The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

This is an old Great Debate topic between Jar and myself, and I want to take this opportunity to open it up to everyone. Feel free to comment. If God creates everyone and if we live our lives and make our decisions based on experience and/or logic,reason,and reality then I would argue that we willfully condemn ourselves through the choices that we make.In order for this to be possible, God would never choose whom to "save" and whom to punish. We become the decisions that we make. How so? If I know the ending of a movie and yet if the characters in the movie essentially write their own scripts how am I responsible for what they choose to write---simply by knowing?

maybe im just a poor listener or a sloppy learner...but I try to understand. I suppose I need to slow down and read more...grasping context before providing answers.But I do disagree with your first line. If you created the characters with a brain and decision making capabilities, it would be irrelevant if you somehow foreknew the ending. Are you suggesting that we cant really have free will if God foreknows our eventual outcome?How are we supposed to insist that God cannot know the ending until we actualize it? (Come to think of it, this is a logical request, however.)Maybe you do have a point. Maybe Gods foreknowledge is played out through our decisions...the only real way that we could have free will. I'll have to think more about this one...

First off, allow me to explain my thought process in context. I have a real life and it is quite busy. I take care of my 92 year old Mother, I volunteer with the state, I attend church and do outreach, I work at a grocery store and also attend union steward meetings, when I can. In addition to this, I often peruse the internet during my downtime. I am a man of faith---hopefully a thinking man---and so I delight in participating in forums such as this one to bounce ideas off of others, practice forming my own beliefs by explaining them to others, and listening to what others say as well. So that brings us to your question.There is no surefire way to know that I am communing/communicating with God. I believe that He lives in us--that is that His Spirit is in communion with some if not all of humanity, but there is no real way to prove this. I can, by the process of elimination, trim the list a bit.(In the last 48 hours I have eaten no burritos or any tainted food...to my knowledge) I listen to many who claim to be Pastors, so being deluded by a con job is a distinct possibility. The only way to test this is through judging the character...based on spending time with these people and dialoging/communicating...as well as the reports of others who know them.

Duly noted. I am beginning to rethink my position on this issue. If those christians who believe that God desires a sort of spiritual communion with us are correct, it would follow that such a God should not interfere with the outcome of human lives through the action of creation...specifically creative foreknowledge. This lends support to the argument that God saves everybody. To be fair to free will, however, humans would also have to have a decision to reject Gods offer of communion. Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

Truth cannot be proven in an evidence-based experiment. Truth can be discussed and shown through our actions, although even then our actions only show our own character.At best we can claim communion of our character with God/Jesus, but this is likely insufficient to sway a non believer.

I am not sure if we can know. We can test each possibility, however. The food that we ingest can be tested for pathogens which could potentially cause hallucinations and fever. As for God and Satan...they are/were initially characters in a book and thus are defined through their attributes written of them.If ones behavior has similar attributes to said character this makes it more likely...though not certain...that a similar character projects from the individual. Humans can only be judged by their actions, though written intentions and beliefs carry some weight.

Yes. Critics would ask how I even knew what God wanted...and would point out to me that the idea of God that I have in my mind is a far cry from the real thing, however. Acknowledging all of this, I stand by my answer. Yes. God desires communion with everyone. Yes, I agree. And I don't buy into the idea that God can become known simply through a one minute prayer and confession. I believe that knowing God is a lifelong endeavor.

Not at all. I believe that God is Spirit and that this Spirit creates through humans...thus the spirit of creativity. Basically I believe that there are two spirits...two basic flows or vibes, if you will...that run through humanity. There is the Holy Spirit...in communion with God through relationship with Jesus Christ (Whom I believe lives today) and there is the other lineage of spirits which are idolatrous, self serving and troublesome at best. As to how I determine that this is the way it is...I cannot. I believe it and I observe evidence of it through the behavior of others, but I cannot show it nor capture it nor put it in a test tube. It is a belief. Just as I cannot prove that there is a Spirit of God(Holy Spirit or spirit of creativity) I cannot prove the same of satan nor can I prove that satan even exists. I will say that veteran police detective who have witnessed gruesome crime scenes or carnage and destruction of humanity often describe the presence of evil in an abstract sense or sensation. It is a figure of speech for humans who deliberately inflict harm upon others. Satan..if satan exists...cannot make anyone do anything. Once a person chooses that path, however, satan may be able to influence them at that point. Indigestion can cause a man agony, but rarely is the cause for any actions more drastic than hurling chunks or running to the bathroom. Wisdom will tell us, however, to have a salad next time. We cannot objectively know. We can subjectively believe and know in ourselves and for our own sanity and satisfaction...however objectively it is a belief and nothing more. If it were provable I would pocket that check from James Randi tomorrow. It may end when we die...it may not. We most certainly will either know or not know at that point, in my belief.

Peter Pan was a story written by a man who wrote from his own imagination. I believe that the Bible(s) were written by men who were not only writing from their own imaginations--though at times they may--but wrote as they were inspired from Holy Communion. In other words I believe--though cannot prove--that they were inspired by God.

First of all, as we discuss this subject it might be useful to come to a consensus regarding what Godly Inspiration and satanic inspiration would even be. This gets back to our Source versus Content discussion from SI Hayakawas book, Language In Thought & Action.Both Paul and J.M. Barre likely wrote under their own imagination, We cannot necessarily conclude anything except for the evidence of the writings themselves. Content and context.I believe that Paul also wrote under the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit but there is no real way I can objectively prove this.(Nor can anyone prove that the early church counsels which validated or repudiated scripture for selection into the Bible were themselves driven by their own vain imaginations,political goals, and cultural influence)In conclusion, I have no evidence apart from the content of the writings themselves---and even then there needs to be consensus on what Godly influence is and if it can be shown that it is distinct from human imagination.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

If by this do you mean do I think that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit in all of his writings than no, I do not.Lets examine each scripture in context and see if we can learn together. I believe that a church has a right to present certain teachings and that the rest of the pew sitters should be quiet during the message. If they disagree with the message, they can approach the Pastor later with their concerns and/or find another church.Lets examine what Paul said in context: Of course this was in the context of those times, when women were regarded as inferior to men. The Corinthians were also quite arrogant in general, and it is still true that nobody should interrupt a service and speak with no regard for the speaker or the theme of the service. It simply isn't polite.
Jesus returning during Paul's lifetime This is one example: Some argue that this scripture is symbolic and could happen anytime, though Paul evidently did expect Jesus to return a lot sooner than 2000 years. Paul had a thorn in the flesh as all of us do---a weakness to his character, and in my opinion he was arrogant. It would be as if you or I claimed that we spoke the rhema word from the Holy Spirit and thus were without error. In my opinion, however, much of scripture is inspired writing, and I believe that God inspires us.The unknown God Though some would say Paul was arrogant again, I believe that what he said to the men of Athens was inspired.Edited by Phat, : spelling

Quite honestly? None.Again, the reader can examine the writing in question and keep in mind the context. The customs of that time. For instance, if Paul made the comment in todays world about women being silent in church he would likely get called out on it by many people---none of whom would be silent--in or out of church.As I examine my own beliefs and conscience I am beginning to question the whole idea of scriptural inerrancy. It has been defended many times by many denominations yet it seems like a belief that prevents anyone from wanting to ask questions in order to clarify what their conscience may feel.You have brought up the idea of logic, reason, and reality a few times before (probably even in this thread) and have said that you believe that humans are charged to try and do what is right. Additionally you have stated that your basic belief is that humans were given the knowledge of the difference and distinction between good and evil and that it was this---rather than the doctrine of Original Sin--that made the most sense in any parable derived from the first chapters of Genesis.In another topic, I notice how the issue of conscience is being discussed and of how some people may regard personal conscience as a right while others(you perhaps included) regard personal conscience as not only an individual responsibility but as a personal responsibility.I bring all of this up only to say that as I continue in my own personal growth as a Christian that I am open to understanding what it is that other Christians believe and that this is how I determine what my likely choice of my own personal beliefs will be. Of course, I also spend time in prayer, reading, and meditation.Now about JM Barrie. Do you have any evidence from his writings that he was inspired by God?AbE: Lets just ask do you have any evidence that JM Barrie was inspired? Edited by Phat, : clarification

You bring up an interesting point. How do people know what the difference is between being inspired by the Holy Spirit and being simply inspired?My take on it has simply been similar to what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said about pornography."I know it when I see it." I can agree, however, that perhaps it would be better to discuss these matters by simply using the term "inspired" without having to insist that the issue is as black and white as being inspired by either God or satan. I believe that the criteria should include the intentions of the speaker, the context of where it was said and to whom it was being said, the time and culture within which it was being said, and the consensus of the class and/or readers whom are discussing the writing.

Sure. It only makes logical sense that a speakers intentions represent their motives and inspirations.You have said before that Paul played fast and loose with the truth.Some have accused modern Christianity as being largely "Paulianity"...whatever that means. I was taught that Paul was meant to become the "Apostle to the Gentiles"...and see no reason why he was not qualified to be so.Lets go this direction:What are the differences between what Paul preached and what Jesus preached? Is their harmony between the two?

OK. Context context context. I suppose we should determine what it is we want to say ourselves, in discussing this. We are both Christians yet we are in different clubs. We both love Jesus and, as far as I know, believe that He was raised from the Dead...though we have no way of proving this. Perhaps I am more a fan of Paul than you are.And about this "marketing". Could it not be said that Jesus, in wanting people to follow Him, was also starting a religion?