A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

Yes where *is* jar, anyway? I hope he is healthy.Personally, I, like GDR, believe that the resurrection literally happened, but for the sake of facilitating a bridge between evidence-based information and belief, I offer up the metaphor. The flood could be said to definitely be the same way, as evidence in no way suggests a global flood. The metaphor is more clear in that circumstance, but the resurrection could serve as an example of how one man (sent by God, incorporating Holy genetics-- ie sinless blood) showed how atonement could become a once and for all action based on 100% faith and trust.The metaphor still does not prove anything apart from the fact that now that the way has been shown, humans are capable of doing it also.Most Orthodox and conservative Christianity would chastise me for making the action metaphorical, but I am doing so for the sake of argument with a stubborn contrarian, our own Mr. ringo. His whole argument is that humans have to do it because God clearly won't. (Either through absence or indifference) and he supports his argument that today's Christians ignore the message of Matthew 25(Doing it yourself) by citing the behavior of the majority of Christians he sees. He could be right.Granted I would have problems giving everything up and having 100% trust. I maintain that nobody does so. In addition, it bothers me that I am expected to go be a martyr for the sake of the poor. ringo cites the early church as having done so...according to the book. His conclusion is that if we become a martyr for somebody else, someone will become a martyr for us someday. (From each according to his ability to each according to their need.) I argue that humans are incapable of being Christlike on our own due to original sin and selfish natures. Thus the resurrection made possible a way, but I myself am unable to follow the example.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Since when has any belief hinged soley on evidence? Your error is insisting that it must be so. Christianity will likely outlast your money in the bank...propped up by mere faith.

I argue that even if you found solid evidence that the resurrection was real, you would still have issues with the God of the Bible and would fight tooth and nail to preserve your intellectual independence. Am I wrong?

Ive heard that same point rxpressed by many Christians. Its even scriptural. My argument is based on ringos argument that the message itself is valid....im simply explaining how a metaphorical resurrection would still have value.

He did it for us. Not that we now get a free pass but so that we are now able to do it...He had to do it first.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So why did it not disappear again?

If it really is a superstition, I will still cling to it until I die. Deep down, I honestly think it is true...but I also acknowledge that many counter-arguments are far more likely and reasonable. The whole story is incredible if true. And as far as what's true and what's not, I believe in Jesus Christ that He lives today. Critics may point out that this means nothing to them...what have I done for them lately? They have a point. I appreciate your input, Mr.Tangle. We aren't done arguing quite yet.

I did learn about that in school, rather than in church. The Popes and Kings took turns groveling to one another.I actually read a good piece related to that earlier today...lemme find it.
Ten Most Popular Posts At Strange Notions

quote:

---

I’m a Muslim But Here’s Why I Admire
the Catholic Church by Tamer Nashef~~
"I feel utmost respect for the work of Catholic monks and monasteries
in the Middle Ages. Their intellectual activities are one of the brightest
chapters in the history of the Catholic Church. The monasteries
played a positive role as centers of teaching, learning, and
scholarship and they can be aptly described as "proto-universities"
(Trombley 58). These monasteries taught grammar, logic, rhetoric,
and later mathematics, music, and astronomy, and they were "among
the most important libraries in the history of Western thought
because they copied, transcribed, and stored valuable texts (58).
While the Catholic Church is persistently accused of destroying
classical or Greco-Roman culture, the fact is that the monasteries
should be credited for "the careful preservation of the works of the
classical world and of the Church Fathers, both of which are central
to Western civilization" ...

---

The rest of the link is an informative opinion by a secular Muslim.Thus it appears that the reason that Christianity persisted as a belief and was adopted by so many should not imply that belief clashed with secular wisdom and learning. Indeed belief allowed the monks to also learn other things besides the scriptures. Comments?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Note my last post. Of course, you will argue that there is no reason to invoke "God" once the limits of naturalistic explanations have been reached...but it is you who insists that God by definition is limited to a character in a book. My belief tells me otherwise. Again, you will correct me and tell me that my imagination tells me otherwise. You will then comment "how can it be any other way?" At that point, I can't help you. Hopefully, we will debate these things eternally rather than simply dying and dissolving into dust...ceasing to exist. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

At church, with the evangelical Dispensationalists, we (I) was taught that the Bible was to be taken literally. Period. ( Like member Faith believes.) This resonated oddly with my limited scientific logic, reason, and reality that I learned here at EvC so I began to have some extreme episodes of cognitive dissonance. Unlike Faith, who has plugged her eyes and ears and waved all of that aside to preserve her belief, I reluctantly embraced it...though not so much that I stopped believing.It is still going on, and you can see it reflected in my arguments. (A recent one was suggesting a metaphorical, rather than literal resurrection) Of course, we were taught that the Resurrection was the core anchor of our belief and that rejecting that was rejecting the very power and reality of God. So to clarify: At this point in time I have not rejected the Resurrection. I DO acknowledge that it is faith-driven and outside of the realms of naturalistic explanations.

Perhaps. All I know is that I often pray when a problem seems more than my intellectual and physical capacities can handle. Prayer seems to free my mind of the burden and weight upon my shoulders. Critics may say that using God this way is a "cop-out" and that (as jar used to say) we need to do it ourselves. I won't disagree...but it is my habit to *do it* in Communion with Gods innate wisdom through prayer. (at this point my critics are again rolling their eyes!) And I would say that "No, He is in my heart (and imagination). " There. I said it. I used to be afraid that declaring God to be in my imagination proved that He was limited to such a domain. Lately, however, I have concluded that His wisdom and inner presence is a Holy Communion *within* my mind rather than a simple childish story and fantasy *of* my mind. Without Jesus, we would simply have an unknowable, undefinable, and made-up "God" within our mind. Irrelevant whether One actually existed or not. Because of Jesus, God became personal. Knowable. Approachable...at least to Western Christians. Islam still regards Allah as autocratic, definite, and distant. Allah is limited to the book. Jehovah would also be limited to the book without Jesus. Of course, critics will continue to insist that He does not exist, is at best historical, and has been mythicised by the later embellishing authors. Which is why we here continue to argue.

the justification in our minds is because we are believers. We feel that we "met" God. I know it sounds ridiculous, but its why I do what I do. There would be no reason to defend anything was that belief not entrenched.

Of course! That's the essence of free will.You may argue that i'm simply making stuff up...which is a hard one to challenge. Im working on it though!

I think I learn far more when people disagree with me.

I would argue that the mythicists also have an agenda. Having an agenda in and of itself is not a disqualifier. I have an agenda here at EvC, which is to sharpen and defend my arguments, reformulate and reconsider at times, and hopefully, listen to others at times.Dr.Carrier has an agenda. Sam Harris has an agenda. Richard Dawkins has an agenda.