My Beliefs- GDR

If my theistic views are correct it would make sense that our sense of orders would in some way image the sense of order of an intelligent designer. All I ‘m saying is that out of order comes consistency which is what we should expect and find with scientific research.Make your point about crystals as frankly I have no idea what point you want to make. Exactly my point. You are convinced that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the subjective choice that the Battle of Hastings was an historic event. I’m confident that if you researched different historic accounts of the battle that you would find variations in the details but they would all agree that the battle actually took place.The Bible contains historical documents. In the case of the Gospels and the Epistles they all tell the story of the resurrection even though there are variations in the details. They all agree however that Jesus was resurrected. I am convinced that there is sufficient historical evidence for me to subjectively choose to believe the accounts of the resurrection whereas you subjectively choose not to. I was talking about something I objectively know’ to be but you subjectively decide whether or not to believe me. The fact remains it is the truth. Yes we can see how morality evolved amongst humans but that tells us nothing about the fundamental basis for morality.I agree that some things are considered moral in some societies and not in others. That isn’t the point. Our morality isn’t specifically about what we do. Our actions flow from our morality. A truly moral action is driven by the heart of someone that genuinely loves others as they do themselves. If you noticed I put a smile after the statement about the rationality of your beliefs whatever they are.I did respond to the question of the difference in belief between theism and the tooth fairy earlier.I have acknowledged that I am a Christian. You state that you aren’t an atheist but that you are just ringo. That is a cop-out. You then are free to critique the views of others without having to defend your own views.

When the Bible says that we should have faith - the question is faith in what. If the only way that we can be made right with God resulting in salvation is believing any specific theology, then it does become a matter of works as it requires us to make a conscious effort to believe something. What God wants is changed hearts not changed minds and that is very clear in the teachings of Jesus.As Christians what makes us right with God is that we read or hear what Jesus has to say and that it resonates in our hearts, and as a result we desire to make him Lord of our lives. If we truly do that we open our hearts up to the Holy Spirit who somehow speaks into our hearts and minds so that we are made more aware of the lives God would have us live. We are saved now to become part of God’s Kingdom as established by Jesus to be image bearers of God’s love for us to the world.So yes, it is by God’s grace that we can be made right with God. We are owed nothing. As Jesus said, it all boils down to love, as both He and Paul tell us when we are told to love others as ourselves. It’s good to be grateful but that isn’t the point. If the message is that by becoming a Christian and believing the right stuff you are going to have eternal life, then you are marketing the faith for an individual’s own personal benefit. That is all about the self. That is not something that changes hearts so that the individual will love others as him or herself.What matters is faith in Christ’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, mercy and justice. Yes, it is a very good thing to understand and have faith in Christ’s resurrection and ascension but in the end it is about heart knowledge and not head knowledge.

We are of course now just repeating ourselves, but one more try:Jesus saves us as individuals, through His blood sacrifice, as the scriptures I posted say, and if desiring such salvation makes me selfish I'm for being selfish. Surely we SHOULD have that much self-interest to desire eternity with God rather than Hell. We are to learn to love others as we love ourselves, which is a statement that recognizes that we DO love ourselves and there is no condemnation for that implied in that statement. We are merely to learn to love others the same way, for instance by wanting others to be saved too. And I shouldn't say "merely," that's not easy, but it IS what we are to learn to do.And again, it is only WHEN we are saved by the blood of Christ that we can receive the Holy Spirit, and it is only through the Holy Spirit that we can even begin to have anything like the love Christ had. That's the point of salvation, that we are to grow in the grace that conforms us to the character of Christ. It's a lifelong growth project as we have to learn to put on Christ, acquire His love and mercy and all the rest of it.The point of mentioning gratitude was to emphasize how I regard my salvation as far from a work, meaning far from anything I myself could do, far from anything I myself could contribute to the cause, it is ALL a gift of God and the only right response to that is gratitude. As Luther said, all we contribute to our salvation is our sin, the sin from which we need to be cleansed, the cleansing is all from God. Faith is a much deeper and more supernatural thing than you obviously have any idea. And again you require me to point out that faith in His "resurrection and ascension" isn't the faith you need: You need faith in His blood sacrifice to pay for your sins against the Law of God. Since you obviously lack that, I'd suggest that you stop everything, stop trying to justify your woefully insufficient idea of the Christian life and beg God to give you this gift of salvation you keep trying to get rid of. It would take humbling yourself to the point of considering that your current opinions are all wrong.ABE: Really meant to say that you can ask God to give you that FAITH you don't have, which is the way we apprehend the gift of salvation. God provides it ALL, we provide only the sin as Luther said. God provides the grace, the faith, the sacrifice that pays for our sins, and the word of God, the revelation that explains everything.Edited by Faith, : TO ADD LAST PARAGRAPH

The point is that nobody seems to infer from crystals that a designer was needed. They don't seem to consider it a rational conclusion. Yet they seem to think that other molecular arrangements need a designer. What's the rational difference? The historical and physical evidence is what moves it from subjective toward objective. I objectively choose not to because there is no evidence, either historical or physical, that such a resurrection is possible.Incidentally, four stories collected together for a purpose are not in themselves "historical evidence". If there was external confirmation from an unbiased source that Jesus even existed, that would move the stories toward history and objectivity. You're assuming that there is a "fundamental basis" beyond what we know. We know how cars are engineered and we know the physics behind the engineering but we don't know the "fundamental basis" behind the physical laws - i.e "who created them" or "why they exist". Morality is on the same objective scientific footing as engineering; the philosophical whys and wherefors of both are also equally subjective. Don't be afraid to repeat yourself. When I start a thread titled "My Beliefs" I'll be glad to defend my beliefs. Even if you started a thread titled "ringo's Beliefs" I'd be glad to defend my beliefs. But in this thread, my beliefs are off topic.

Jesus also said that we must be born again. That implies that we are to become a new person which means that we are to allow a basic change to our moral outlook, which in turn means that we are to genuinely desire that God’s desire for our hearts will become reality. What is required is a heart change and not a mind change. We are called to turn from a desire to be self serving to a desire to serve others. If we make becoming a Christian all about personal salvation there is no turning from being self serving to become a servant to others. If you want to save others as you put it then I would suggest that the worst thing that you can do is to sell them on the idea that the point of becoming a Christian is that you get to live forever. I suggest you read Matthew 7:21 to find Christ’s response to those who accept Christianity on that basis. That response to Gospel is a selfish response to Christ’s call for selflessness. Again, what is that we are to have faith in? You seem to believe that Christianity is about having faith that Jesus will keep us with Him and out of hell. I believe that we are called to have faith that Jesus’ way is the model for our lives and as a result of that faith, and with the help of the Spirit, our lives become less about us and more about Him. In the sheep and the goats parable in Matthew 25 Jesus tells us what making it more about Him looks like. We are called to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, take in the homeless etc. He also points out that the sheep who did those things had no idea that they were doing it to and for Jesus. They were doing it because that was where their heart was and that was what made them right with God through Jesus.

It requires both, and the new birth is not something we could "allow" but a supernatural work of God within us. When you use a word like "allow" you turn it into a work of our own. All of salvation which of course includes regeneration or the new birth, is God's doing, nothing we could do or contribute to. Well, faith first of all in Jesus' sacrifice as God's provision to pay for our sins, which means faith that we ARE saved, that we belong to Him for eternity because He bought us with His own blood. That's the foundational faith but faith includes the whole testimony of God ultimately, that it's the truth, that it was given by God etc. etc. etc.

That’s fine but can you give me an example of what molecular arrangement I’m saying needs intelligent intervention.? It simply makes the subjective argument stronger. I agree. On the other hand there is no objective evidence to say that it is impossible. We can objectively say that our normal laws as we understand them don’t allow for it but that is not the same as saying that it can’t possibly happen. In the first place the 4 Gospels are from a collection of accounts as we can see in the first part of Luke. Secondly if someone else viewed the resurrection then they would no longer be unbiased. I suggest that the Gospel accounts are from unbiased sources. If they didn’t find it outside the ordinary they wouldn’t have written them at all. They simply wrote about what had been observed to the best of their ability. Yes, I subjectively believe that there is a fundamental basis beyond what we objectively know. I’m pretty sure that you apply reason to your subjective conclusions. I have used subjective reasoning and a subjective take on personal experience to come to my theistic beliefs and I have used subjective reasoning to conclude that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Hmmmm..... it’s still a cop-out but your reply is a bit of a gotcha.

Matthew 7:7

quote:

---

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

---

It does require an action on our part. Of course it’s metaphorical but Jesus talks about asking, seeking and knocking. We are called to actually seek to be more loving, more forgiving, more kind, more just etc.This is from Matthew 15.

quote:

---

8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

---

It isn’t about the mind it is about the heart. Jesus critiqued the Pharisees for thinking that if they kept all of the laws that God would redeem Israel. It was in a sense an Earthly salvation by works. What you are espousing is that by believing the right things that you will gain personal salvation, which is salvation by works and the same thing that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for. Exactly my point it is me me me. If I accept certain doctrine I will get to live forever.Paul writes this in 1 Cor 4:

quote:

---

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

Paul gets it. It is our hearts that are judged not our theological beliefs.Paul also writes this in Romans 2:

quote:

---

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

---

As Paul says, the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, which as he points out is for everyone. In this passage he points out that, those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.. He doesn’t say those that believe that right things but those who genuinely desire to do the right things that receive eternal life.Sure it is good to understand the sacrifice of Jesus and be grateful but don’t get it mixed up with what God really wants, which is loving hearts regardless of what doctrine we believe.That's what the Bible says if you read without your 21st century cultural bias.

Yes we can ask for salvation but everything about salvation comes from God and not us. All I can do is say it again. Without the supernatural effect of salvation through faith in Christ's death we will not have the Holy Spirit and without the Holy Spirit we will not have the love you are talking about. My "bias" goes back at least to the Reformation, it's yours that is a trumped-up recent innovation.

Jesus said this from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

quote:

---

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

---

Here is just one quote of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a religious man but not a Christian, at least in the way that you would define a Christian.

quote:

---

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.

---

So your point would be, correct me if I’m wrong, that Gandhi can’t have the kind of love I’m talking about because he doesn’t have his theology right. Presumably he is also damned to hell for the same reason. You might want to compare what Gandhi has to say with some of the hateful anti-Islamic things said by fundamentalist Christians.They might want to consider the previous quote from what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount alongside this quote from Gandhi.

quote:

---

Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.

---

It is all about the heart. Like Jesus said all the law and the prophets are condensed into the law of love. My understanding of the Christian faith goes back to what Jesus, as well as Paul, James etc had to say.

The human body. All of the objective evidence is that resurrection of a human body is impossible. That doesn't prove the negative but it outweighs a handful of second-hand "eyewitness" reports. You're throwing objectivity right out the window. You're claiming that a Hindu, for example, who witnessed the same events could not possibly interpret them the same way. So tell us what that reasoning is. Why God? Why not the Tooth Fairy?

From an evolutionary point of view I can accept the view that the human body didn't need intelligent intervention as the design was there from the beginning. I do believe that intelligent and moral consciousness require intelligent intervention. No it doesn't. The claim is that this was a one time occurrence in human history and that it is contrary to natural law. Objectively we can conclude that we no longer observe this happening and we aren't able to replicate it ourselves. We don't actually know whether the author of Mark was an eye-witness or not but the accounts were the accumulation of the writings of eye-witnesses. It is a matter of faith or belief but I also think that we should look at the style, intent, and content of the Gospels. They aren't written in anything like the style that we would expect a 1st century Jew to write if they were trying to perpetuate the messianic mission of Jesus. The disciples were badly flawed and the resurrection itself is unlike anything that they would have expected.However it is a matter of faith and belief and I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an actual historical event. Then it becomes important to understand what to make of that, and just as Paul and the rest of the early church did, we struggle to do that today. No, I'm saying that a Hindu who witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus and then wrote about it would no longer be un-biased by your definition. Incidentally, Jesus' brother James only became a follower of Jesus after the resurrection. He had not been a believer if Jesus as Messiah prior to the resurrection.There is no motivation for anyone to follow Jesus after the crucifixion without the resurrection. Jesus would simply be another in a fairly long list of failed messiahs. It was hoped that the messiah would lead them in overthrowing the Romans but Jesus had been put to death by them. Why would they then continue to the mission after that. There are no accounts of anybody seriously contending that the tooth fairy exists. There are no accounts of any adult being converted to belief in the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy does not provide and explanation for intelligent existence nor for morality. I have not had any life experience that leads me to believe in the tooth fairy. The opposite is true for my Christian beliefs.

The phrase "contrary to natural law" in itself throws the possibility of objectivity out the window. Do you really have enough other examples of 1st-century Jewish writings to know what to expect? Would they have had a clear idea of how to propagate something like a messianic myth? I have no problem with you holding that belief. What I object to is your claim that other historical events such as the Battle of Hastings are a matter of faith and belief to the same exrent. Why not? It isn't observing the same events that causes biased conclusions; it's interpreting those events according to preconceived notions. If I saw what others called a "resurrection" I wouldn't automatically interpret it as a resurrection, an event that was "contrary to natural law". I'd look for an explanation within natural law. On the contrary, I "follow Jesus" to a certain extent and I don't even believe he existed, much less rose from the dead. To follow somebody is to go in the direction they are going, even if the accounts of their going are fiction. There are plenty of them in children's books. You're not really in a position to decide that the authors of those books are less serious than the authors of the gospels. There are plenty of accounts of adults being converted to equally outlandish beliefs such as Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnessism. There's no real difference between any of them and your beliefs. There are plenty of things that your beliefs don't explain. You use "unexplainable" as an excuse all the time. You've had life experiences that "cause" you to believe in the religion that just by sheer coincidence happens to be ubiquitously dominant in your society. If you had grown up in Utah, you'd probably be an equally-convinced Mormon.If Tooth Fairyism was the dominant religion in your society, you'd be a Tooth Fairyist for the same "reasons" that you're a Christian. I don't call that a distinction.

I agree that my views are subjective, and for that matter any view of the resurrection of Jesus is subjective. There are numerous ancient writings and predominately the Hebrew Scriptures. I've also read Josephus and I've read the view of first century scholars.Certainly the predominate view was that the messiah would lead them against their enemies and establish himself as "king of the Jews" and rebuild the Temple. It was in many ways a reflection of the religion of their pagan neighbours. It was all about getting god on your side to provide political and military superiority.However, even aside from that if they wanted to perpetuate a myth they would have probably gone with something like a figure shrouded in light as in the transfiguration instead of having Jesus sitting on the shore having a fish fry. Not all of them believed in resurrection but the ones that did only believed it would happen at the end of time for all the right people. I know this has been repeated a number of times but they wouldn't have had women as the first ones to meet the resurrected Jesus. Women didn't have much credibility. They wouldn't write an account in which is followers are placed in such a bad light.It is IMHO obviously a best effort to make the accounts as accurate as they could. Certainly over that span of time there could well have been some legends grow up around Jesus but the one thing that they solidly agree on is the resurrection.I might add in all of this that Paul was a contemporary and was acquainted with what they believed. Paul would have had tyo be convinced by eye-witnesses that this really happened to the point that he gave up a life of position in the community to become a travelling evangelist largely dependent on others for food and shelter. He also spent considerable time in prison, suffered abuse and was eventually put to death. As I have pointed out before they didn't have preconceived notions. They figured that when Jesus was crucified that he was like all of the other messianic claimants - He was just another failed messiah. They were all just busy keeping their head down so they wouldn't suffer the same fate.The point is that the Romans were very good at killing people. If you had seen someone dead and the then three days later see them walking around in a body that was the same but then not quite the same either you then start interpreting those events, whether you were a Hindu or a Jew.Certainly they would start interpreting what it all meant but what Jesus told them before and after the resurrection. Sure, but this isn't that kind of following. They believed certain things about Jesus that caused them to follow Him in ways that went beyond His moral message. He had been executed but they followed Him with the claim that He was still alive and ruling. Come on, we all make decisions about those things. I can't prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. It is my belief that he doesn't. I agree, it is all subjective. I subjectively believe the Gospel accounts and you subjectively disbelieve them. There is one common element in all of these which is the belief in God. The question revolve around what God is doing and what His characteristics and from that what that means for our lives. I don't doubt but that some of what I believe will turn out to be wrong. As I say, my bottom line is that God is loving and just, as we see Him to be in Jesus. Why not. I don't pretend to be able to explain everything and even the things I try and explain I acknowledge that I may be wrong about. It isn't an excuse it is just a fact. Just by observation that is obviously true and certainly I was exposed to Christianity in ways that I wasn't exposed to other faiths. I did however have to form my own opinion on things, and a number of years ago I accepted the basic truth of Christianity. I would add however, that over the years my Christian beliefs have evolved as I continue to study and read from a variety of authors and views.

This is instruction to those who are disciples of Christ, saved, born again, not to the entire world. Gandhi is a good example of someone who liked Jesus' teachings but missed the whole point about salvation, wasn't saved, wasn't born again. The "liberal" churches also love Jesus' teachings while failing to be Christians. The idea of not having one's theology right is YOUR refrain, I have never said that. Salvation is not a matter of believing a particular theology, it is a matter of faith in Christ's death to pay for your sins. Put that way, Gandhi does not have salvation. I'm afraid so. Since you do not quote any such "hateful anti-Islamic" things I am not in a position to have an opinion. BUT if what you mean by that phrase pointing out that Islam is a demonic religion or something like that, they are right. Nothing hateful about telling the truth. Depends on the context. Might not be the thing to say to your new Muslim friend, of course, but that doesn't make it any the less the truth. You might want to consider making it clearer what on earth you are accusing "fundamentalist" Christians of so I might be able to give you a relevant answer. Depends. The Reformers thought it necessary to make it clear that people have sinned against God and deserve punishment for that so that they could have a true appreciation of the gospel of salvation. The contemporary method of telling everybody "Jesus loves you" often fails to convince anyone of their need for salvation. Since we DO need salvation and this method may keep people away from it the method can't be called an act of love. But again, since you aren't being specific, which leaves me to guess at your meaning, I don't know if I'm addressing your point or not. That is correct but I think you have a very limited and fleshly, even profane, idea of the love the Bible talks about.When you quote that, by the way, are you thinking of the substance of the Law and the Prophets or just imposing your own notion of "love" on it? The Law's commandments, if obeyed, do embody love. If you obey them you are loving God and loving neighbor. If disobeyed they describe the offenses that condemn people. The Ten Commandments are love if obeyed as well (not stealing from others is loving them, not coveting their possessions is loving them etc), but if disobeyed they identify the main categories of sin that lead to Hell. And the Prophets' main work seems to have been warning of God's judgment to come for failure to obey the commandments. Are you thinking of all that when you are appreciating Jesus' summary statement that it is all condensed into Love? Aren't you clever. Well, the Reformers traced THEIR doctrine to the original writings of course, back through all the true believers. Your view is nothing but modernism/liberalism which took off in the last century with some roots in the previous century.
=================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.