Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 557 of 675 (745151)
12-19-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by jar
12-19-2014 7:30 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
jar writes:
So you have no problem with a God who knowingly creates life just to then damn that critter to eternal torment.
What do expect God to do? Hold our hand our entire lives and never allow us to make mistakes?
My argument is based on several theological assumptions:
1) God is the Creator of all seen and unseen. Thus God is responsible for everything both good and evil that occurs within space and time. And yet I ask the question of what free will really means? If I give you free will am I responsible for your decisions simply due to the fact that I foreknew them? Even if it meant that you ended up damned by virtue of your decisions?
2) Satan and hell are real. While I agree that God is responsible for having allowed for evil to exist, I cant indict Him if I myself allow evil into my heart and life.
3) Despite being the Creator of all seen and unseen and being so unlike a human that a human likely will never understand Him, God has, in my belief, allowed a bridge...a mediator...a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions, loving God,and loving others.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by jar, posted 12-19-2014 7:30 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by jar, posted 12-19-2014 10:46 AM Phat has replied
 Message 568 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 1:56 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 558 of 675 (745154)
12-19-2014 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by Phat
12-19-2014 10:27 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Phat writes:
1) God is the Creator of all seen and unseen. Thus God is responsible for everything both good and evil that occurs within space and time. And yet I ask the question of what free will really means? If I give you free will am I responsible for your decisions simply due to the fact that I foreknew them? Even if it meant that you ended up damned by virtue of your decisions?
If God creates me knowing I will be damned then God is evil. My behavior is not the issue but rather God's behavior.
Phat writes:
2) Satan and hell are real. While I agree that God is responsible for having allowed for evil to exist, I cant indict Him if I myself allow evil into my heart and life.
Satan, if Satan exists, is just God's servant and does nothing that God does not command. You can most certainly indict God for creating you. If you foreknew my decisions and still created me then yes, you can and should be indicted, not for damning you but for creating you.
Phat writes:
3) Despite being the Creator of all seen and unseen and being so unlike a human that a human likely will never understand Him, God has, in my belief, allowed a bridge...a mediator...a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions, loving God,and loving others.
Again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic? If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have some similar capability or is God, like Adam and Eve before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge simply amoral?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Phat, posted 12-19-2014 10:27 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Phat, posted 12-19-2014 12:49 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 559 of 675 (745163)
12-19-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by jar
12-19-2014 10:46 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
jar writes:
Satan, if Satan exists, is just God's servant and does nothing that God does not command. You can most certainly indict God for creating you. If you foreknew my decisions and still created me then yes, you can and should be indicted, not for damning you but for creating you.
Let me reword that to reflect what you said in different syntax:
Did you say: Satan, if satan exists, is just Gods servant and does nothing that God does not command?
Did you then say(to me or to yourself or to any listener) that I (we) can most certainly indict God for creating me?
Did you then rhetorically ask God that if He foreknew your decisions yet still created you than yes, yes God can and should be indicted, not for damning you(which you did to yourself) but for creating you.(?)
Thus we find ourselves in what I call the Luciferian dilema and discourse. Ringo and I have played around with this one. Ringo goes so far as to suggest that satan was given a bad rap. After all, according to some hypothetical stuff that humans made up, Lucifer started a war in heaven. Got beat down and sent to earth. Showed up as a talking snake. Imagine for a moment that my theory is correct. That God created potential evil and that Lucifer chose to actualize this evil by claiming a will apart from Gods will. Lucifer could hypothetically still have a case against God for creating him also. Am I right?
Phat writes:
3) Despite being the Creator of all seen and unseen and being so unlike a human that a human likely will never understand Him, God has, in my belief, allowed a bridge...a mediator...a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions, loving God,and loving others.
jar writes:
Again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic? If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have some similar capability or is God, like Adam and Eve before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge simply amoral?
What do you mean when you say "if man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions...?" I said that God has a way. That way is Jesus Christ. Jesus is all God and all man. Jesus is thus a bridge between God and man.
jar,from an earlier discourse writes:
But Jesus is not some Masked Man. The power of the Jesus saga is that He is human.
A God cannot be tempted, Jesus was. And Jesus resisted. And the message is "humans can resist evil".
A God cannot be threated, Jesus was. And Jesus did not respond with more violence. And the message is "humans can try to find ways other than violence".
A God cannot die, Jesus did. And Jesus rose from the dead. And the message is "all humans will rise from the dead".
So my question is this: If Jesus was all God and all man why does this make Christianity out to be a farce, in your opinion? Are we not still responsible for what we do?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by jar, posted 12-19-2014 10:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by jar, posted 12-19-2014 1:21 PM Phat has replied
 Message 563 by ringo, posted 12-20-2014 11:16 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 560 of 675 (745164)
12-19-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Phat
12-19-2014 12:49 PM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Phat writes:
Did you say: Satan, if satan exists, is just Gods servant and does nothing that God does not command?
Did you then say(to me or to yourself or to any listener) that I (we) can most certainly indict God for creating me?
Did you then rhetorically ask God that if He foreknew your decisions yet still created you than yes, yes God can and should be indicted, not for damning you(which you did to yourself) but for creating you.(?)
Yes, that is what I said.
Phat writes:
Thus we find ourselves in what I call the Luciferian dilema and discourse. Ringo and I have played around with this one. Ringo goes so far as to suggest that satan was given a bad rap. After all, according to some hypothetical stuff that humans made up, Lucifer started a war in heaven. Got beat down and sent to earth. Showed up as a talking snake. Imagine for a moment that my theory is correct. That God created potential evil and that Lucifer chose to actualize this evil by claiming a will apart from Gods will. Lucifer could hypothetically still have a case against God for creating him also. Am I right?
Well, that just sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense you are making up.
Phat writes:
What do you mean when you say "if man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions...?" I said that God has a way. That way is Jesus Christ. Jesus is all God and all man. Jesus is thus a bridge between God and man.
Read what you write. Did you say "3) Despite being the Creator of all seen and unseen and being so unlike a human that a human likely will never understand Him, God has, in my belief, allowed a bridge...a mediator...a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions, loving God,and loving others." If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have a way to make moral decisions?
The rest of that sentence from you is just more dogma (That way is Jesus Christ. Jesus is all God and all man. Jesus is thus a bridge between God and man. ) with no meaning.
Phat writes:
So my question is this: If Jesus was all God and all man why does this make Christianity out to be a farce, in your opinion? Are we not still responsible for what we do?
The idea that humans will have a life after death is not in anyway supported by a God rising from the dead (which would just be a joke at best) and says nothing about humans.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Phat, posted 12-19-2014 12:49 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 1:49 AM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 561 of 675 (745218)
12-20-2014 7:28 AM


Philosophy with jar and random thoughts
Here it is 500 am. I got up...couldnt sleep...and here I am at EvC again!
I am thoroughly enjoying reading back through older posts of what others of you have written. I dont claim to have all the answers. I just enjoy debates.
(Hope that all of you have a blessed day, by the way.
jar writes:
How do you tell that the experience is a reflection of reality and not hallucination?
You have never told how to test that the experience of meeting God or being saved or being born again is real.
DWise1 shared this story on another thread:
DWise1 writes:
Some years ago, I stumbled upon a British atheist site that carried a wonderful story; I really wish I had saved that URL, but alas I had not. The story involved a village whose inhabitants were atheists by default, since they had never any contact at all with any religions, including Christianity. Into this village walks a Christian missionary. As he starts conversing with the first inhabitant he meets, he learns of the village's great ignorance, so he starts to tell that person about Christianity. The fellow is very interested to hear this great message and he calls over everybody nearby, who in turn call over others, so that the entire village is soon standing there eager to hear what this stranger has to say. Before this group, the missionary began to preach the Gospel. The village listened attentively and with great interest, but they had questions. In fact, everything the missionary said raised a question, so they had to interrupt him repeatedly with their questions. They were puzzled about the things that the missionary had long taken for granted and, when they asked for explanations, the missionary's answers just raised even more questions. Faced with having to provide answers about the most basic tenets of his faith, questions that he himself had never asked and hence could not answer, the missionary simply turned and left the town despite the cries and pleas from the villagers to remain and teach them. As I recall, the villagers finally simply shrugged their shoulders, forgot all that foolishness, and went about their lives happily and prosperously.
Of course, the author of that story had a lesson he was wanting to impart, which I believe was that an honest and direct examination of Christian doctrine would reveal its faults which believers cannot see because of their indoctrination and conditioning. The application I can see for it here is in how you and other "true Christians" have to be carefully trained and thoroughly indoctrinated in order to view everything as being consistent with your particular narrow theology, whereas someone without all that careful training and indoctrination, someone viewing these things through the eyes of someone seeing and hearing these things for the first time, would see something completely different.
The way to test the experience is to live it day by day. The missionary should have stayed in the village, patiently explaining things to people as he understood them. It is not so important to "win the village over". What is important is the communion. The love. The wisdom.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by jar, posted 12-20-2014 8:29 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 562 of 675 (745221)
12-20-2014 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Phat
12-20-2014 7:28 AM


Re: Philosophy with jar and random thoughts
Phat writes:
The way to test the experience is to live it day by day. The missionary should have stayed in the village, patiently explaining things to people as he understood them. It is not so important to "win the village over". What is important is the communion. The love. The wisdom.
But there are methods to test whether the Missionary is in communion with the natives but little or no evidence that missionaries have any wisdom to offer.
But what are the methods to test if someone is in Communion with God?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Phat, posted 12-20-2014 7:28 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(4)
Message 563 of 675 (745235)
12-20-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 559 by Phat
12-19-2014 12:49 PM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Phat writes:
Ringo goes so far as to suggest that satan was given a bad rap. After all, according to some hypothetical stuff that humans made up, Lucifer started a war in heaven. Got beat down and sent to earth. Showed up as a talking snake.
To be clear, the Satan in the Bible is like the Big Bad Wolf in those other fairy tales. The Big Bad Wolf who tried to eat Little Red Riding Hood was not the same Big Bad Wolf as the one who tried to eat the Three Pigs. After all, they both got killed.
Similarly, the Satan who tested Job was not necessarily the same Satan as the one who tempted Jesus. In another story, Satan's role was given to a snake (apparently it was the regular Satan's day of rest).
Satan is a plot device, not an entity. He represents the bad side of us. Interactions with him represent the conflicts within us. There was no historical "war in heaven". There is only a perpetual conflict within us between our good impulses and our bad impulses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Phat, posted 12-19-2014 12:49 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Phat, posted 12-21-2014 10:27 AM ringo has replied
 Message 566 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 1:42 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 564 of 675 (745275)
12-21-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by ringo
12-20-2014 11:16 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Ringo writes:
To be clear, the Satan in the Bible is like the Big Bad Wolf in those other fairy tales. The Big Bad Wolf who tried to eat Little Red Riding Hood was not the same Big Bad Wolf as the one who tried to eat the Three Pigs. After all, they both got killed.
Similarly, the Satan who tested Job was not necessarily the same Satan as the one who tempted Jesus. In another story, Satan's role was given to a snake (apparently it was the regular Satan's day of rest).
Satan is a plot device, not an entity. He represents the bad side of us. Interactions with him represent the conflicts within us. There was no historical "war in heaven". There is only a perpetual conflict within us between our good impulses and our bad impulses.
I disagree. (You probably also see God and Jesus as characters in the same good book). Writing was a difficult chore back in those times. People didn't simply write books as a profitable pastime. Metaphorically, the lives lived and the characters were actual people. People who wrote about what they actually experienced. Try losing a loved one or having a war wipe out your family. Then try writing about it or explaining it to others.
Once you explain Adolf Hitler, or Andrew Jackson, the massacre of innocents, satan becomes more than a plot device.
And as your heart is torn and the pain is all too real--as you kneel to pray, God is more than a character in a book also. And Jesus becomes far more than a simple get-out-of-hell free card, or a Monty Python skit, or a flashy charismatic con game.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by ringo, posted 12-20-2014 11:16 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by ringo, posted 12-22-2014 11:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 565 of 675 (745379)
12-22-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Phat
12-21-2014 10:27 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Phat writes:
Metaphorically, the lives lived and the characters were actual people.
Metaphorically, yes. Historically, no.
Phat writes:
Once you explain Adolf Hitler, or Andrew Jackson, the massacre of innocents, satan becomes more than a plot device.
Using Satan as an explanation for Hitler is just hypocritical. Hitler was an example of what our own evil side can accomplish. Hitler's minions were ordinary people just like you and me. If you want to learn anything from history, the first thing you have to do is throw away excuses like Satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Phat, posted 12-21-2014 10:27 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 566 of 675 (759230)
06-10-2015 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by ringo
12-20-2014 11:16 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar(& Ringo)
The problem that arises...as I see it...is that you critics wish to construct a scenario whereby you perpetually have the right and ability to deny gods (potential) omnipotence or all knowings.Jar claims that a God who foreknows that a person will decide to choose evil is by definition evil Itself...Which makes no sense...unless jar insists upon the right as a created Being to decide on a course of action that God neither knows nor controls. In my mind this type of thinking is similar to how a fallen Lucifer may have reasoned. (YOU created me, God...therefore my outcome is YOUR responsibility!)
There may well no longer (if ever) have been a war in heaven..but the real battle is in our minds...whether we will submit to a higher power or whether we ourselves insist on the responsibility and consequence of being our own power.
ABE: Alternatively, Lucifer may say that "YOU created me, GOD...but my outcome is MY responsibility"...in which case Lucifer would be insisting upon the right of total autonomy from GOD...which is how some atheists prefer to think.(Thus eliminating GOD as a rational variable in the lifelong decision process)
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
Edited by Phat, : additional thoughts

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by ringo, posted 12-20-2014 11:16 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by ringo, posted 06-10-2015 3:37 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 567 of 675 (759231)
06-10-2015 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by jar
12-19-2014 1:21 PM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
jar writes:
If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have a way to make moral decisions?
Here you go again...making the humanity of Jesus the main issue. You also insist that we remain fully responsible for our actions and thus able to judge God (as plot device) for His actions. You bypass the entire belief or ideology of Jesus as God in the flesh...propitiation for our sins.
jar writes:
The idea that humans will have a life after death is not in anyway supported by a God rising from the dead (which would just be a joke at best) and says nothing about humans.
Thus you ascribe to the belief that we are capable of renouncing and correcting all of our sins. If this were true, there would be no need for Gods Son to be raised from the dead. By the way...why is it a joke for Jesus to have risen (or been raised) from the dead?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by jar, posted 12-19-2014 1:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by jar, posted 06-10-2015 8:39 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 568 of 675 (759232)
06-10-2015 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by Phat
12-19-2014 10:27 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
jar writes:
So you have no problem with a God who knowingly creates life just to then damn that critter to eternal torment.
All that God has done is allow the possibility of damnation as a free choice. Whether or not He foreknows what you eventually decide is irrelevant, provided that you knew beforehand the consequences of your choices. You seem to prefer a universe where you not only have the responsibility of all of your decisions, but veto power over the consequences also. You want to play God in your own mind, it seems.
Theoretically, I suppose you could argue your case against God, correcting Her as necessary. In which case you would have the ability to essentially manifest your own destiny. Lucifer may well have thought similar.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Phat, posted 12-19-2014 10:27 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 569 of 675 (759251)
06-10-2015 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by Phat
06-10-2015 1:49 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
Phat writes:
All that God has done is allow the possibility of damnation as a free choice. Whether or not He foreknows what you eventually decide is irrelevant, provided that you knew beforehand the consequences of your choices.
Let's deal with this utter nonsense first and then move on to the rest of the Cult of Ignorance bullshit conjob.
A God that creates a living being with foreknowledge that the thing created will be damned has to be the most vile thing ever in existence and should, no must, be condemned, castigated, reviled, opposed, hated, despised and vilified as something of contempt.
I can not imagine any possible way to justify such a thing and anyone that worships just a thing should be pitied, distrusted and avoided.
Phat writes:
You seem to prefer a universe where you not only have the responsibility of all of your decisions, but veto power over the consequences also. You want to play God in your own mind, it seems.
More bullshit and utter dishonest misrepresentation. I imagine though you say such things as a way to live with yourself and if it makes you feel better then go for it.
Phat writes:
Here you go again...making the humanity of Jesus the main issue. You also insist that we remain fully responsible for our actions and thus able to judge God (as plot device) for His actions. You bypass the entire belief or ideology of Jesus as God in the flesh...propitiation for our sins.
No, I reject and disparage that concept as cheapening Jesus and Jesus' message but it is the Bible that says we have the same capability as God to determine right from wrong and that we should judge God's actions.
Phat writes:
Thus you ascribe to the belief that we are capable of renouncing and correcting all of our sins. If this were true, there would be no need for Gods Son to be raised from the dead. By the way...why is it a joke for Jesus to have risen (or been raised) from the dead?
More misrepresentation from you Phat.
No where have I ever said or implied that we are capable of renouncing and correcting all of our sins and in fact on numerous occasions I have said that we are fully responsible for our sins and that only we are responsible for our sins.
What I have said is that our sins have not been paid for and that we will be judged and we will not know if any of those sins will be forgiven until after we have died and been judged.
If Jesus was God in the flesh when living among us it tells us nothing about whether or not humans will rise from the dead or experience an afterlife. And a God rising from the dead is no big deal.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 1:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 12:45 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 570 of 675 (759278)
06-10-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by jar
06-10-2015 8:39 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar
jar writes:
...it is the Bible that says we have the same capability as God to determine right from wrong and that we should judge God's actions.
You alone...among the many chapters of club christian...emphasize this message. Does it not seem obvious that judging the Creator of all seen and unseen is rather ludicrous? The only purpose it would serve is as a lesson using a god-as plot device-in a story.
Of course you dismiss Paul the Apostle and no doubt explain away many of the writings of the New Testament. One of the scriptures oft quoted by the majority of Club Christian is...
Rom 3:10-12 writes:
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
Since you have convinced yourself that much of this is remarketing , I doubt it will impact you very much. Also, since you are convinced that all of these books are/were written through human eyes and with human motives, it is nearly impossible to convince you that God used Pauls writings to speak to humanity as much as any red lettered authors did.(if any of the writings could even be said to emphasize the creator of all seen and unseen speaking through humanity to humanity.)
I don't fancy representing the "willfully ignorant." I believe that humans are responsible for their actions. I also believe, however, that God is telling us to trust Him to help us achieve what we humans could never do alone.
No where have I ever said or implied that we are capable of renouncing and correcting all of our sins and in fact on numerous occasions I have said that we are fully responsible for our sins and that only we are responsible for our sins.
So lets take a hypothetical situation. Jesus--fully alive today--offers to help shoulder the responsibility for jars sins. Is jar going to accept the offer or wave Him off and prefer doing it all alone?
This is the real issue. Granted there is no way to test whether such calls and exhortations actually come from GOD. Granted Jesus teaches us much from His own life example. (Though He was addressing Jews.) And critics of the mainline Club Christian will dutifully trot out Matthew 25 again...the lone scripture that "proves" that Jesus addressed all of humanity and showed us we will be judged by our actions)
It seems to me that some of us prefer accepting full responsibility and others of us wont handle it. Those who wont handle it claim justification that they can't handle it and that GOD has granted us a pardon.
Those who reject this idea seem--in my mind---to reject any help from GOD even if it were proven to be offered.
If Jesus was God in the flesh when living among us it tells us nothing about whether or not humans will rise from the dead or experience an afterlife. And a God rising from the dead is no big deal.
A man who was raised from the dead by the Creator of all seen and unseen is noteworthy, however.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by jar, posted 06-10-2015 8:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by jar, posted 06-10-2015 3:44 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 571 of 675 (759301)
06-10-2015 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by Phat
06-10-2015 1:42 AM


Re: Random Philosophy With Jar(& Ringo)
Phat writes:
... you critics wish to construct a scenario whereby you perpetually have the right and ability to deny gods (potential) omnipotence or all knowings.
It's neither a right nor an ability; it's a responsibility.
Phat writes:
... the real battle is in our minds...whether we will submit to a higher power or whether we ourselves insist on the responsibility and consequence of being our own power.
Again, it has nothing to do with "submitting to a higher power". Whether there is a higher power or not, whether there is a tempter or not, we are responsible for our own actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 1:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024