Why do we need a God?

[Arioch]

@scifes --

because most humans, iow humanity, can't sustain itself morally without god.

What makes you say this?

@wynn --

A little advice on debating christian theology, from someone who's been doing it for years. Christian theology is seldom illogical, it's conclusions tend to follow logically from it's premises in that once you accept the premise they offer you can follow to their conclusions without embracing fallacy. However that doesn't mean that their theology is bulletproof(obviously) since the overwhelming majority of their premises are, at best, unsupported assertions and many of them are actually at odds with observation(such as the YECs with their six thousand year age of the universe). Attack the premises and you can dismantle their theology rather easily.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am saying, and have already said, that those who have never been exposed to Jesus and his message can still be saved. It is in much the same way as anyone who ever existed before the birth of Jesus could still be saved.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Rom 1:20

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." - Rom 2:14

so you are saying ....

.... those who were genuinely seeking god outside of the golden era of christianity were accepted?

.... since if some one has been dead for 1000 years before jesus came on the scene, they don't have the opportunity to be saved by him????

And I'm saying that if one leaves Jesus out of the equation (after being exposed to his message), or relegates him and his sacrifice to the level of just another interesting (or even respectable) religious figure, then one is essentially denying the true significance of the most important action that God has ever undertaken with respect to man. The idea that one can outright deny such a thing, but still be truly seeking the truth, is absurd.

I am saying that if the act of simply coming half way or even 90% to that conclusion is greeted with the same tact as if one was completely sold out to maliciousness, you have a hard time establishing a strong defintion of god. Its kind of like taking the example of stalinism that dealt out the harshest punishments to those who even suspected of even wavering slightly in their support and trying to explain it as leading the world in compassion etc. (BTW this is where fideism comes in in an attempt to save the day ....)

Like most people, your characterization of punishment reveals that you've only ever engaged in a cursory examination of the Bible, at most. Although it is certainly true that rejection of God will result in terrible consequences, it is the rejection itself that creates the outcome, not God. Of course you may argue that in setting the whole ballgame up in this particular way God is indeed responsible, but it is one of the necessary consequences of free-will.

"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" - Ez 18:23

"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’" - Ez 33:11

"...God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." - 1 Tim 2:3

It's pretty clear, then, that God desires that absolutely no-one be subjected to the consequences of rejecting Him. The idea is as horrible to God as it is to you.

You misunderstand.
I am not saying god doesn't have recourse to the punishments in order to be grand.

I am saying that these punishments are also reserved for those who are not christian is advocated, you have a very provincial version of god (a version that suffers in contrast to other definitions that are more universal).

IOW the statements about jesus being the truth, the light and the way (btw in the original language that text is spoken in the present tense "Right here, right now, I am the truth etc") to exclusive persecution of absolute hell to anyone or anything that suggests otherwise are few and far between and seem to be contradicted if you are suggesting that before jesus came on the scene, there were alternative means to being saved.

Further, the idea that there is such a thing as an infinite punishment for a finite crime isn't really born out during proper study and meditation on God's words. Rather, if the crime is rejection itself, the consequences of that rejection will continue for as long as the rejection itself does. There will likely be those for whom this continues indefinitely.

so even if you don't accept jesus and go to hell its not really eternal? You can change your mind later?

Read it again:

You said that people got salvation from god before jeusus came one the scene. Did they have full devotion? Or did simply cheapen the process since they were too early to get jesus, the real product?

You can't separate Jesus and His sacrifice from God.

If you are suggesting that people were attaining salvation from god before jesus came on the scene, you already have.

They are essentially one and the same. You may be able to imagine that God could exist independently of such, and even assign all of the same transcendental qualities, but you would be missing the most fundamentally important aspect of His relationship with man: Jesus.

The fact that there are vast swaths of time, culture and geography before jesus appeared or his message propagated to the region indicates its not an imagination (particularly if you talk about them attaining salvation in such circumstances if they act in a certain manner ... a manner which necessarily excludes any recognition of who or what jesus is since there would be no "where" to him at that point)

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

There was always a way to salvation, even before Jesus. Don't forget that the Hebrews could gain salvation through adherence to The Law.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

There was always a way to salvation, even before Jesus. Don't forget that the Hebrews could gain salvation through adherence to The Law.

So how does that compare to when people started getting salvation through jesus?

Did the Hebrews get the "real deal", or was the deal simply made easier since the "real player" jesus wasn't on the scene?.

There is a saying "if it ain't broken don't fix it"

If there was a system already in place delivering the desired result, why bring in an extraneous object that not only does the same thing, but suddenly somehow on its appearance ruins the already existing systems that are already in place all over the world?

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

Because The Law only applies to those practicing judaism, it's salvation couldn't reach anyone else and god wanted to save everyone, so he devised this scheme. For someone who wants to argue christian theology you certainly haven't paid much attention to the bible or the "recent" beliefs that have emerged from it.

And what do you mean "easier". Do you not understand just how crazy The Law is? To follow it fully is, quite frankly, impossible as many of the laws contradict each other. However full adherence wasn't, strictly speaking necessary since the judaic vision of hell is vastly different to the standard christian version, it was a temporary punishment where the duration was dependent on how well the person in question adhered to The Law. How is it that somebody claiming knowledge the way you do is unaware of this?

As to the ultimate reason why it was changed, well the cult in question(yes, cult, all religions start out as cults) didn't like The Law and wanted a wider pool of members, so they devised a way out of it and spread that instead of judaism. Some offshoots of this cult still maintain that the judaic Law does represent one path to salvation, though these are typically the more moderate offshoots, not the more fundie ones.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

Because The Law only applies to those practicing judaism, it's salvation couldn't reach anyone else and god wanted to save everyone, so he devised this scheme. For someone who wants to argue christian theology you certainly haven't paid much attention to the bible or the "recent" beliefs that have emerged from it.

But you just gave a quote earlier suggesting that in lieu of the creation the law was in the heart of all people who humbled themselves to recognize that god was behind it.

(or are you saying that this was only for the hebrews .... so before jesus came on the scene it was only the hebrews who were getting saved and if you were like in australia you had nothing really going for you in terms of spiritual advancement until a good 1900 years later after jesus appeared .... provided that you survived the influx or european introduced diseases like influenza which wiped out about 70% of the population within 2 or 3 generations)

And what do you mean "easier". Do you not understand just how crazy The Law is? To follow it fully is, quite frankly, impossible as many of the laws contradict each other. However full adherence wasn't, strictly speaking necessary since the judaic vision of hell is vastly different to the standard christian version, it was a temporary punishment where the duration was dependent on how well the person in question adhered to The Law. How is it that somebody claiming knowledge the way you do is unaware of this?

I started this line of inquiry to try and work out how a fundamental christian incorporates the obviously provincial appearance of jesus and the absolute necessity of his function in salvation.
Still trying to work it out ....

So you are saying that previous to the appearance of jesus, practically everyone went to hell since the system was far too difficult to apply?

As to the ultimate reason why it was changed, well the cult in question(yes, cult, all religions start out as cults) didn't like The Law and wanted a wider pool of members, so they devised a way out of it and spread that instead of judaism. Some offshoots of this cult still maintain that the judaic Law does represent one path to salvation, though these are typically the more moderate offshoots, not the more fundie ones.

hence my suggestion that the religious pursuit of political solidarity effectively makes for a reduced definition of god

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

Don't you get it? God made the sacrifice of Jesus apply to all times.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

Don't you get it? God made the sacrifice of Jesus apply to all times.

You are still not being clear. Are you trying to say that the sacrifice of jesus applies to all times even before jesus appeared on the planet?

 

[wynn]

The idea is this:


Those who were born and died before Jesus appeared, were judged according to the then existing laws.

But Jesus came to bring a new law. After Jesus, there is salvation only via Jesus.

Those who are genuinely ignorant of Jesus get a special treatment - they go to purgatory and then to heaven. According to other versions, they go to hell.

But most people are not genuinely ignorant of Jesus. So unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they will burn in hell for all eternity.

You, for example, have no excuse. You have heard of Jesus and unless you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in hell for all eternity.

Basically, receiving the slightest bit of information about Jesus can unilaterly incriminate you for all eternity.

 

[wynn]

150,000 People
Will Die Today
The counter to the side is ticking off the number of people who have died since you opened this webpage. The vast majority of those people are entering Hell. Christ commanded his followers to share the Gospel with those who are perishing... who have you shared with today?

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/

 

[lightgigantic]

The idea is this:


Those who were born and died before Jesus appeared, were judged according to the then existing laws.

But Jesus came to bring a new law. After Jesus, there is salvation only via Jesus.

The problem with this is that previously there existed a universal framework for salvation and then literally overnight all such frameworks are suspended and salvation is relegated to less than a few thousand kilometers squared

Those who are genuinely ignorant of Jesus get a special treatment - they go to purgatory and then to heaven. According to other versions, they go to hell.

thats why I was asking about getting the free pass.

IOW if genuine ignorance of jesus grants practically the same result as being fully devoted to jesus, then it comes back to the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". If ignorance is the default and its just as effective as knowledge born of sacrifice, why introduce knowledge?

 

[wynn]

The problem with this is that previously there existed a universal framework for salvation and then literally overnight all such frameworks are suspended and salvation is relegated to less than a few thousand kilometers squared

Yes; and everyone outside of that geographical and temporal perimeter must simply take it all on faith.

thats why I was asking about getting the free pass.

IOW if genuine ignorance of jesus grants practically the same result as being fully devoted to jesus, then it comes back to the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". If ignorance is the default and its just as effective as knowledge born of sacrifice, why introduce knowledge?

Because Christian proselytizers need something to do too!

Well, I don't know. I guess the idea of unilaterally burdening or even incriminating someone is just as perverse as crucifying God - but there are people who seem to have an affinity to that. Along with guilt-tripping oneself and others. For some people, guilt-tripping is the highest form of moral reasoning.


As discussed before, moral reasoning develops, and generally, those on a lesser stage are unable to even understand arguments from a higher stage.

This is especially clear with children and young people: both a 5-year old as well as a 15-year old may be convinced by an older person that stealing is wrong; but the arguments they accept for the wrongness of stealing are quite different, and the 5-year old cannot understand an argument that would convince a 15-year old, while the older one would remain unconvinced by the arguments that the younger child would find convincing.

Similar seems to occur with adults, although probably in more nuanced ways.

There are several factors that drive the development of moral reasoning; esp. personal experience. From what I have seen, abstract discussion of moral problems does not seem to correlate to a swift change of moral reasoning (ie. mere discussion isn't likely to convince a person of a radically different outlook than the one they hold).

 

[Rav]

so you are saying ....

.... those who were genuinely seeking god outside of the golden era of christianity were accepted?

Yes.

.... since if some one has been dead for 1000 years before jesus came on the scene, they don't have the opportunity to be saved by him????

It's not surprising that you don't understand, given that you've obviously never properly investigated Christianity. Let's start with a few important verses:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8

"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." - Psalm 90:4

And perhaps the most important:

"'You are not yet fifty years old,' they said to him, 'and you have seen Abraham!' 'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" - John 8:57-58

God transcends time you see, as does the sacrifice of Jesus. He died for all past, present and future sins.

I am saying that if the act of simply coming half way or even 90% to that conclusion is greeted with the same tact as if one was completely sold out to maliciousness, you have a hard time establishing a strong defintion of god.

All sin can be washed away. Rejection can't. It is much like you can forgive a loved one for all sorts of wrong they may do, whether it be relatively trivial or something truly terrible, but what you can't do is make them want to be with you if their heart is set against it.

What you don't seem to understand is that this is all about the relationship that God desires to have with us. If you don't choose Him, and instead try to deny His existence, or choose to devote yourself to a man-made facsimile, then the relationship can't function as it should. The result of such a choice is a self-imposed separation, which is ultimately what the Bible is referring to in all of it's colourful metaphors concerning Hell. Complete separation from God apparently really will be just that horrible.

The thing to realize is that even someone who appears to be righteous can reject God, but the Bible teaches that no matter how righteous someone appears to be, or even how righteous they believe themselves to be (see Matt 7:22-24), there is often something going on below the surface that is the ultimate cause of the rejection.

so even if you don't accept jesus and go to hell its not really eternal? You can change your mind later?

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. If it says it's eternal, which it does, then it's eternal.

If you are suggesting that people were attaining salvation from god before jesus came on the scene, you already have.

Wrong, and addressed above.

You said that people got salvation from god before jeusus came one the scene. Did they have full devotion? Or did simply cheapen the process since they were too early to get jesus, the real product?

There has never been anything 'cheap' about acting in accordance with the laws that God has written on the hearts of man. If devotion is pure; if one is striving to free themselves from whatever is within them that might prevent them from coming to God, then one is in God's grace.

The fact that there are vast swaths of time, culture and geography before jesus appeared or his message propagated to the region indicates its not an imagination (particularly if you talk about them attaining salvation in such circumstances if they act in a certain manner ... a manner which necessarily excludes any recognition of who or what jesus is since there would be no "where" to him at that point)

I am talking about the reality of who and what God is, as much of that as we can comprehend as human beings anyway. God and Jesus are one and the same:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:1-5

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14

A reading of the Bible demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus is God; that God became flesh. Jesus has always existed and will always exist. Jesus transcends time. To deny that Jesus is God, is to deny God himself, and not to know Him at all. Any other conception is merely a man-made approximation.

Everything I have been explaining to you in this thread LG, is Christianity 101. It's basic stuff that every devout Christian knows. All your questions and criticisms are serving to demonstrate is your ignorance of the subject matter. How can you expect to properly evaluate Christianity unless you actually put in the time and effort to really learn about it?



Finally, wynn has provided an opportunity for a further clarification relevant to our discussion:

Basically, receiving the slightest bit of information about Jesus can unilaterly incriminate you for all eternity.

This is not actually a feature of Christianity. Rather, what becomes clear from a study of scripture is that the failure to recognize the sacrifice of Jesus for what it is, is indicative of the presence of something within you that is holding you back from recognizing and knowing God.

It's never accidents of geography or circumstance that produce the consequence, it is always about what is and isn't in your heart.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes.



It's not surprising that you don't understand, given that you've obviously never properly investigated Christianity.

On the contrary, it was christianity's inability to answer very basic questions on spiritual life which probably sustained my stance on atheism for at least 20 years

Let's start with a few important verses:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8

"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." - Psalm 90:4

And perhaps the most important:

"'You are not yet fifty years old,' they said to him, 'and you have seen Abraham!' 'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" - John 8:57-58

God transcends time you see, as does the sacrifice of Jesus. He died for all past, present and future sins.

.

but this just leads to the same question that you are not really addressing


If a person a (or possibly all persons who were investigating god) is saved by god simply because they took birth and died before he did (or before news of him spread to the region) they have effectively bypassed the mandate of accepting jesus. In one circumstance, ignorance is defaulted to perfection, and in another it is subdivided on the whole jesus issue. IOW in one circumstance, inquiry into the nature of god is sufficient and in another the clause of "accepting jesus exclusively" is added ... So you have one group getting the free pass. From here you will probably go to great pains to repeat that jesus is timeless but that doesn't really explain what role he was acting in to liberate persons who were totally unaware of his existence on account of him not being externally present

All sin can be washed away. Rejection can't. It is much like you can forgive a loved one for all sorts of wrong they may do, whether it be relatively trivial or something truly terrible, but what you can't do is make them want to be with you if their heart is set against it.

Hence the weirdness and weakness of the definition is that one also wouldn't subject the said party to eternal torture if they, in the course of one brief lifetime, were only 30, 70 or 2% short of coming to the table of such acceptance especially when the issue of jesus is shrouded in the problems of provincialism as explained earlier

What you don't seem to understand is that this is all about the relationship that God desires to have with us. If you don't choose Him, and instead try to deny His existence, or choose to devote yourself to a man-made facsimile, then the relationship can't function as it should. The result of such a choice is a self-imposed separation, which is ultimately what the Bible is referring to in all of it's colourful metaphors concerning Hell. Complete separation from God apparently really will be just that horrible.

the problem is that there is no real strong definition of "relationship with god" and "choosing god" in this argument (since pre-jesus persons appear to have one version and post-jesus persons have another). IOW the dynamics of salvation are presented as whimsical

The thing to realize is that even someone who appears to be righteous can reject God, but the Bible teaches that no matter how righteous someone appears to be, or even how righteous they believe themselves to be (see Matt 7:22-24), there is often something going on below the surface that is the ultimate cause of the rejection.

devotion to god, even if its just a few points short of perfectional, is not mere righteousness. IOW notions of being moral etc are not in the same category as being aware of god as the summum bonum etc. My point is that rewarding persons who are not fully devoted to god with eternal torture makes for a weaker definition of god.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. If it says it's eternal, which it does, then it's eternal.

But you just said ,...

Further, the idea that there is such a thing as an infinite punishment for a finite crime isn't really born out during proper study and meditation on God's words. Rather, if the crime is rejection itself, the consequences of that rejection will continue for as long as the rejection itself does. There will likely be those for whom this continues indefinitely.

If we see in this life that rejection is not eternal (in fact it is even played up significantly as not being eternal - as evidenced by the link given by wynn) then you have to explain why it would be eternal in the next .... provided you still want to run with this idea of there being no idea of infinite punishment for a finite crime.

Wrong, and addressed above.

all you have indicated is that jesus was somehow present in some unmanifest form (a form that left him outside of the words, thoughts and actions of others) during the eons before his external manifestation.

IOW during one era you have god's salvation being granted to persons bereft of words, thoughts and actions related to jesus and the next era you have an exclusive requirement that there is. Hence you have already established a distinction between god's salvation and jesus.

There has never been anything 'cheap' about acting in accordance with the laws that God has written on the hearts of man. If devotion is pure; if one is striving to free themselves from whatever is within them that might prevent them from coming to God, then one is in God's grace.

but then you tag the clause of this exclusively occurring through the agency of jesus to one group and not to another.

I am talking about the reality of who and what God is, as much of that as we can comprehend as human beings anyway. God and Jesus are one and the same:

Yet they are distinguished by the terms father and son.
Nowhere does jesus say he is the father and nowhere does he say the kingdom is his (IOW aspects of universal creation, maintenance and destruction or being the contingent force that all life in the universe depends on are not attributed to jesus) . IOW the role of god and jesus are certainly distinct, even though there are good arguments (even in other religions) to explain how for all intents and purposes, god and his pure representative share an element of non-difference.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:1-5

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14

A reading of the Bible demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus is God; that God became flesh. Jesus has always existed and will always exist. Jesus transcends time. To deny that Jesus is God, is to deny God himself, and not to know Him at all. Any other conception is merely a man-made approximation.

In the same sense, the sunlight is the sun (since you can not really talk of the two existing in isolation from one another - one is the energy and the other is the energetic).

IOW even though one can describe two things as non-different, one can also place them in a relationship of contingency - like the son being dependent on the father.

To say this is not the case with jesus who is in all shape, manner and form non-different from god, you would have to circumvent his teachings in t he bible which clearly go to great lengths to explain how he is the son, it is his father's kingdom, etc etc

Everything I have been explaining to you in this thread LG, is Christianity 101. It's basic stuff that every devout Christian knows. All your questions and criticisms are serving to demonstrate is your ignorance of the subject matter. How can you expect to properly evaluate Christianity unless you actually put in the time and effort to really learn about it?

As mentioned, its the inability of these seemingly core values of Christianity to come off as philosophically sound or even substantiated by the bible that seem to ride off a weakened definition of god.

 

[wynn]

But you just said ,...

Note how the conversation that we are having is typically impossible with a Christian. With a Christian, it would likely have ended long ago.


One possible reason for the Christian inability or unwillingness to discuss things in detail is that some people are not able to conceive of a point of view or perspective; instead, they are naive realists to the extreme where they believe that what they think and feel is true and right and that everyone does or should do the same, or there is something wrong with those others.

They are psychological and philosophical egoists - but in the sense that they don't distinguish between their own view of reality and objective reality, and instead hold that the two are the same.

They wouldn't say "This is so because I see it this way."
But they may make statements such as "I think of this this way because it is this way."
(IIRC, Lori once said to me "If I think you are an idiot, it's because you are an idiot.")

In effect, they are unable or unwilling to empathize, unable or unwilling to see things from the other person's perspective, or consider the other person's perspective to be an act of lying, dishonesty, denial if that person's take on things differs from theirs.

They are unable or unwilling to conceive of such an understanding of God and related topics in which someone could have a vastly different take on things than they do, and still be considered truthful or valid.

 

[wynn]

I want to say something more, but I have to go now, I'll come back later.

 

[Rav]

If a person a (or possibly all persons who were investigating god) is saved by god simply because they took birth and died before he did (or before news of him spread to the region) they have effectively bypassed the mandate of accepting jesus. In one circumstance, ignorance is defaulted to perfection, and in another it is subdivided on the whole jesus issue. IOW in one circumstance, inquiry into the nature of god is sufficient and in another the clause of "accepting jesus exclusively" is added ... So you have one group getting the free pass.

You keep getting it wrong. The mandate of accepting Jesus once one has been exposed to Him and His message is all about the fact that if one doesn't, it is indicative of a failure to recognize God due to the presence of something within a person that is preventing them from doing so.

In other words, a person who is genuinely seeking God, and is therefore within God's grace regardless of time or circumstance, is a person who will recognize Jesus for who He is.

From here you will probably go to great pains to repeat that jesus is timeless but that doesn't really explain what role he was acting in to liberate persons who were totally unaware of his existence on account of him not being externally present

As I have already demonstrated, from scripture, Jesus has always been externally present, because Jesus and God are one and the same. The roles that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit play may seem distinct to us, but in reality they are manifestations of the same entity.

Once again, the sacrifice of Jesus applies to all sin, past, present and future. So the role He is playing with respect to people who were not yet aware of His sacrifice is in making it possible for them to even come to God in the first place.

Hence the weirdness and weakness of the definition is that one also wouldn't subject the said party to eternal torture if they, in the course of one brief lifetime, were only 30, 70 or 2% short of coming to the table of such acceptance

I have repeatedly pointed out the inaccuracy of this assessment, but it seems that you just want to ignore me.

Once again, what is torturous is the self-imposed separation that some people seem destined to choose, and the only shortcoming that forgiveness can't extend to for the purposes of bringing people to God is rejection itself.

especially when the issue of jesus is shrouded in the problems of provincialism as explained earlier

That criticism has been addressed several times now, but instead of actually listening, you just keep restating the problem in a form that does not resemble the real state of affairs as detailed in Christian theology.

the problem is that there is no real strong definition of "relationship with god" and "choosing god" in this argument (since pre-jesus persons appear to have one version and post-jesus persons have another). IOW the dynamics of salvation are presented as whimsical

My point is that rewarding persons who are not fully devoted to god with eternal torture makes for a weaker definition of god.

If you state things in such a way that they are properly in accordance with Christian theology, then it is as follows:

Those who are genuinely seeking God; who are striving to be free of those things which conspire to lead one to false gods or a mere worldly existence, will become one with God in perfection through the cleansing sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Those who don't are choosing what is ultimately a self-imposed separation.

If we see in this life that rejection is not eternal (in fact it is even played up significantly as not being eternal - as evidenced by the link given by wynn) then you have to explain why it would be eternal in the next .... provided you still want to run with this idea of there being no idea of infinite punishment for a finite crime.

We're not talking about any ordinary circumstances. We're talking about the emotional and psychological reality of standing there, on the day of judgment, trying to come to terms with the truth of an existence that has been laid bare by God for all to see. There's no hiding anymore, there's no self-deception, there's no sophisticated rationalizations to be made to excuse anything, there is only the truth. Do you think everyone is going to react well to that sort of exposure; that everyone is going to immediately humble themselves and ask God to extend His forgiveness?

The answer it seems, is no. Probably not your average 'heathen', and probably not many of those who had managed to convince themselves that they were actually in God's grace (again, see Matthew 7:21-23). In fact as colourful as the passage below is, it clearly demonstrates that the reality of judgment can exacerbate whatever rebellious streak one may have initially been harbouring:

"The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done." - Rev 16:8-11

IOW during one era you have god's salvation being granted to persons bereft of words, thoughts and actions related to jesus and the next era you have an exclusive requirement that there is. Hence you have already established a distinction between god's salvation and jesus.

You keep getting it wrong. The mandate of accepting Jesus once one has been exposed to Him and His message is all about the fact that if one doesn't, it is indicative of a failure to recognize God due to the presence of something within a person that is preventing them from doing so.

In other words, a person who is genuinely seeking God, and is therefore within God's grace regardless of time or circumstance, is a person who will recognize Jesus for who He is.

Yet they are distinguished by the terms father and son.
Nowhere does jesus say he is the father and nowhere does he say the kingdom is his (IOW aspects of universal creation, maintenance and destruction or being the contingent force that all life in the universe depends on are not attributed to jesus)

Once again:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:1-5

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14

Explain to me exactly how you can claim things like "aspects of universal creation" are not attributed to Jesus when I have already produced a passage that clearly demonstrates that they are?

The doctrine is that the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the same entity. This is not even Christianity 101, it's Sunday school.

IOW the role of god and jesus are certainly distinct, even though there are good arguments (even in other religions) to explain how for all intents and purposes, god and his pure representative share an element of non-difference.

The role of the Holy Spirit is in some ways distinct from God as well, but I don't really understand how you think this detracts from His potency. An omnipotent being can manifest in any way it chooses, even choosing, for a time, not to exercise that power for the purposes of achieving certain outcomes with respect to man.

As mentioned, its the inability of these seemingly core values of Christianity to come off as philosophically sound or even substantiated by the bible that seem to ride off a weakened definition of god.

You haven't actually demonstrated anything of the sort. Your primary problem is simply that you don't have the requisite knowledge of scripture or Christian theology to properly evaluate it, as evidenced by the fact that most of the work I find myself doing here is all about correcting your misconceptions.

 

[aaqucnaona]

huge thread, i like it because it's huge, it's sort of a rarity here in the religion subfora.

however, old question, and so is my answer.

but never "crossed swords" with this op before, so my answer is yes.

because most humans, iow humanity, can't sustain itself morally without god.

Agreed.

 

[scifes]

@scifes --



What makes you say this?

cuz many people can, or think they can, cheat, overpass or break a social well being system.
god by definition is an unbreakable system.

 

[wynn]

You keep getting it wrong. The mandate of accepting Jesus once one has been exposed to Him and His message is all about the fact that if one doesn't, it is indicative of a failure to recognize God due to the presence of something within a person that is preventing them from doing so.

In other words, a person who is genuinely seeking God, and is therefore within God's grace regardless of time or circumstance, is a person who will recognize Jesus for who He is.

/.../

You haven't actually demonstrated anything of the sort. Your primary problem is simply that you don't have the requisite knowledge of scripture or Christian theology to properly evaluate it, as evidenced by the fact that most of the work I find myself doing here is all about correcting your misconceptions.

The thing is, Rav, that you are merely playing the Christian here, but actually aren't one. We could have this play go on for weeks, and you would continue to oppose us simply for the sake of playing your part.
We can't convince you to change your mind or accept our arguments because you are in character.

This is indicative of the difference between a person who actually holds a view and a person who holds it for the sake of the argument.

Someone who really holds a view may become convinced by another, change their mind, but they will limit their participation and/or eventually resort to emotionalism/ad homs.



LG, Rav -

Do you find my meta-observations useful?