Nah, my childhood was filled with the tales of Greek & roman gods. It fascinates me more than the stories of Odin, Thor & Valhalla
Printable View
Nah, my childhood was filled with the tales of Greek & roman gods. It fascinates me more than the stories of Odin, Thor & Valhalla
Oh, I dunno, the Norse mythology has that sorrowful pang to it... You ultimately know that the gods themselves are doomed, and that man must begin again in an empty world. Very tragic, very timeline oriented (the Greco-Roman gods seem to live in a vacuum). And I love the concept of the World-Tree... I guess I am biased, I have German (they came from Scandinavia originally) heritage, I take German in school, and I am very attached to the whole Arthurian tradition, including the Saxons, and they had the Norse gods too.
Well, this is off topic any way. Sorry for the tangent.
My words about the conflict between Paul and Calvinism are due to Divine Election. We must be able to choose God freely - that is the whole point of the original "test" in the garden of Eden: would humanity freely choose to serve God? The only way to answer that honestly is to have the legitmate choice to rebel. Divine Election seems to override that human responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Yes he does. If you say no he doesn't that means he does too.
No, it does not override it, it merely points out its consequences: because of the Fall, we need God to help us merely to return to Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Because it's true? Because believing so provides the most convincing answer to why humans are the way they are and the solution to the problem of human sin and our complete inability to really change our lives for the better? Why not believe so? Who says this is "mythic"? You? What is your authority for making such a claim? Because you don't have any "proof"?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I hope it won't be terribly out of place for me to say so but I couldn't but help get a good laugh out of your statement. Not out of spite or malice or anything like that, I was just thinking, "of course it seems unwarranted to you! If it seemed otherwise you'd already be a Christian." :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
On a more serious note though, to discuss the totality of why one might rationally believe in God would be an enormous undertaking. Thomas Aquinas wrote the 3,000 page Summa Theoogica and still wasn't able to say everything he had to say. However, to bring the matter to a point, it all comes down to Jesus. I have studied various other aspects as well of course, but based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person, the gospels recorded real events, and Jesus was who He said He was. I have yet to encounter an argument which stands up against what I've learned. If anyone has one I'd be very interested to hear it so I could research it further if I haven't already. And if I have and relating what I've learned wouldn't take too much time I'd be happy to share that as well and recommend more in depth reading on the subject if I know of any.
we are like fictional characters of a book.our perfection depends on our creators.when a writer write a book his own intellect foreshadows his characters.The writer is concern about the major movement of his character, he never write about how many times his characters drink tea, or sit before computer.When the creator is giving a life to a person his concern leds to what he has planned to do with his characters,how to finish his book.Similarly if we are like that, i think we have our free will in our minor deal in life.But we cannot change our fate whats our creator is planning for us.
Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla King
Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?
Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference). :lol:
Well it depends on what they taught you. I mean when I was an atheist and my friends who were Christians tried to convince me with the whole Paley's watchmaker argument I thought it was bogus. Now as a Christian, I still think it's bogus. For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
what book? Who says we are like characters in a novel? If you are coming from a biblical viewpoint, The Bible says that God KNOWS everything, not that he CHOOSES everything. (If you aren't, disregard this arguement, and continue on with all of yourscientific proof) God created the angels to worship Him, not by choice, but He created man to love Him through choice, for if it is forced, it isn't really love. Therefore we have to have a choice, for that's why we were made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
It is understood that it is god's failure and not yours. No need to state the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Isn't that a paradox, though?
I will not be convinced unless God acts to convince me. Yet aren't I supposed to have free will, and choose of my own volition?
I guess you are saying we are convinced by his miracles.
Maybe I rain on your parade, but doesn't this discussion need some connection to literature, no matter how peripheral? Anyway, a friend of mine doesn't believe in free will...he thinks it an anthropromorphic trait. You know, because we are limited as humans...these intrinsic limitations makes you want to believe we have free will. I think we have it and the proof would be any arbitrary decision. Then again the word "decision" is described by Ambrose Bierce as "a preponderence of one set of influences over another". quasimodo1
No, because it was started before the Religious Texts forum rules were changed, only allowing specific text topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by quasimodo1
...standing corrected. quasimodo1
Gorilla King
I.e., a stone, once it has begun to roll down hill, will continue to do so, gathering speed. A man, needing to know “the truth,” once he has got hold of what seems to him a piece of the truth will inevitably find more and more evidence of that truth, disregarding all that does not fit.Quote:
For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.
weepingforloman
This is an example of Begging the question/Circular logic, or Petitio Principii/Circulus in Probando, e.g. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God ad infinitumQuote:
Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.
Do you see the irony in rolling to your own conclusions of whats true of me while disregarding what doesn't fit? Frankly, I don't think hasty generalizations will do you much good. I dare say that you don't know enough about me and my beliefs or theology in general to adequately assess any of it. It makes you look ignorant at best and foolish at worst.
You lost me here. Are you saying that if man fails to do right, that is because God failed, not man? One thing I have always noticed: Back in the garden, it was God asking "Adam where art thou?" not Adam asking "God, where did you go?"Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
It would be nice if this could get back on topic, sans personal comments :)
OK. IMO the concept of "will" is, by definition, "free" - saying 'free will' is analogous to saying 'wet water' or 'hot fire'. I.e., if it ain't free, then you are not exercising what we normally define as exercising a "will".Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
If one thinks "will" cannot be "free" in some instances, then what, in theory, is enslaving it - material determinism? - god? How so? Explain the mechanisms involved. If you can't then you are just giving an imaginative opinion based on nothing but some experienced feeling or intuition - not worth a bucket of warm spit.
Now, to continue - Do I think I make choices completely sans the influence of literally existing invisible or transcendent entities (or a single entity) that could theoretically influence or direct my will in any way? You betcha.
Do I think the exercise of my will is just a natural part of a natural universe, and not itself a trans-natural phenomenon like an ill-defined non-scientific "soul" or something? You betcha.
From the largest perspective (the entire known universe) does it seem to me that the exercise of my will and the will of ALL humans, extant and deceased, apparently play no significant part in the evolution of the universe, i.e., that the evidence for such is utterly lacking? You betcha.
Furthermore, can a person will him or herself to will? I don't think so. E.g., I certainly can will to eat a piece of fried calf' liver - and do so? But if I just happen to HATE the taste of liver, can I will myself to will to LIKE the taste of calf liver, i.e., enjoy the experience? No, I don't think so. Sure, an outside influencing will, such as that of a (human) hypnotist or an alleged supernatural entity, could cause me to THINK I like liver - but then I would have no free will. When no other mind has power over my mind, then I am free. But such freedom doesn't all me to will to will (i.e., to change my will through the power of my own will). If it did, we would get into infinite regress - and no one wants that.
Further examples of how we do not will to will:
1. I can will myself to engage in a homosexual sex act, but I cannot will myself to like it (enjoying it happens or it doesn't - it's not susceptible to my will).
2. Can I will myself to believe in that two plus two is four, or that the Atlantic Ocean is wider than the Pacific? No. I cannot escape the obvious.
3. Can I will myself to believe in an invisible person who zapped the universe into existence through either sheer thought or the spoken word or some sort of magic that is incomprehensible to me? No. I cannot will beliefs into existence in my brain, if my brain thinks they are stupid, anymore than I can, conversely, just will many obvious facts away, e.g., our extant president is not particularly intelligent.
I was meaning to talk about the psychology of belief, especially when it reaches to conviction, not the content of your or other's beliefs. And I quite agree with logos that referring to me ad hominem as "ignorant at best and foolish at worst" doesn't much advance the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla King
To PrinceMyshkin: Can any of the debaters here let me know if anyone has budged an iota from their original viewpoint? This problem always arises when religion is brought into the discussion, i.e. some people are invested while others are more open. quasimodo1
I have two confessions to make: 1) I haven't followed this thread point by point because it seems moot and academic to me: that is, my behaviour is not going to change one whit by virtue of whether it is proved (if it can be) one way or the other whether I or any one else has pefect free will. I am going to go on behaving as if I do have free will (is there any point to doing otherwise?) and therefore am responsible for the consequences of my action, andQuote:
Originally Posted by quasimodo1
2) Re the more overtly religious threads, I admit to being invested in the belief that a) the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; b) more importantly, that if there is a God we are likely to be in deeper trouble than otherwise appears to be the case because 'His' ministry is either slipshod or malign.
As to those who are genuinely open to being changed from either the God or no-God point of view, I'd be most intrigued to have them identify themselves and to tell how their positions have changed. How they have changed, that is, by virtue of the debates here rather than by some epiphany, the subjectivity of which is always open to psychological examination.
Don't blame God for the mess we're in, if you ever choose to believe in God.
In the first place, no choice is likely to be involved. 'God" will have manifested Himself to me in such a way that I woin't be able to do other than believe,Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
But if indeed I am ever persuaded to believe in God, how would I credit Him for that which is good about life without blaming Him for that which is tragic?
If you are going to tell me that all that is good comes from God and all that is evil from man, then you are asking me not to believe in God but in his prophets/interpreters/priests &c. who would be there to point out for me what comes from God and what has other origins.
Blame the people who make the decisions that cause pain, blame me, blame yourself, blame everybody... But appreciate the good done by man, too, since you won't be persuaded that God provides all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Did God not make us in His own image? And if that is so, does it not apply to what is essentially Godlike, His soul? His moral nature?
In which case as surely as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Mandela were God so too were Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.
Christianity isn't pantheism. What does it mean to be God? It's the greatest possible manifestation of all things. Every person you listed save for Jesus sinned. Therefore, none of them could be the greatest possible manifestation of all things and hence were not by any stretch of the imagination God. It's a straw man argument essentially. It would work well if you were arguing against Buddhism or Hinduism, but it's irrelevant in terms of Christianity, and Judaism. I'm on the fence about it's relevance to Islam, but only because by his nature, Allah could not be the greatest possible being and hence could not be God.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
We are made in His image, yes, but a little thing called the Fall of Man ruined that. Too many people come at me with arguments like this, but most haven't read Genesis Ch. 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Is thisQuote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
22 Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."
what you mean? Because other than that God now denies us the prospect of eating of the tree of life, it appears to reinforce the idea that we are like unto God (and vice versa).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla King
The question I asked is based on the scriptural assertion that we are made in the image of God. I don't see how the above is an answer to that.
Well if you don't understand what it means to be made in the image of God then it's meaningless to respond to anything beyond that. Unless we clarify our terms, the whole thing can just as easily be a bait and switch. So, what do you mean when you say a person is created in the image of God? And moreover, when you say God, what do you mean by that?Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
On what basis do you concude that I don't understand what it means to be made in the image of God? That is the most basic of non-responsive responses, i.e., "If you don't understand what I mean, then I can't explain it to you."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla King
I see the entire argument put up by believers as cantilivered upon something that is cantilivered upon something that is cantilivered upon.... an infinite regression based on a book which is taken (on what evidence?) to be the word of God, sanctified by countless generations of fallible human beings, divided over time by sects each of whom claims to have a truer version of the truth than the other truth-holders...
For those who love to argue (as I do up to a point), to spin words and split hairs, what richer field than that of eschatology? "Up to a point," I said, but I have reached that point. I am unsubscribing to this thread and will not be following it any more.
Come on Mysh the phrase "in the image of" is simple. I can build a matchstick model in the image of the eiffel tower, this does not mean it is the eiffel tower. The same principle works in Christian ideology.
Excellent illustration KE.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I meant that Gen. 3 is the story of the Fall. It is the first instance of sin in scripture. We are like unto God, and therefore, since we are fallen, we are worse than, say, a fallen dog. I refer you to C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, or The Great Divorce.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
II Timothy Chapter 3:7: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."