It's kind of like my 1e fanboism. Nostalgia has a way of ironing out the wrinkles...
Exactly.
|
You mean like slavery, for example?
I'll give you slavery, but it did end in the United States before the turn of that century...
Or murder rates in the late 1800's that make modern-day South Central look like Disneyland?
A fairly good portion of those numbers come from the fact that a lot of the "undesirables" moved west, were the law only extended as far as your gun...
Have you looked at the "Roaring '20's" and seen the excesses there that make today seem Puritanical in comparison?
The 1920's had prohibition...
Drinking was illegal, which made it all the more fun (meaning that I don't think it would have been as bad as it was, had alcohol been legal)...
And actors, well, they have not really changed all that much...
|
Isn't there a famous passage in one of Paul's letters, where he requires love of a follower, more than any other quality (faith included)?
You're thinking of 1 Corinthians 13:13. There remains (after the cessation of miracles) faith, hope and love but the greatest of these is love.
This does not denigrate faith - without faith salvation is impossible but emphasizes the necessity of love (which he defines in verses 4-8). That is to say, Paul is not saying Love is good enough that you don't need faith, he is saying that considering how important faith is, we should realize the tremendous importance of love.
A mini sermon on this: Faith is vitally important for it is what brings a man to God. Hope is likewise important for it is what keeps a man close to God. But Love is greater than either of these for it is in Love that the believer most becomes like God.
|
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.Because, sometimes when all else has failed, you just have to believe...Did you just steal that from a movie poster? :D
In all seriousness, he said it in reference to the everyday. If you can think for yourself, what need do you have for someone else's interpretations of the "divine word"?
Such as in...
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
I don't think that this is true at all. We had a civl war essentially over slavery, Jim Crow laws, we've politically manipulated other countries through acts of incredible aggression (such as the great white fleet). If anything, I think it was less moral before the 1960's.
Conflict is a bad thing, but if lies get in the way of truth or peace, then truth MUST be preserved...But what is Truth to Martin Luther other than blind faith?
EDIT: Took out something I realized sounded antagonistic when I reread this post and didn't mean it to be. Sorry, Mr. DigitalizedAelfkin
|
|
You mean like slavery, for example?
I'll give you slavery, but it did end in the United States before the turn of that century...
Or murder rates in the late 1800's that make modern-day South Central look like Disneyland?
A fairly good portion of those numbers come from the fact that a lot of the "undesirables" moved west, were the law only extended as far as your gun...
Have you looked at the "Roaring '20's" and seen the excesses there that make today seem Puritanical in comparison?
The 1920's had prohibition...
Drinking was illegal, which made it all the more fun (meaning that I don't think it would have been as bad as it was, had alcohol been legal)...
And actors, well, they have not really changed all that much...
And actors, well, they have not really changed all that much...
Nor has anyone else, which is sort of my point. Saying "Back in 1776, everyone in America was a devout Christian and so there was no immorality and no crime" makes a nice bedtime story, but it's not the truth. Crime rates among Christian Americans are no lower than among non-Christians. A number of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. "In God we trust" didn't begin to appear on currency until after the Civil War, and "One nation under God" didn't get inserted into the Pledge until the 1950's.
|
|
I don't think that this is true at all. We had a civl war essentially over slavery, Jim Crow laws, we've politically manipulated other countries through acts of incredible aggression (such as the great white fleet). If anything, I think it was less moral before the 1960's.
I never said perfect...
The Jim Crow Laws were an abomination...
But taking our naval fleet and circumnavigating the globe was evil? So we flexed our military muscle!?
I'm sure one can point out each and every flaw America has, but I think talking God out of America has weakened us...
But, but, separation of church and state! Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sounds to me, it's talking about not creating a unified mandatory religion like the King of England did...
EDIT: Took out something I realized sounded antagonistic when I reread this post and didn't mean it to be. Sorry, Mr. DigitalizedAelfkin
No problem...
Think I saw what it was you took out, and I did not think it antagonistic...
But thank you :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
How would you react to someone who wrote a book "How to talk to A Conservative (if you have to)" that perpetuated every stereotype known to man about your position (and then rinse and repeated it for the rest of their career)? For a similar effect, read Moore's ridiculous "Stupid White Men" (which I sadly have). They belong in the same category. Just because you agree with Coulter doesn't mean she's any better than Moore.
To me, this biggest divider is honesty. I don't agree with everything Coulter says (in terms of her approach), but when she tries to make a point, she has a fact and a joke. Moore has a lie, or a stretched "truth" and a joke. Coulter hasn't stood in front of a crowd and shouted indignantly during someone else's air time, for the sake of her own publicity.
I know people might not always agree with her approach, and I have heard amny instances where she's taken completely out of context in order to make her look worse than she is ("Christians are perfected Jews." As if Coulter's writing don't indicate clearly she is supportive of Israel and Jews.)
Now, I will admit I didn't buy How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). While from her other books, I imagine there's an explanation for the title, and it's as likely a reference to dialogue with those far-left hateful types (talking to any of you is a far cry more desirable than talking to Garofalo, I imagine) and not liberals in general. After all, I have great friends who are perfectly reasonable, conversational liberals, and Coulter does, too. Also, the advent of her books with off-putting titles comes after a long string of insulting titles from liberals (beginning with Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and I have long thought that a lot of the agression behind her rhetoric comes after the bar is lowered by her counterparts. I concede that the title is off-putting, though. I didn't buy it.
As for rinsing and repeating for the rest of her career, I haven't read that book, but the five books I do have aren't very stereotypical at all. They are researched and on point, and use very specific illustrations of her assettions. Arlen Specter maybe should have read Slander before he switched parties so he'd know what to expect. But then Specter deserves whatever he gets. As long as it's bad.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I think that the question has a two part answer.Firstly, i do not believe that every person who has lived, since the days of Christ, has heard the gospel. That's not quite what I am saying. To explain the second, longer, part of my answer requires a bit of prefacing...
The scriptures clearly teach that the majority of people will be lost, lacking the qualities that lead them to accept salvation. I find this depressing but true. God is looking for certain qualities in a man and I believe that part of the reasons why He did the things He did in the way that He did was to draw out these qualities and save those people who exhibit them. Several sections of scripture detail the qualities God desires and blesses. The beattitudes in Matthew are probable one of the best examples of these passages.
I also believe that God knows the hearts of men and knows beforehand who will believe and who will not. I trust in the promises of God and one of those promises is that the man who seeks will find.
Taking these things together I arrive at my conclusion. If in a culture or a time, there is a man who wants to be right with God and earnestly seeks such a thing, the doors will be opened to Him. For all I know, the pilgrims arrived when they did and the conquistadors when they did because God knew that there would be believers at those times and places.
I go back then to my original answer. I trust God to do the right thing. I may not and do not always understand why things happened the way they did but I know who I believe in and I trust Him to care for me and for all those who earnestly seek His will.
But if God does not reveal his Gospel to people because he knows they won't believe it, doesn't that basically take away their Free Will? They're being denied the chance to make a decision because God knows which one they'll make anyway.
I would ask why God created us in the first place knowing the vast majority of us would suffer horribly for all eternity?
But, but, separation of church and state! Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution!
Reading of the letters of James "Father of the Constitution" Madison is useful in this case. And Thomas Jefferson's letters as well. Their intent to create just that is crystal clear.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
The problem is that this can come across as 'God only saves the few elite whom he wants to save, and Jesus certainly didn't die for the sins of everyone but only for the sins of those whom God wanted to save'.
I want to believe that God, when I pray '...But you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy...' in the words of the ASB, isn't just mercful to those few who happen...We have been debating this Reform (Calvinist) view vs Arminian view of election in my men's group for a while now. I have to say, I think the most scriptural view is somewhere in the middle. How often do you hear me say that? : }
The Reform criticism of choice is that it somehow elevates Man to the same status as God. God offers,then we have equal say. I don't get that. The Arminian view doesn't defend the position that Man's choice makes him equal. I wouldn't say believing everyone has a choice undermines the concepts of God's sovereignty. After all, He still set the plan in motion. He still demands righteousness and hates sin.
Scripturally, though, I think a choice is implied. Joshua says "Choose today who you will serve." The New Testament says that "God is not slack concerning His promise, but willing that all come to repentance." It also says "God is no respecter of persons." John 3:16 says "...whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." FInally, John (the half-brother of Jesus, not the apostle), wrote "I write these things to you so that you can know you have eternal life." That security doesn't seem possible if only an elect are saved, and others who try to believe might be left out in the cold.
Five-point Calvinists might say that we can't believe apart from being chosen by God, but I see that as using the scripture to fit the view. The Bible doesn't anywhere say God prechooses a few to be saved and the rest are all screwed. I think without more definition, terms like 'elect' mean those who accept God's plan of salvation. In other words, Naaman would not have been elected had he not followed Elisha's instruction. Naaman had to choose God's plan, and anyone who does choose God's plan are among the elect.
If I send out a credit card offer, I have elected everyone I contact to get my card. But only those who accept the offer get a card. Those are my elect.
My associate pastor challenged me to find an example of where God calls someone and they refuse, claiming that the elect are saved by God's call, which they are compelled to accept. I haven't had time to dig much deeper, but I can think of the ruch guy who Jesus called to sell evewrything he had and follow him that day. Does anyone know of any others? And does that example pass muster?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
But if God does not reveal his Gospel to people because he knows they won't believe it, doesn't that basically take away their Free Will? They're being denied the chance to make a decision because God knows which one they'll make anyway.
I would ask why God created us in the first place knowing the vast majority of us would suffer horribly for all eternity?
I am not totally sold on this predestination idea, but I know their response (which is sound) would be that God is sovereign, and we all deserve condemnation. If God, who made the world, wanted to scrap it and start over, or send those of us (read: everyone) who declared independence from God just like Lucifer did straight to the Abyss and focus on something else, he'd be entitled to.
Therefore, no salvation is fair. It cost God His dignity and His Son. It's going to be unfair to someone if anyone is saved. But then God chooses to elect some people to be saved. If I am not elected, I still have no case. It isn't like I deserved to be chosen, either. THerefore, anyone saved is saved by God's grace, and no one has a case against Him.
Again, I believe there is choice and will in the matter, though I don't deny it is a matter of Grace and I don't feel my position challenges God as sole creator and authority. I just wanted to (poorly) articulate the Reform response.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Is it a civil discussion if you respond with this level of snark?You feel insulted and for that, I apologize. Thank you for your responses.
That was all-class, and thank you.
I don't have a problem with you personally, I think you're witty and I get you have an intellect you need to satisfy. I wish I could articulate that we are not sovereign, and therefore what seems right to us might not be the final argument. Against me, you have a case - I am not better than you, and certainly I am not, in my own power, holier or wiser than anyone else. But against God, what can we demand? Who can restrain Pleaides or hold back the rains?
Therefore, reconciliation with God comes on His terms, and must cost us something. FOrtunately, He is faithful to forgive us for all unrighteousness if we confess Him with our mouth and are saved.
Anyway, I hope this dialogue doesn't constrain us from having a good game together some time. I'd like that.
|
|
Steven, try the rich young ruler with your associate pastor. The scriptures say that Jesus loved him, offered him a chance to become a disciple and the young man went away sadly.
Its funny how many of these discussion end up coming back to the discussion of free will.
Personally I think free will is the reason why God wants to save all men but does not. We must make the choice to be saved. But even before we make that choice there are certain characteristics necessary for a man to be the sort willing to be saved. In the same passage in which Jesus claimed that many would be lost and few saved, he urged men to choose the narrow difficult path that led to salvation.
If I send out a credit card offer, I have elected everyone I contact to get my card. But only those who accept the offer get a card. Those are my elect.
Steven, this is a wonderfully clear analogy! I love it. The only issue comes into cases in which people weren't sent the offer, or where it got lost in the mail. In those cases, everyone seems to have a different view as to whether you can apply for a card if you didn't get an offer.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I am not totally sold on this predestination idea, but I know their response (which is sound) would be that God is sovereign, and we all deserve condemnation. If God, who made the world, wanted to scrap it and start over, or send those of us (read: everyone) who declared independence from God just like Lucifer did straight to the Abyss and focus on something else, he'd be entitled to.Therefore, no salvation is fair. It cost God His dignity and His Son. It's going to be unfair to someone if anyone is saved. But then God chooses to elect some people to be saved. If I am not elected, I still have no case. It isn't like I deserved to be chosen, either. THerefore, anyone saved is saved by God's grace, and no one has a case against Him.
Again, I believe there is choice and will in the matter, though I don't deny it is a matter of Grace and I don't feel my position challenges God as sole creator and authority. I just wanted to (poorly) articulate the Reform response.
If we all deserve Condemnation, why did God create us that way? Or at least create us knowing we'd end up that way? If no salvation is fair, how does that jive with God being Just?
|
|
If we all deserve Condemnation, why did God create us that way? Or at least create us knowing we'd end up that way? If no salvation is fair, how does that jive with God being Just?
This is a major problem with Calvinism, in my opinion.
But I believe the bible teaches us that God did not create us as sinners nor do we inherit sin. We each choose to be that way. I think this is why the writer of Hebrews so strongly stresses the fact that Jesus was made like us in every way. He is an example of the justice of God's condemnation. His righteousness demonstrates the possibility of moral perfection.
Yet God's grace is shown in a willingness to forgive us our imperfect choices if we trust him, admit our mistakes and attempt to move on in obedience, utilyzing the sacrifice of His son for our atonement. God is not being that demanding. He even offers to continue to forgive us if we just confess our trespasses to him (1 John 9) as we continue to try and live as he tells us to.
Now assume that this is the case, how many take advantage of these rather easy terms. It has been my experience that most people don't want an easy salvation, they want a salvation without strings of any sort. Or they reject outright the need for salvation.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
This is a major problem with Calvinism, in my opinion.But I believe the bible teaches us that God did not create us as sinners nor do we inherit sin. We each choose to be that way. I think this is why the writer of Hebrews so strongly stresses the fact that Jesus was made like us in every way. He is an example of the justice of God's condemnation. His righteousness demonstrates the possibility of moral perfection.
Yet God's grace is shown in a willingness to forgive us our imperfect choices if we trust him, admit our mistakes and attempt to move on in obedience, utilyzing the sacrifice of His son for our atonement. God is not being that demanding. He even offers to continue to forgive us if we just confess our trespasses to him (1 John 9) as we continue to try and live as he tells us to.
Now assume that this is the case, how many take advantage of these rather easy terms. It has been my experience that most people don't want an easy salvation, they want a salvation without strings of any sort. Or they reject outright the need for salvation.
Is it possible for us to live a life without sin through any other way but God?
|
|
Is it possible for us to live a life without sin through any other way but God?
Jesus said concerning childred that of such are the kingdom of heaven. I understand this to mean that children, in their innocence, are acceptable to God, though they may have no concept of God. I tend to think this applies to anyone who fails to mature past a certain point because of mental issues.
However, the question becomes different as one gets older and loses that mental innocence because a basic principle of christian (and mosiacal) morality is that we have a duty to honor God. He who knows to do good (in this case, give honor to God) but does not do it, sins (James 4:17).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Is it possible for us to live a life without sin through any other way but God?Jesus said concerning childred that of such are the kingdom of heaven. I understand this to mean that children, in their innocence, are acceptable to God, though they may have no concept of God. I tend to think this applies to anyone who fails to mature past a certain point because of mental issues.
However, the question becomes different as one gets older and loses that mental innocence because a basic principle of christian (and mosiacal) morality is that we have a duty to honor God. He who knows to do good (in this case, give honor to God) but does not do it, sins (James 4:17).
Would the people who haven't heard about God then fall under that as well, being that they don't know to honor God?
|
|
Would the people who haven't heard about God then fall under that as well, being that they don't know to honor God?
Is it possible for us to live a life without sin through any other way but God?Jesus said concerning childred that of such are the kingdom of heaven. I understand this to mean that children, in their innocence, are acceptable to God, though they may have no concept of God. I tend to think this applies to anyone who fails to mature past a certain point because of mental issues.
However, the question becomes different as one gets older and loses that mental innocence because a basic principle of christian (and mosiacal) morality is that we have a duty to honor God. He who knows to do good (in this case, give honor to God) but does not do it, sins (James 4:17).
The scriptures say not.
"taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess 1:8)
"having no hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:12)
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent," (Acts 17:30)
I don't claim to have all the answers concerning why God does things the way he does. But again, I trust Him to do what is right. Paul makes the case in Romans 1 that a basic understanding of God is available to all men and that the wrath of God is manifested because many men reject even this basic understanding.
Again, logically, if men in ignorance were saved, then the kindest thing to do would be never teach anyone about God. But Christ sends his followers into the world to make sure that the gospel is preached. In the old testament God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)" This is why evangelical christians feel so keenly the need to send out missionaries. Paul echoed the sentiment perfectly when he said to the Ephesian elders, "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:26-27)
|
|
Thank you for the thoughtful response to my post to Wicht.
You're welcome but that was Steven you were quoting. ^_^
Edit: I did answer your question myself sort-of but I did so responding to another post.
PPS. I agree, the wedding feast is another good example of called and not saved.
If one was going to accept examples from the Old Testament there is also King Saul, chosen and annointed by God, but rebellious at the end. King Solomon, given wisdom by God, but committed apostasy towards the end of his life.
Psychiatric delusions have three characteristics
* Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
Let's see, scientist believe absolutely in the Big Bang Theory...
* Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
Scientists will not change their view on this despite the evidence pointing to this so called "fact", that it is in reality, just a theory...
* Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
The Big Bang Theory is inherently impossible to disprove. Convenient, that...
As far as I can see, belief in the Big Bang Theory is the poster boy for delusion...
You obviously don't even know what the word "theory" means, nor do you know anything about he scientific method. Anything untestable cannot even be called a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Any scientist worthy of the name would *love* to disprove the big bang theory. Aside from the fact that it would mean instant, fantastic success for whomever did it, any advancement of the truth is a victory for all. Knowledge is the whole point of science, truth the only agenda.
This, boys and girls, is why "Rocks for Jocks" is such a bad idea...
This thread has convinced me that any discussion of such a controversial topic is useless if it is more concerned with playing nice than it is with facing hard truths. I don't advocate cruelty or rudeness, but if we treat everyone's view as sancrosect, we are doomed to forever go in circles.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Would the people who haven't heard about God then fall under that as well, being that they don't know to honor God?
Is it possible for us to live a life without sin through any other way but God?Jesus said concerning childred that of such are the kingdom of heaven. I understand this to mean that children, in their innocence, are acceptable to God, though they may have no concept of God. I tend to think this applies to anyone who fails to mature past a certain point because of mental issues.
However, the question becomes different as one gets older and loses that mental innocence because a basic principle of christian (and mosiacal) morality is that we have a duty to honor God. He who knows to do good (in this case, give honor to God) but does not do it, sins (James 4:17).
The scriptures say not.
"taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess 1:8)
"having no hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:12)
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent," (Acts 17:30)
I don't claim to have all the answers concerning why God does things the way he does. But again, I trust Him to do what is right. Paul makes the case in Romans 1 that a basic understanding of God is available to all men and that the wrath of God is manifested because many men reject even this basic understanding.
Again, logically, if men in ignorance were saved, then the kindest thing to do would be never teach anyone about God. But Christ sends his followers into the world to make sure that the gospel is preached. In the old testament God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)" This is why evangelical christians feel so keenly the need to send out missionaries. Paul echoed the sentiment perfectly when he said to...
I just can't see the rationale for treating one group of people with no concept of God (children) one way, and another group (those who haven't received word of Him) another.
I guess it comes down to trusting that God has done enough to give everyone a fair shot at redemption, which sort of requires believing in God in the first place, so it doesn't help me much.
Thank you for sharing your views on the matter though, it has been interesting to see how you've thought this through.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Again, logically, if men in ignorance were saved, then the kindest thing to do would be never teach anyone about God. But Christ sends his followers into the world to make sure that the gospel is preached. In the old testament God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)" This is why evangelical christians feel so keenly the need to send out missionaries.
A few of us discussed this issue of what happens to those who have never heard many pages back. A summary of thoughts:
The most pertinent question for each of us is what to do once we know. I don't have to know the tax code for everyone, I have to know what I am responsible for. Not knowing or not agreeing with the tax code does not exempt me from paying my taxes. Admittedly, this is only an illustration, as our tax code is a giant mess and easily shown to not be fair to anyone.
But if, instead of 200,000 pages of 'salvation code', there were three or four, and one of them clearly assessed me, then that's the page I am responsible for.
If we believe God wants all sinners to come to repentance, then we must also believe He has a way for that to happen. If there is any such thing as purgatory, maybe that's what that is. Not an attempt to outline any real provisions, just a simple possible plan.
Another thought is that God is a mover in history. Over and over, He chooses a person or people and moves through them. If today, the Communist party of North Somewherea allows no discussion of Christ, then perhaps that falls on the heads of the folks who rejected God. Either there is a way for those poor masses to hear the gospel later, or there isn't and the progenitors of their leaders had a chance and blew it.
As for why God would create a bunch of people He knew He'd have to condemn, remember we are talking about a timeless, difficult to understand being. Imagine (and this will only get us to the tip of the iceberg) that you know in advance that your enemy will tempt your new creation and spoil it in your sight. You want to redeem it, but you want your enemy to see what kind of God it is he rejected. So you move in history to make a people so your character can be known, and then you execute your plan to redeem all. In your mind, you have already set them in motion, knowing faithfulness is not in your nature. Do you then abandon the plan to create them? Do you force people to stop propogating? Because you have already done all the work to save them, and you want them to choose you and worship you. You have to go down there and die an awful death to save the ones who you know are going to accept, but then if you don't allow anyone else to be born, knowing they will reject you, they can't have that choice.
As a timeless being, there's a lot in God's decision-making that I bet would give us cluster headaches. When we get There, I am sure we'll all be excited to know what creation looked like on day zero, or how the choices others made before us affected our salvation. Or lack thereof.
Until then, it is our responsibility to answer the question Jesus put before Peter: Who do you say that I am?
|
|
I guess it comes down to trusting that God has done enough to give everyone a fair shot at redemption, which sort of requires believing in God in the first place, so it doesn't help me much.
Yeah. Like i said some back, I trust God. Other's don't. Which is why it is a problem for them and not so much for me. But if you don't believe in God in the first place then the whole question is academic.
And like Steven just said (and I have said) the question is always moot anyway for those asking the question because what matters is how we, today, with what we know, do with what we know.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
A few of us discussed this issue of what happens to those who have never heard many pages back. A summary of thoughts:The most pertinent question for each of us is what to do once we know. I don't have to know the tax code for everyone, I have to know what I am responsible for. Not knowing or not agreeing with the tax code does not exempt me from paying my taxes. Admittedly, this is only an illustration, as our tax code is a giant mess and easily shown to not be fair to anyone.
But if, instead of 200,000 pages of 'salvation code', there were three or four, and one of them clearly assessed me, then that's the page I am responsible for.
If we believe God wants all sinners to come to repentance, then we must also believe He has a way for that to happen. If there is any such thing as purgatory, maybe that's what that is. Not an attempt to outline any real provisions, just a simple possible plan.
Another thought is that God is a mover in history. Over and over, He chooses a person or people and moves through them. If today, the Communist party of North Somewherea allows no discussion of Christ, then perhaps that falls on the heads of the folks who rejected God. Either there is a way for those poor masses to hear the gospel later, or there isn't and the progenitors of their leaders had a chance and blew it.
As for why God would create a bunch of people He knew He'd have to condemn, remember we are talking about a timeless, difficult to understand being. Imagine (and this will only get us to the tip of the iceberg) that you know in advance that your enemy will tempt your new creation and spoil...
I get what you're saying, but this isn't about me trying to avoid paying taxes by pointing at someone else and saying "but he didn't pay his! This system sucks!".
I'm already refusing to pay my taxes (I don't believe in God), and if, in the end, I've misinterpreted the tax code (there is a God, and I've passed up my chance for salvation), I'll gladly go to prison (hell) for it. I believe what I believe, and I've tried to figure things out as best I could.
The discussion for me was more about understanding how others can reconcile a policy which personally seems irrational and unjust with a kind and just God. I was trying to understand God through his actions, and get a better idea of how other people see God. I still don't believe, but I think I have a better idea of how you and Wicht understand God, and that's something to be thankful for.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah. Like i said some back, I trust God. Other's don't. Which is why it is a problem for them and not so much for me. But if you don't believe in God in the first place then the whole question is academic.And like Steven just said (and I have said) the question is always moot anyway for those asking the question because what matters is how we, today, with what we know, do with what we know.
I think you're absolutely right, for me this whole line of questioning has been academic in nature. Sorry if I came off as anything else, I didn't mean to mislead. I just find the subject fascinating.
I'm already refusing to pay my taxes (I don't believe in God), and if, in the end, I've misinterpreted the tax code (there is a God, and I've passed up my chance for salvation), I'll gladly go to prison...
I wouldn't. If the Abrahamic deity was real, I still would not welcome eternal torment. I mean, it's eternal torment. :)
I would, however, be horrified by the injustice of torturing anybody forever for what amounts to either a simple mistake or a simple difference of opinion. So convincing me of the reality of the Christian deity wouldn't lead to my worshiping him. In fact, I'd probably be trying to find a way to kill him. He's a monster worse than anything humanity can ever produce and deserves no mercy. You could at least end your suffering in the gulag or Auschwitz with death. Eternal torture offers no such luxury. I know which one I'd pick.
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
Yeah. In 1959, my sex life was evil and I could be sent to prison for going on a date and getting some. So were interracial marriages. Your wife had no legal right to say no if you wanted to take a tumble; forcing her was not rape. She was evil to say no. If you weren't white, you had precious few rights any white felt obligated to respect. It was evil to want otherwise. If you weren't a Christian, forget about being considered an equal human being. I mean, you're obviously evil.
You're right; sounds like a wonderland. Man I wish I could go back there and be subhuman. That would be awesome.
|
|
I never said perfect...The Jim Crow Laws were an abomination...
But taking our naval fleet and circumnavigating the globe was evil? So we flexed our military muscle!?
I'm sure one can point out each and every flaw America has, but I think talking God out of America has weakened us...
But, but, separation of church and state! Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution!
Never said anything about church and state. I was referring to the fact that America has resorted to terrorism in the past to get our agenda across. Holding a gun to someones head isn't a good deed when all they asked was to be left alone. It was that policy that led to Japan having to deal with the West once again, causing their militarization that eventually caused millions of deaths, destruction of property, dehumanization of people on both sides of the world war, and atomic bombings.
I'm sorry, but I find it irresponsible and immoral.
I purposefully left my initial passage slim as well. There are far more problems I could point out.
Sounds to me, it's talking about not creating a unified mandatory religion like the King of England did...
Your point? When did a discussion about morality suddenly turn into a chat about the legal code of the United States? Not once did I say it did. Where is this coming from?
And please, don't put words in my mouth. It assumes quite a bit on both our parts neither one of us really knows.
|
|
I think you're absolutely right, for me this whole line of questioning has been academic in nature. Sorry if I came off as anything else, I didn't mean to mislead. I just find the subject fascinating.
No worries from me. Just pointing out the obvious. But I have nothing against people trying to understand the thinking of other people.
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
Yeah. In 1959, my sex life was evil and I could be sent to prison for going on a date and getting some. So were interracial marriages. Your wife had no legal right to say no if you wanted to take a tumble; forcing her was not rape. She was evil to say no. If you weren't white, you had precious few rights any white felt obligated to respect. It was evil to want otherwise. If you weren't a Christian, forget about being considered an equal human being. I mean, you're obviously evil.
You're right; sounds like a wonderland. Man I wish I could go back there and be subhuman. That would be awesome.
Amusing, it is typically those most ignorant of the past that pine for the "good old days." The truth is, the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems (apologies to Billy Joel).
This thread has convinced me that any discussion of such a controversial topic is useless if it is more concerned with playing nice than it is with facing hard truths. I don't advocate cruelty or rudeness, but if we treat everyone's view as sancrosect, we are doomed to forever go in circles.
I think the word you're looking for is "sacrosanct".
I think the word you're looking for is "sacrosanct".
This thread has convinced me that any discussion of such a controversial topic is useless if it is more concerned with playing nice than it is with facing hard truths. I don't advocate cruelty or rudeness, but if we treat everyone's view as sancrosect, we are doomed to forever go in circles.
Correct.
This thread has convinced me that any discussion of such a controversial topic is useless if it is more concerned with playing nice than it is with facing hard truths. I don't advocate cruelty or rudeness, but if we treat everyone's view as sacrosanct, we are doomed to forever go in circles.
I am just a lurker on this thread but I just had to drop in on this one thought B-man. Why can't we 'play nice' and discuss our differences? I am totally non-Abrahamic in religious leaning, although I do believe in a Divine Architect. While I may not believe in the divinity of Yeshua of Nazareth, I am always fascinated by the thoughts of spiritual Christians. Religion is a fascinating subject, even if you take faith out of the equation and study it from its historical/sociological/psychologial angle.
IMHO everyone's view IS 'sacrosanct' when it comes to discussion. Mine, yours, and everyone else who wants to post. If we can't respect and celebrate other people's differences then what's the point of even talking? I won't convince you there is a Creator Principle. You won't convince me that it is all just random happenstance. Neither one of us will convince Wicht to abandon his faith, and he wont convince us to abandon our stands. We can still have an intellectual discussion, an 'agree to disagree' if you will. Who knows, perhaps a point will come up in conversation that will lead to a greater understanding of the other person's viewpoint.
My 2 cents.
This thread has convinced me that any discussion of such a controversial topic is useless if it is more concerned with playing nice than it is with facing hard truths. I don't advocate cruelty or rudeness, but if we treat everyone's view as sacrosanct, we are doomed to forever go in circles.
I am just a lurker on this thread but I just had to drop in on this one thought B-man. Why can't we 'play nice' and discuss our differences? I am totally non-Abrahamic in religious leaning, although I do believe in a Divine Architect. While I may not believe in the divinity of Yeshua of Nazareth, I am always fascinated by the thoughts of spiritual Christians. Religion is a fascinating subject, even if you take faith out of the equation and study it from its historical/sociological/psychologial angle.
IMHO everyone's view IS 'sacrosanct' when it comes to discussion. Mine, yours, and everyone else who wants to post. If we can't respect and celebrate other people's differences then what's the point of even talking? I won't convince you there is a Creator Principle. You won't convince me that it is all just random happenstance. Neither one of us will convince Wicht to abandon his faith, and he wont convince us to abandon our stands. We can still have an intellectual discussion, an 'agree to disagree' if you will. Who knows, perhaps a point will come up in conversation that will lead to a greater understanding of the other person's viewpoint.
My 2 cents.
I would't try to convince anyone the universe is "random." That isn't a position I've heard advanced by science.
But as to the point of your post: I guess it depends on what we're trying to accomplish. For my part, I'm annoyed that people who claim to cleave to the rules of logic can dispose of them when convenient, then hide behind "you have to respect everyone's opinion." If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, you can't hide from the data that makes you uncomfortable. Nor do I accept I can't be convinced. I stand willing to change my position when presented with evidence; the kick in the teeth is, the theists don't have any. It always comes down to "you have to have faith." I call B.S.
But just because I cannot divine the point of this thread doesn't mean I should step on anyone else's enjoyment. Have at it...I'll try to stay out of it from here on out.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Yeah. In 1959, my sex life was evil and I could be sent to prison for going on a date and getting some. So were interracial marriages. Your wife had no legal right to say no if you wanted to take a tumble; forcing her was not rape. She was evil to say no. If you weren't white, you had precious few rights any white felt obligated to respect. It was evil to want otherwise. If you weren't a Christian, forget about being considered an equal human being. I mean, you're obviously evil.
You're right; sounds like a wonderland. Man I wish I could go back there and be subhuman. That would be awesome.
This is pure posturing, with exactly zero basis in fact. More stereotyping so you don't actually have to think. What's more, it's hateful. As if Christianity in the 50s had some sort of stranglehold on the world, and as if rape and racism are somehow tenets of Christianity. It is the single grossest mischaracterization in this discussion, and not intellectually honest.
I'd be very interested in seeing landmark cases where a woman was denied the right to say no to her husband legally. I'd be thrilled to see video of credible, evangelistic Christian leaders enforcing some cowardly racist law. In the 50s, Communism was evil. Treason was evil, unless you worked in the state department.
Our country is currently aborting over a million babies a year, low-income families have been led down a road of fatherlessness and godlessness until the inevitable outcome of out-of-control poverty reached its goal of creating a permanent demographic. Our representatives in Congress want to favor union and government control of business, forsaking completely the visionaries, owners, customers and creditors of those businesses. In process right now is a law called FOCA, which will put at risk doctors who consciously refuse to perform abortions. The cost of their malpractice insurance is about to go up. If that law passes, doctors who don't perform abortions will become more expensive than doctors who do. How is it not possible to see the evil at work there? Forcing a doctor out of a profession because he has a belief about a medical procedure that you could have somewhere else is immoral. It is exactly a kind of legislating morality that many say we're responsible for. As Coulter says, if you want to know what the far left is up to, look at what they accuse conservatives of doing.
When Robert Byrd was filibustering the Civil Rights Act, do you think his agenda mirrored this apparently prevalent, inarguable Christian dislike of black people? And in all this talk of sex lives, evil and civil rights, where are the examples of Christians declaring people to be subhuman? I have been a Christian for 22 years (almost as long as I've been a gamer!), and I just don't remember the sermons on how God hates black people or adulterers. I do know in large and small towns, people had zero to one locks on their doors. I do know that young couples who made a mistake had to go to their parents for guidance, as distinct from just getting Planned Parenthood to take care of the problem for you.
Was there any such controversy as making abortion a welfare entitlement in 1959? What were those evil Christians planning? Six inch rules at middle school dances? An honest day's work for an honest wage? Fighting for the self-determination of other countries instead of housing foreign spies of genocidal regmies? Who was evil back in the 60s?
And, thanks be to Xenu, the nonbelieving world doesn't have evil. It's so much better since those days when Baptist Inquisitors were out slaughtering the nonhumans. Thanks to enlightened minds, we don't have nonChristians civilizations killing millions to afford their elitist social ideas, or poisoning an entire demographic for minor religious differences. Fortunately we don't have evil in the world. Gone are the days when politicians lie about what they believe to get elected, or the UN might turn a blind eye to banned weapons research and rape rooms in exchange for a few billion in cash. But most of all, I'm glad that since the Christians lost power in the 60s, they stopped shooting civilians in the freeways and flying planes into buildings, and talking about wiping a small nation off the earth in under eleven minutes.
You're right, man. Evil has been vanquished in the world. Now if we could just force inflation and taxes to go up dramatically, we could cripple their foreign aid (the largest single source of private money to every corner of the world) efforts. No one on earth would ever have to hear about this Jesus again.
Course, those poor people would also have less food, water clothes shelter, medicine. But forget it. It's worth it not to be called subhuman. Which never happened.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
It was that policy that led to Japan having to deal with the West once again, causing their militarization that eventually caused millions of deaths, destruction of property, dehumanization of people on both sides of the world war, and atomic bombings.
Stupid America. And this time we've been teaching that communism, racism, cowardice and genocide caused all that trouble in the last century.
I'm turning in my morality and beliefs in exchange for...nothing in its place...clearly we Christians are nothing but trouble, and America is the vehicle by which we stir the pudding. From today forward, I say we pick a race we can't afford and kill them all!
I would't try to convince anyone the universe is "random." That isn't a position I've heard advanced by science.
Sorry if I misconstrued your position. Perhaps I should have used the words: generated by non-divine purely physical occurances?
But as to the point of your post: I guess it depends on what we're trying to accomplish. For my part, I'm annoyed that people who claim to cleave to the rules of logic can dispose of them when convenient, then hide behind "you have to respect everyone's opinion." If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, you can't hide from the data that makes you uncomfortable. Nor do I accept I can't be convinced. I stand willing to change my position when presented with evidence; the kick in the teeth is, the theists don't have any. It always comes down to "you have to have faith." I call B.S.
Well, even science there are some 'facts' that can't be proven (as of yet), which is why we have theories (as I noticed you talked about upthread). Just because we cannot yet prove the Big Bang doesn't mean that it might not be the correct model. There is no evidence for a Creator Principle, you are correct. But, there is no definitive proof that there is NOT a Creator Principle either. If you have data that disproves the Divine, I am anxious to hear it.
I love religion. I just don't love organized religion. Personally I cannot in good concience support any of the Abrahamic faiths because of the evidence I see that points to their flaws. However, I still believe (or theorize if you prefer) that there is a Metaprinciple to the whole shooting match. If I am wrong, it really doesn't matter, my intellegence fades and the universe continues on without me on to its end.
Even if there wasn't an original divinity that created the universe, I could imagine that over the aeons the intellegences in the universe would evolve into something resembling it, and perhaps come up with a way to recover lost 'souls' (for lack of a better descriptor) from the past. Perhaps it's a chicken-and-egg conundrum where the cycles of the universe begin and end with the Creator continually renewing itself over the bang and crunch of the universe ...
I think this bears pointing out:
Everyone says 'convince me and I'll believe'. The trouble is, each of us sets his/her own standards for being persuaded, and we set those standards with very specific parameters. Now if you and I compete in a game where you establish the victory conditions, who's gonna win...
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Saying "Back in 1776, everyone in America was a devout Christian and so there was no immorality and no crime" makes a nice bedtime story, but it's not the truth. Crime rates among Christian Americans are no lower than among non-Christians.
Hopefully no one is making the argument that the world was perfect under Christian rule at some point. After all, a key part of Christianity is the un-perfectness of every man, woman and child on earth.
A big problem for assertions like 'crime rates among Christians are no lower than any one else' is how you acquire that data. I had my car stolen while I was at church. No one will ever catch the thieves, but let's say they had. If I'm a Christian and he's not, are we both counted in the crime statistic? If I go to church, tithe, pray and witness, maybe it's pretty safe to say I'm a christian. Let's say the theif is a young adult white male with a big gold cross around his neck. He doesn't pray, read his bible or anything. Apparently the reason he goes to church is to boost someone's car. You ask him in jail if he's a Christian, and he thumps his chest and says 'heck, yeah, man. God will forgive me for being in here.'
Not that there aren't firms doing this sort of thing, but maybe a better approach is to ask people active in their church if they've comitted a crime since they started believing or going to that church.
I dunno. I haven't committed any crimes, but I was threatened in my driveway last night by a stoned driver. So we're up 1-0. HA! ; )
|
I would like to take this time to express my thanks to those in this thread that have taken the time to express themselves in a civil manner. I have found this discusion to be very informative. Although I accept many of us will never see eye to eye on religion, I personaly have garnered a respect for all those who have contributed to the topic on both sides of the eternal debate. And to those who can't remain respectful of their fellows...well I'll just not post what I'd like to say to them. ;p
I think this bears pointing out:
Everyone says 'convince me and I'll believe'. The trouble is, each of us sets his/her own standards for being persuaded, and we set those standards with very specific parameters. Now if you and I compete in a game where you establish the victory conditions, who's gonna win...
My standards are those of logic and evidence. Show me an experiment that demonstrates God, and I'm sold. The problem is, there is no such experiment, and there never will be. If you're conceding that, by the standards of science, theists cannot win, then I certainly won't offer any argument.