God the greatest facilitator of our sin? The sinful desires innate in us are the product of what he has imparted in us. And Satan, well, he serves as God's devil's advocate (no pun intended). At any given time God could have created us in a world without temptation, a desire without temptation towards evil, and yet he has not. Then he gets upset when humans follow the very appetite he gave us. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hyro writes: Do you really believe that? And if so, wouldn't this make God the greatest facilitator of our sin? Ultimately? Absolutely! God is the one who equipped man with the abilty to choose: to sin/ not to sin. And God is the one who provides the mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life. Choice isn't a choice without an means of enactment. And so, in order that our ability to choose can find expression, we are exposed to: - Temptation: manifest through Satan, who entices us by appealing to that within us that would delight in sin. - Conscience: that of God which exercises a restraining force tending us away from sin. God sustains in us, by conscience, an abhorrence of sin. . God facilitate our sin (by letting Satan operate). He also facilitates our not sinning (by giving us a knowledge, sense, feeling for.. what is good and what is evil). Us? Well we get to choose. -
At any given time God could have created us in a world without temptation, a desire without temptation towards evil, and yet he has not. Then he gets upset when humans follow the very appetite he gave us. From the above you'll hopefully see a tension between two influences. Yes, there is temptation (supplied by God indirectly). Yes, there is conscience ( supplied by God directly). The vital thing to remember is that it's NOT as if we sit on some weighing scales whereby our getting to heaven depends on how many times we've acted according to this influence or that influence. Such a mechanism of salvation would be a works-based salvation, a salvation based on our doing 'enough'. The reality is that God utilises our sinning in the effort to save us. Sinning brings consequences (guilt and shame) and those consequences are woven into the overall effort aimed at our salvation. So the last thing to do is go running out trying to 'be good'. Sin is good in so far that it's used to save us from sin. Call it "fighting fire with fire" if you like. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi everyone,
iano writes: Hyro writes:
Ultimately? Do you really believe that? And if so, wouldn't this make God the greatest facilitator of our sin? Absolutely! God is the one who equipped man with the abilty to choose: to sin/ not to sin. And God is the one who provides the mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life. Choice isn't a choice without an means of enactment. And so, in order that our ability to choose can find expression, we are exposed to: - Temptation: manifest through Satan, who entices us by appealing to that within us that would delight in sin. - Conscience: that of God which exercises a restraining force tending us away from sin. God sustains in us, by conscience, an abhorrence of sin. . God facilitate our sin (by letting Satan operate). He also facilitates our not sinning (by giving us a knowledge, sense, feeling for.. what is good and what is evil). Us? Well we get to choose. - Hi iano. There are many, many things wrong with your arguments, but nevertheless, I'll start from the top. First, you say that, yes God is the ultimate greatest facilitator of our sin. If we take Christianity to be true, than this is, after all the only (somewhat) rational position. However, it does raise some interesting questions though.If God equipped man with the choice of sinning or not, then that means he was absolving himself of any responsibility, right? However, this is not the case. Any way that humans existed would be God's will, as anything other than what he wanted would not be able to exist. Where, I'm going may seem a little vague, but bear with me: whether or not people choose to sin, the ability to do so is given by God, and thus, God wanted us to be able to sin. This may seem like restating your point; however, it is far from it. Sinning creates evil, and thus any being that wanted evil to be able to exist would be itself evil. Furthermore, God could have created beings which could freely choose to only do good; after all, this the situation that will exist in Heaven, no? (If people can sin in Heaven, then it isn't any better than Earth in that respect, and if they can't, then that implies that sinning as a result of free choice was never a desirable option and thus God had no possibly rational reason for creating us that way!) In addition, the addition of Satan only increases God's damnation (no pun intended). Satan, like humans was created by God, presumably with free will. However, his hubris and disobedience that caused him to rebel against God and tempt humans were God-given! (Ever heard of Pandora's curiosity?) iano writes: At any given time God could have created us in a world without temptation, a desire without temptation towards evil, and yet he has not. Then he gets upset when humans follow the very appetite he gave us. From the above you'll hopefully see a tension between two influences. Yes, there is temptation (supplied by God indirectly). Yes, there is conscience ( supplied by God directly). The vital thing to remember is that it's NOT as if we sit on some weighing scales whereby our getting to heaven depends on how many times we've acted according to this influence or that influence. Such a mechanism of salvation would be a works-based salvation, a salvation based on our doing 'enough'. The reality is that God utilises our sinning in the effort to save us. Sinning brings consequences (guilt and shame) and those consequences are woven into the overall effort aimed at our salvation. So the last thing to do is go running out trying to 'be good'. Sin is good in so far that it's used to save us from sin. Call it "fighting fire with fire" if you like.
iano, this is really sad. Yes, you may be thinking along the lines of: it's the only/best way; however, it is not. You are failing to remember that God is all powerful and thus could simply make us feel shame and sin without any further action; in other words, giving us the memory of a prison sentence without allowing the consequent to happen. A God that punishes those who deserves it would be just, but one who allows crimes to be committed in order for punishment to be deserved would be monstrous and unjust. It is not the consequence of the action that should be judged, it is the intention and ability to begin and follow through with a crime; moreover, such a small thing is infinitely small in the eye of an all-knowing being. -T&U (it's good to be back in the fray) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Phage0070 writes: Now we are getting somewhere! If, in fact, you are an atheist, you too have taken a stance that is unfalsifiable...so I will concede the argument that God has to possibly exist.
I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable. Phage0070 writes: Very well, fine. For the sake of argument, I'll admit that my idea of God is an illusion. Shall we go on?
I know you may not be a fan of the fact but reality *can* be distinguished from imagination. Illusions don't have to fool people forever. Iano writes: So for the sake of argument, lets assume that repentance and salvation are human concepts and that neither God nor Satan are in the picture. The only difference is that instead of God nullifying Satans stranglehold, both cancel each other out. (not to suggest Dualism, mind you) What aspect of human behavior has to change for this to be a possibility?
Being born again doesn't mean you don't sin. Nor is it expected that you won't sin. Being born again is the beginning of a journey in which Gods desire and aim is that you move from away from your old ways and head down the narrow path towards Gods ways. Being narrow, it is very easy to wander off it that path. How you do is up to you, at the end of the day, and provision is made for dealing with the fact that many of the saved will end their lives not having traveled very far along the path set out for them. There is such a thing as greater and lesser in heaven and ones earthly work appears to be the way in which heavenly reward is assigned.Iano writes: Bingo. There no longer would be any good news to tell. Humans would still do their very best with what they had to work with. a found man eagerly telling the world the good news. It would not involve a works based Gospel since for the sake of this argument there was no gospel. Finally, upon dying, the argument would become null and void and humanity may be judged on their actions rather than their professions. Which leads to a question: IF God did exist at that point, would humans be judged simply for ignoring Him while they were alive?? Why would God care, if we tried to do our very best at resisting our base impulses??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hi iano. Hi there T&U
There are many, many things wrong with your arguments, but nevertheless, I'll start from the top. Let's start counting.. -
First.. If God equipped man with the choice of sinning or not, then that means he was absolving himself of any responsibility, right? For mans sinning? Yes. But not for his having created man with the potential to choose either way. God would accept his responsibility for having created man with that potential. Much like Honda would accept responsibility for creating the potential for drunk drivers. -
whether or not people choose to sin, the ability to do so is given by God, and thus, God wanted us to be able to sin. Yes - as a choice of ours. Just marking your progression here, no need to comment. -
quote This may seem like restating your point; however, it is far from it. Sinning creates evil, and thus any being that wanted evil to be able to exist would be itself evil. Flaw: you shifted from "God wanting to equip us with the potential to reject him (ie: do evil)" to "God wanted us to reject him (ie: do evil)"
Furthermore, God could have created beings which could freely choose to only do good; after all, this the situation that will exist in Heaven, no? Those people in heaven will be there because they (effectively) gave up their ability to be able to sin. You need to create people capable of choosing to give up sin (or not) in order that some will choose to give up that ability. God didn't create the beings that will be in heaven. He re-created them from the remains of being who chose for God and against sin. - Still counting:
iano, this is really sad. Yes, you may be thinking along the lines of: it's the only/best way; however, it is not. You are failing to remember that God is all powerful and thus could simply make us feel shame and sin without any further action; Sure. But if guilt and shame are a penalty what would be the sound basis for applying it if no crime were committed? We're assuming a rational, reasonable God btw - not one who waves magic wands.
..in other words, giving us the memory of a prison sentence without allowing the consequent to happen. A God that punishes those who deserves it would be just, but one who allows crimes to be committed in order for punishment to be deserved would be monstrous and unjust. It is not the consequence of the action that should be judged, it is the intention and ability to begin and follow through with a crime; moreover, such a small thing is infinitely small in the eye of an all-knowing being. Perhaps this is why God equates lust with adultery and anger with murder. The intent isn't unimportant but it serves to have degrees of crime: from thought all the way up to action. Let's face it, all of us have thought of doing things but have pulled back before having done them. According to your system those who didn't pull back should be punished as much as those who did. God forbid! (and I can't think of one justice system that'd agree with you)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi iano,
I'd like to invite you to take part in mine and DA's debate with EMA in the Heaven and Hell- thread. I'd like to get your opinion on the, to put it in your words, "mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life." I find it to be a gross misunderstanding of how we experience reality, to think that we actually have freedom of choice from a non-deterministic sense. I'd like to see how you address the conflict presented by me, and DA, in that thread about how it is nothing more than a biological function, which lays out a sort of map that your neuro processes follow regardless of your opinion. - A murderer does not "choose" to kill someone, chemical reactions in his brain lead him to this action (for many different reasons) none of which are by choice of the individual. If god created this mechanism, then he is FULLY responsible for it not working properly. This may be off-topic here, but if you like I could post it in that thread. - Unless you have a quick answer for it, then you could answer and we wouldn't continue off-topic.
The reality is that God utilises our sinning in the effort to save us. Sinning brings consequences (guilt and shame) and those consequences are woven into the overall effort aimed at our salvation. Here's a weird question, but one that I've always been curious as to how christians get around it: Are the same sins always considered sins, or do sins change according to how the culture changes? Here's why I ask: Is stoning a homosexual considered a sin now? If so, why did it change, who changed it, and can it change again? - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024