You HAVE to believe

[Jenyar]

It could also be said another way. The test shows a person for what they are, and the test comes from God -- therefore God could be said to have hardened their heart by means of the test. Or in the case of Thessalonians, by sending a delusion that will be believed by those who would not believe the truth. It leaves no middle ground.

What do you think Adstar?

PS. I don't think the consequences of Calvinistic determinism is so atrocious if you accept them fully and not just provisionally: if things are determined to such a complete degree, the can be no moral evaluation... things simply "are as they should be," by all accounts. This may seem rejectionable, but our emotional reaction is only justifiable under a different argument: that everyone should have a say in the matter. It seems to me Paul is advancing both arguments: 1) that we DO have a say in the matter, BUT 2) that God was, is, and will be the sovereign and unquestionable authority who has the final say: His will be done.

 

[Adstar]

It could also be said another way. The test shows a person for what they are, and the test comes from God -- therefore God could be said to have hardened their heart by means of the test. Or in the case of Thessalonians, by sending a delusion that will be believed by those who would not believe the truth. It leaves no middle ground.

What do you think Adstar?

I agree the test shows a person for what they are. But does not cause one to be what they are. The test gives a public demonstration of rebellion. God does not need to test us, as if God does not know what we will do.

God also puts us to the test to reveal ourselves to ourselves.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

PS. I don't think the consequences of Calvinistic determinism is so atrocious if you accept them fully and not just provisionally: if things are determined to such a complete degree, the can be no moral evaluation... things simply "are as they should be," by all accounts. This may seem rejectionable, but our emotional reaction is only justifiable under a different argument: that everyone should have a say in the matter. It seems to me Paul is advancing both arguments: 1) that we DO have a say in the matter, BUT 2) that God was, is, and will be the sovereign and unquestionable authority who has the final say: His will be done.

To accept the 5 points of clavinisim is to accept that God has created people with absolutely no chance to be with Him in eternity. People who where made/designed to disbelieve. In the end everyone will believe in what they believe. All we can do is trust in God and be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I am convinced that the conclusion of calvanisim is an insult to God and in all conscience i cannot just stand by and allow it to be propagated unchallenged.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[§outh§tar]

You are arguing completely from a naturalistic, nurtured-by-nature perspective. From such a viewpoint, no, there is no space for God, and you will become whatever life tosses at you. No identity of your own. But people aren't as objective and robotic as your theory would make them -- they do make choices, for instance: what to believe and what not to. These things become preconceptions. This is what hardens if you leave it without working on it, kneading it. Christians are shaped by the same natural forces that shape everybody else. We're not a different breed. But we consider God a transcendental truth -- something that supercedes this reality that would shape us. Someone who gives us the freedom to choose. God asks us: Which nature do you nurture?

The blindness of the Jews only became evident when God did what they would not accept. When God's shiny laws were so wonderful and allpowerful that they could not see -- and therefore accept -- anything greater.

That is a very nice strawman you have made.

Did I mention you forgot to answer my questions directly? Beating around the bush doesn't help me.

You not-so-cunningly sidestepped my answer, but I'll rephrase it. God's will prevails -- there we agree. But how--how does He make some people blind and others see, and what does God consider blindness and sight? What is the mechanism, and where do we fit into it? In the sacrificial system, blemishes such as blindness and lameness were signs of sin and imperfection, making the sacrifice unacceptable. But these could be healed (as Jesus showed; cf. John 9). What Jesus did was to show that physical limitations were not limitations to God: He forgave "imperfections" as He forgave sins -- according to the faith of the believer. In other words, faith became the "evidence" for or against you, not your limitations or your circumstancial nature. Everybody could gain forgiveness, regardless of disability. In fact, disability only makes God's grace seem that much more visible and miraculous. But faith does not restore the body, God does that.

In 2 Cor. 3, Paul uses the giving of the Law to Moses and the Israelites as explanation. They could not look on the glory of the Law, and it scared them. Moses had to be veiled when he shared God's revelation with them (Ex. 24:29-33).

Let us note a few examples from the Bible, where God punishes the sons for the sins of the father by death. And other times where God punishes the sons for the sins of the parents by infirmity.

What you are saying is that God strikes me down and then reaches down to help me up so that I can praise Him for being merciful.

So you admit it's not conclusive? That "and I would heal them" is a promise. But if the seed that would bring healing doesn't fall on good soil, it produces no effect (Parable of the sower, Matthew 13). In John 12 and Acts 28, the same passage shows that some Jews did in fact believe, even though others didn't in spite of even Jesus' miracles. The conclusion is the same: there is no excuse.

You have obviously misread the context Jenyar. PLEASE read it: "whom He wills He hardens".

Those he hardened could not believe obviously. That is inescapable but you do not seem to be grasping it.

Utterly ignores my question, so if you could again readress it in your response.

God can will, but faith cannot? And how do you know this?

Are you saying faith can will? Your current theory is that we have no will. What do you suppose faith does, then?

That is not my current theory but.

You did not answer my question. Try not to read implications that are not in my questions.

And did you read Paul's answer? I assume you did, but could not accept it. He appeals to God's sovereignity, which you do not believe in. Nature has the final say, in your book: the spontanious firing of neurons. That is your god -- whatever causes their firing and therefore the results is your "god", this you can accept, but you will not accept that God can grant us freedom within His will. And it is the exercise of this freedom you must answer for.

I never called anyone or anything my god. Again, if you could stop with the condescending statements and ad hominems. Also many, if not all of your stated assumptions about me are inaccurate. Try not to make baseless accusations, especially when they are irrelevant to the topic.

Paul is talking about Jesus as the Christ, therefore in a messianic context, to whom messianic prophecies apply, for instance:

Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.​

But since you are not a messianic Jew, and you do not consider Scripture authoritive anyway, I don't know why you even bother to ask.

Very good. Brushing aside your irrelevant comments on what you believe I think and don't think..

Can you please provide me with the contextual evidence supporting your claim that Hosea 6:2? Remember in your response that the verses are referring to Israel and Judah. Contextual evidence, please.

I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you waged your own argument. After all, you said you didn't know who to trust. How do you justify appealing to other people's arguments? I could understand if you were citing sources to support your own arguments, but what is this?

You are the first Christian who simply cannot refrain from using personal attacks against me. Can you just GET OVER IT so that we can talk? I am tired of hearing you tell me what god I have created and what I believe in and what I don't believe in.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Matthew 5:19-20
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.</td><td>Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.</td></tr></table>
Please point out the "evident polarization" for us. Jesus says that unless we (gentiles) are more perfect than the experts themselves, we will not be good enough, and Paul says not even Jews could live up to that.

Paul says that "a man is not justified by observing the law" and Jesus says "whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

If you do not see the discrepancy.

Your question was about our contract with God. Even if you do not claim to know the difference between right and wrong, you still admit the difference exists, don't you?

Now you are being just plain stupid. Where in that response did I claim to not know the difference between right and wrong? Keep your baseless accusations to yourself.

Surely you don't consider murder morally equivalent to charity? But they are, from a pure deterministic perspective (whatever you believe determines it). Where there are no alternatives, nothing is either good or bad -- they simply are. It's not a dilemma that will go away by denying alternatives, whether you choose to call them "dualisms" or not.

Even though you have done your interpolation, your own words damn you. On what scale do you propose to measure the equivalence of murder and charity? Your arbitrary one? If not then why do you insinuate they are not the same? More arbitrariness?

It's axiomatic. God is authority per se, and there is no higher authority than God.

I was wondering when the great cop out would show up.

Your questions were: "...explain why works do not bring any 'reward'? Also, how does Jesus blood satisfy any contract?"

I have answered both question very directly. When a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. Righteousness is not something we can attain, so it must be a gift.

I am sorry but this was never established. How did you arrive at the conclusion that righteousness is not something we can attain?

It is also a non sequitur to claim since righteousness is not something we can attain, it must be a gift. Your logic does not follow.

It does not annul faith. If you had followed Paul's argument into Romans 5:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.​

Faith does not earn grace, it is the acceptance of it.

Are you sure you actually read the verse. It says quite clearly: we have been justified through faith. And again "...through whom we have gained access by faith" Therefore faith earns grace.

God's grace is given freely, but even an omnipotent God cannot give you something you won't accept.

Then He is obviously not omnipotent. Your logic fails and you contradict yourself hopelessly.

Good question. Do you know the answer? I trust God's righteousness, and we don't know their circumstances or relationship with God. They won't be punished for ignorance, but that does not make them innocent. However, we are not the judge of them.

That is a cop out and a contradiction.

If I ask 'Which God' and you say you don't know, you contradict yourself by saying immediately thereafter that "I trust God's righteousness". Which God's righteousness do you trust?

Again, it seems they all had the concept of God or gods. We read a few times where people from outside of Israel knew and served God: Balaam the prophet (although he ended up betraying God), Melchizedec the priest, Jethro the Midianite (who taught Moses), Rahab the prostitute... it was possible for them to have the right kind of faith God recognizes. The faith Hebrews 11 speaks of.

You are avoiding the question. What about the people in the entire continent of South America immediately after Jesus died? Did they all go to hell because they did not believe in someone they did not even know? The Bible says yes and you?

If you don't believe it, how does it affect you? And if it doesn't affect you, you are living as if God never acted, and Jesus never died for you. Then you are still crucifying Christ, not following him. It is only Christ himself that can justify you, not the mere fact of his existence or his death.

Regardless of whether or not I or anyone else believes it, Christ died for our sins. My believing it does not change the fact. My unbelief does not change the fact either. Therefore we are saved whether or not we believe.

And if you say only Christ can justify me and not his existence or death, then what would be the point in his death?

Look, the analogy is useless because the T-Rex did not give us life, and therefore angering him would not affect our lives.

Wow! Can you say 'strawman' 10 times really fast? No wonder you feel so confident.

We sinned against God, and with that sin we cannot have a relationship with Him. That would be strictly our loss, but since God loves us He considers it His loss as well.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

And it's not a "oh, that's too bad" loss; it's the kind of loss a father feels when his only son has been wrongfully sentenced to death. Why would the son insist on dying instead of proving himself innocent? Because he knows that the only innocence that counts is before God, not before people. And that's also the innocence we could not have hoped for and would not have had if God did not forgive our sins on account of Jesus, our mediator.

Are you saying God placed people in a position He knew would inevitably cause them to fail and them sent His son whom He arbitrarily knew would not fail?

Do you know Ghandi's heart, or are you judging him by his works? Faith makes a difference, or you would have had no works to judge him by. By some human standards he was worthless -- with no possessions, wealth or material success. Why should we judge him by *your* standards, and how do your standards compare to God's?

Why don't you try reading what I wrote for a change? I specifically said "from what we can tell".

Probably not, but their actions will decide the issue. God's sovereignity and man's responsibility work together -- and that is also God's grace: that He would not make his decision our prison, but our freedom. As you are becoming increasingly aware: we are our own prisons. There is no indication that God's hardening cannot produce faith, on the contrary. God's will leaves room for our response: Pharaoh could have let Israel go; the Jews could all have accepted Christ.

There is no indication however that God's hardening can produce faith. Please provide your reason for believing so instead of appealing to ignorance.

Don't ignore your doubts, not at all -- just don't assign them sovereignity. They aren't greater than God. But if you cannot have faith that He would answer those questions according to His will, you might miss the answers completely.

In other words I should be circular and assume the God I am trying to believe in. Circulus in demonstrado!

The evidence is not against God, that is only another kind of faith; a belief based on trusting some arguments and not others, as always. Your faith would be enough if it was humbly, simply, obediently and persistently seeking God, and not justification for whatever philosophy you'd like to hold on to.

But I can only repeat: it's not faith that justifies you, or the search. It's God. Faith is the portal; the ear. It's an evidence-shaped ear, an honest, truth-hearing ear that allows people to tell you the truth and show you what love is. It doesn't listen to slander and inconsistency, but seeks out what is good and profitable for life. It's not so much believing in God as believing God.

All religions spout the same rhetoric and so what if I choose to believe in some other religion which says the very same thing as you? Then I go to hell. So please stop trying to oversimplify.

Based on evidence? Have you actually weighed the evidence for a Corn Flaked sky? The claims aren't the same, and there are different implications for believing them.

I will ask you the same thing.

Based on evidence? Have you actually weighed the evidence for God? If it seems so incredulous to you then you should understand where someone is coming from when they say they have no reason to believe in God. Of course if you could give me some of these so called "claims" for believing in God, that would be beneficial.

[quoting]Because evidently, there still is room for faults -- our faults. If we are still curled up in a small bundle of fear and anguish about whether we may accept forgiveness and love or not, aren't we holding on a bit too tightly to our faults, and letting them paralyze us into thinking God has ordained our situation or set it in stone?[/QUOTE]

According to the Bible, that is precisely true.

 

[§outh§tar]

Wait, you can't do that and remain faithful to the Bible. It is said that God loves the world, the people. Therefore, He does care what you do to Him, no matter how small you may be in comparison to Him. What you do to Him *is* of consequence, because He has made room for this consequence by loving you.

Of course, personally, one may believe that God doesn't love one or that God doesn't really care. But taking that stance, one cannot argue using biblical arguments.

As soon as one says something like "our puny bite is of no consequence to God", you leave the domain of biblically supported arguments!

If you don't want me to be arbitrary then do you also want me to accept that the earth is flat because the Bible says so? Or that Jesus is God because the Bible says so?

You certainly came across as proud. I remember the way you went against me at least once. Oh, the fury!

I was zealous, not proud.

If anyone says that to you, you can discard that as inconsistent.
Namely, we cannot demand from a person to do something that cannot be done deliberately.

We cannot deliberately admire, respect, have faith, believe, fall in love, doubt, hate etc. -- these are states that are essentially side-products of other cognitive and emotive processes.

In the light of this, I must stress that your motto I WANT TO BELIEVE is also inconsistent. We cannot believe by explicitly wanting to believe. By saying I WANT TO BELIEVE to yourself, you are actually expecting/demanding yourself to do something that cannot be done deliberately. This is one of the reasons why your quest has been so aggravating so far.

Well then what should I do? I don't know what I want anymore. Nothing to look forward to. Everything seems trivial and hopeless.

Words mean nothing.

!!??!!??!!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the sense that they are not the reality we claim they are.

Why not? Maybe you just aren't used to using language for that, or aren't trusting language for the things it can express.

Are you telling me to trust a circular system? That's suicide!

For starters in that what you see that works no matter what.

But that "no matter what' mentality equals complacency.

All things can only be trusted at face value

I have no idea how you can support that.

Is there anything you don't trust at face value?

Habit breeds faith.

No. I vehemently disagree.
In my opinion, that is a skewed image of faith that you have there.

Do you have a counter-example then?

[QUOTE'faith' is unfounded hope.

No. This is resentment speaking.[/QUOTE]

Justifiable faith is a contradiction in terms to me but. Do you have any examples of justifiable faith? Try not to be circular. See my point now?

This depends on who you think God is.
If you think God is that old man with a beard, and you pray to that old man with a beard and he does not answer -- then you can't blame God for not answering.

Who do you think God is? I obviously don't know and am searching in all the wrong places.

Maybe you are expecting too much from trust.

I expect as much out as I put in.

What?!
If you trust someone, this person has monopoly over you?!
Where did you get that?!

If you think that trusting someone comes at the expense of your own worth and self-trust -- then you ought to learn something about trust.

If I trusted you to mail me a huge sum of money to pay a debt, I would be at your whim. I would be entirely dependent on you to save me from my debt, I would be preocuppied with the hope of getting the money from you. Anyone who exercises that much power over another is too dangerous.

Alright. Don't be hasty! It's not like you are indebted to someone, or pressured by some deadline by which you have to make up your mind about God.

But I am tired of waiting. I am not used to this sort of insecurity actually. I was used to bliss and now look at me.

Who is saying you should WAIT?!

I am waiting for that dove from heaven to glide down and give me some inspired revelation of peace and joy and enlightenment. I can't go looking for God because I don't know where He is. So I have to wait until He comes to me. It doesn't look like He is either.

No, I am not asking you this!

And secondly, if you don't know who God is or how to address Him -- then how do you know that even if you did ask Him something, that the request came to the right address, so to speak?!

I could learn from you. You could tell me how to find God.

I didn't "get over it". I never was a Christian, 2 and a half years back I had an experience with the Mormons, but that's it.

Aye, the Mormons.. //shudders

And saying that you "fooled yourself into thinking you were doing it for God and God alone" is odd to me, considering that you later said that "My identity depends on my environment. This isn't my fault." If you think that the environemnt determined your identity, and with it, your actions -- then how can *you* say that *you* "fooled yourself into something?!

I am changing the definitions of "I". When I say I fooled myself I mean my brain fooled me. It's quite difficult to explain until you see my theory.

It's is not your fault that you were the way you were -- this much we can agree on.

And if it isn't your fault, you dont' have to take the blame for it.

Who is to blame then? Somebody has to take it.

How do you disappoint yourself?

I think that you are setting yourself too high expectations, expectations that cannot be fulfilled. No wonder you end up disappointed. But all you see is the disappointment, not the expectations that lead to it.

I disappoint myself by not living up to my goals, whatever they may be. What I will and what I do are not the same. And don't say 'set lower goals' because I don't know how to set lower goals. It's like what you said about love, even if I wanted to, I couldn't.

Trust isn't "forged".

Why not?

You are fixing it as we speak.

But I want a wonder pill. I want instant gratification.

Will you die if I die?
No, you won't, SouthStar.

(Unless I undertake some subversive actions to take you with me. But I won't do that.)

Whew.

So the man thinks.
The man does speak though, and there are those who can hear, and they come to help, into his pit.

What does the man want really?
Does he regret ever falling into the pit in the first place (does he desire the status quo ante)? Or does he never want to fall into the same pit again?

I am afraid to know.

I don't want you to "think positively"; it is an inconsistent demand to say "think positively".
You can, however, keep to what you know is good for you.

"Stop doubting" is another inconsistent demand. One shouldn't set oneself inconsistent demands.

But if I do these things, I overcome my problems.

To say that "Are all viewpoints of God not marred from the outsets of Christianity? How can we know God if we mold Him into a caricature?" is to start from a comparison that supposes you know both the Christian God and God "as He truly is".

As all the Christian Chrurches and sects and believers constantly argue, it is not clear what exactly is to be the "Christian God", so we have to dismiss this idea of a "Christian God" in the first place.
And as for God "as He truly is" -- neither of us now claims to know that. So we have to dismiss this idea also.
Thus, we can't speak of "marred viewpoints" and "caricatures".

Then what am I really looking for?

I'll repeat what I said before:
And thirdly, as far as trust between people is concerned: I'm afraid you have too high expectations. Not too high because humans are fallible beings. But too high because you expect more from that trust than can actually be achieved in a relationship of trust. I'm afraid your identity and self-worth depend on others too much.

I put a lot in, I expect a lot out. Is that a a bad thing?

Tell me: If you moved to some other place, to some very different environment than the one you were brought up in -- would your identity change completely?

It would change nonetheless. It is always changing. Therefore we have identities, not an identity. Our childhood environment moulds our identity for the most part.

And then what? Then you will sue your environment for "emotional pains"?

I will do to the perpetrator what has been done to me: destroy. Tit for tat.

Were you brought up as Christian? Was it your parents who introduced your (first) religion to you?

Because if it was so, then you were a little child when you started going to church -- and to claim that a 4-year old has thought "I thought Christianity and its God were reasonable to trust. Or so I thought." is unrealistic, to say the least.

Yes I was brought up a Christian. But after some years I think I was thinking for myself about Christianity.

If I am running and I fall, do I keep running or do I learn from my lesson?

How many times have you fallen? It looks like this is only your first fall. You haven't even had the chance to start learning from your and other people's mistakes.

And that would be one time too many. Should've never fallen into the pit. Then I wouldn't have needed to get out.

He has had a completely different experience of Christianity than you and me. We can't compare those experiences and treat them as if they were the same.

He treats my experience as if it's the same as his. Let us do unto Jenyar as he does unto us.

I don't think it is Christianity that is "flying around buzzing in every crevice and irritating you". What is "flying around buzzing in every crevice and irritating you" is what your experience of Christianity has *provoked* in your personality -- but this has nothing in specific to do with Christianity; some other religion or ideology could have provoked the same things.

This is exactly why they cannot be trusted. They are all circular and therefore when you are broken free, you have nothing left. I hate it. I HATE IT.

Well then, if you yourself see that waiting isn't a good thing -- then what can you do? What do you think you should do?

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know! That's why you have to tell me. I really don't know. I am used to having someone or something else giving me instructions. What do I do now for myself? I can only look to you.

You neither know how tall the wall is, neither do you know your abilities.

But I can't just stand there; I must do something! But what?

Just an endless circle. I expect after getting over this circle (if I do, what a miracle) there will be greener pastures on the other side. There will be more to discover, more to learn, more happiness, more joy, everything I want. More assumptions and hope. Not faith, hope.

Good then!

Do you think it is realistic for me to seek satisfaction for myself?

*You* are the one who was making the HUGE mistake in believing Christianity can be defended intellectually, not Jenyar.

It should be. If not, it is false. Since it is a circular system, it is not defendable. So it is inconsistent with itself. Incompleteness.

Have you any idea how cold and loveless you used to be, when you were preaching?! I got the chills reading your posts. You were someone who gave the impression he could and would kill anyone who doesn't agree with him.
I'm not saying this to criticize you, but this is my earliest experience of you.
You were defending Christianity intellectually -- and this is a grave downscaling. You forgot the love part.

I was zealous back then, sheesh. I was full of the sperit' and I was a-comin to the forum to evangelize to the heathen. Did you really expect me to be Mother Theresa?

Besides, I have never been one to show emotion. I hate showing emotion. It makes me weak. Makes me vulnerable. I still hate crying. I LOATHE crying. Oh how I hate it! Emotions are superfluous.

Can there be a greater embarassment and blow?

Yes: thinking that you must be right, no matter what.

If I am not right and I am conscious of that fact, then I become a hideous hypocrite for being complacent about it.

So? This is actually to your advanatage. Now you can at least tell when you are fooling yourself, and when you are not fooling yourself.

I can't actually. I could only tell ex post.

But then it wasn't *you* fooling yourself anyway!! Why the fuss then?!

Well who was it then!

So you explicitly wish to *change* people?
And you are who? the new Messiah?

The Buddha. I have been through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale. I almost feel the need to pat myself on the back.

So? It's all "neurons firing away", sure. But when you think of the things you have to do in a day, you don't think of those things as "neurons firing away" -- you think of those things as "after work, I have to go to the store" or "I don't like those shoes" or "I don't think what Lizzie said to Millie was right".

All to be explained in due time dearest. Do not be so impatient with perfection.

For starters, you can tell yourself "I don't have to feel like an idiot if I trust someone".

Isn't that an inconsistent demand too?

We trust, or life is impossible.

And so we become inconsistent. Hypocrites. We pretend our arbitrariness isn't there.

If this is all you think about trust, then trust is no good for you, indeed.

Tell me this: why should I trust again after what I am going through?

(And don't say I will have to answer it for myself because I don't know how)

Non sequitur or not: We live and we must live. We decide somehow, even if it is based on what techincally are non-sequiturs.
When we decide, we decide based on our values and preferences -- and you do have values and preferences. Don't forget about them.

So we are to be arbitrary? This somehow does not satisfy me. It does not satisfy me to know I am being arbitrary and content with being so. I want to be consistent but every where I turn I find circularity and arbitrariness. Inconsistency will drive me mad. Why is this so?

Your understanding and experience of Christianity is not the only understanding and experience of Christianity.

You have a certain interpretation of the Bible that is based on your understanding and your experience of Christianity. And we have seen that your expereince of Christianity is specific in certain ways -- like professing faith in order to buy and justify other people's love.

My understanding of Christianity was correct within the circle even though I now see it as wrong. Anyone else's interpretation, if it differs, is wrong. Any differing viewpoint is an arbitrary deviation from orthodoxy;heresy.

Why? As for life, we can always infer a Big Bang as the first cause, problem solved.

We can if we want to. But that doesn't satisfy me I say. What caused the Big Bang then? Why did the universe not just continue to be in the primordial state? To just throw our hands up in the air and say we can't know, to be complacent, that kills me. I cannot live with myself - for some reason.

You are being facetious.

It helps.

Sometimes, they indeed aren't.
But why should you want to trust those people?

That is what you need to tell me because I seriously don't know anymore.

Do you think it is still a wise choice to take the risk of trusting someone?

Yes.

Then why can I not do it? My will and my actions, they repel.

As for identifying reasons for unbelief that have nothing to do with God: If one has been raised into a person with no self-confidence, a someone who has no trust for one's own thoughts and actions -- then such a person will also not believe in an ideology, as they will infinitely doubt their ability to understand anything.

And doubt we rightly should. There is no reason to be complacent. None.

EVERYONE IS PASSING BY YOU?
Really?
I think this is one of those sky-high expectations you have.

Like I said. There is no reason to be complacent. Even if I wanted to be complacent or remotely satisfied, I couldn't be. I can't. Don't know how to. I feel like I should be doing something. Don't know what though.

But *you* do not know whether *you* are hardened or not, *you* do not know whether *you* are shown grace or not!

You don't even know what to think of God! So how could you claim that He has either hardened you, or showed you grace?!

Some people claim to know. I should be able to.

Say I am omniscient and omnipotent. I gave you money to go across the street for milk knowing very well you would be skipping and prancing about on the road and would get hit by a car.

Now for some reason you did not get hit by the car. It would only mean that I am not omniscient, and therefore not omnipotent. If I was, you would have been hit by that car, no question about it.

Same thing goes for knowing someone is going to be a murderer, or a thief.

This is fallacious!

If, in this metaphor, you are omnipotent, then nothing can happen "for some reason" without you having power over that!

Which is exactly my point. I cannot even want to be saved or be saved or find peace or whatever without God having power over every circumstance. If He did not, then He would not be omniscient. That is why He is to blame. Now you understand.

Therefore in order for God to be omniscient, we cannot have free will on any level.

This is one bloody cop-out.

That thing above is a fallacious argument -- you have put premises into it that actually exclude eachother.

That argument contains these premises:

A1:
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.
P3: Things can happen.

Per se, each premise is valid. But you cannot put all three into one argument, as P3 is in opposition to what P1 and P2 say.

Therefore either P1 or P2 must be false.

Only after I posted that post, I realized how provoking my question actually was, for all involved. But I decided to leave it and not edit it.
Why I am talking to you? It is the shock of seeing another person stumble, and I came to do what I can to help.

But I don't know why you feel you sound like and idiot.

Yes. I read the question and stumbled for a moment. I had wondered it before but was afraid to ask. Don't want to sound all sentimental and whatnot - hate it.

Thank you.

 

[§outh§tar]

Quote from Southstar

Yes Southstar thought that he could defend Christianity using his intellectual abilities and that was his down fall. We do use intellectual points to defend our faith but we do not rely on intellectualism exclusively.

And because of that, we have inconsitency. Arbitrariness. Hypocrisy. Incompleteness.

Those things may be fine for you, you may be satisfied. Not me.

 

[water]

Raising this thread to be replied to.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it when you replied.

 

[water]

If you don't want me to be arbitrary then do you also want me to accept that the earth is flat because the Bible says so? Or that Jesus is God because the Bible says so?

*squeezes SouthStar so strongly that he squeaks*

Well then what should I do? I don't know what I want anymore. Nothing to look forward to. Everything seems trivial and hopeless.

There are many, many people who would be more than happy to tell you what you should do.
But this doesn't mean they know what is good for you.
Only you know that.

Are you telling me to trust a circular system? That's suicide!

No, not at all, I'm not telling you to trust a circular system. I would like you to see though that language isn't a circular system.

For starters in that what you see that works no matter what.

But that "no matter what' mentality equals complacency.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes, things break down, and one must start from scratch. And in that situation, one must start with things that work no matter what.
One cannot plan how to decorate the living room and buy that furniture, if one hasn't even poured the foundations of the house.

All things can only be trusted at face value

I have no idea how you can support that.

Is there anything you don't trust at face value?

There is more to people, and things, than face value.

Habit breeds faith.

No. I vehemently disagree.
In my opinion, that is a skewed image of faith that you have there.

Do you have a counter-example then?

In the many threads I have started, it is for topics that came up here, faith being one of them -- in "Lack of faith".
A habit is something that took effort to learn, but once you've learned it, you do it without thinking much. Surely, to some people, faith is something like that, a habit. If anything, habit breeds confidence.

But, and here's the crux of the matter, when it comes to faith, it is essential to not let yourself become complacent in it -- becoming complacent in your faith is the same as betraying it, if that faith is such that it is about love and work (for example).
Letting love and work become a habit is betraying love and work.

Justifiable faith is a contradiction in terms to me but. Do you have any examples of justifiable faith? Try not to be circular. See my point now?

I see your point, but the problem isn't with faith as such -- but with justification in general.

Many things come naturally to us, are such that we do not question their origin or importance for us. But when challenged to explain why we have certain values and preferences -- we cannot logically, rationally, satisfactorily justify why we have those certain values and preferences.

We *can* come up with justifications, but just because we can, does not mean that they indeed are proper justifications. And then we can spin in circles, fight, ad infinitum.

I cannot justify my love for my cat.
I *can* come up with reasons *why* I love my cat -- that he is beautiful, endearing, social etc. But the truth is, that all those reasons are so limiting, so abstract and have so utterly nothing to do with how I feel for my cat -- that these reasons are useless.

Similarly with why have faith in God, or what is a justifiable faith. I find the questions possible, frequent, but utterly nonsensical.

One can answer "I have faith in God because God will grant me eternal life" or "because God will see that justice will be served". But in my opinion, those are such gross abstractions and limitations that they downright equal a betrayal of faith and God.

It's like saying "I love you because you are good to me" or "because you are beautiful". It's so instrumental!
And what -- if the other person isn't good to you at some point, will you stop loving them because of that? Or if something happens to them and they aren't beautiful anymore (physically), you will stop loving them because of that? This is conditional love, and conditional love doesn't last, neither is it meaningful and fulfilling.

Also, conditional faith also doesn't last, and it isn't meaningful and fulfilling.

Love is.
Faith is.
One loves.
One has faith.

"Why?" is the wrong question here. Why is "Why?" a wrong question? Because answering it limits love and faith to something describable, something reasonable, and thus also something conditional.

Who do you think God is? I obviously don't know and am searching in all the wrong places.

I don't know who God is. But I surely am on a good way to show what God is *not*!
We can approach the definition ex negativo.

Maybe you are expecting too much from trust.

I expect as much out as I put in.

Yes, and putting in a lot makes one vulnerable. What people really shun is the vulnerability, not trust as such.
And it is this vulnerability that needs to be looked in. (A thread of its own!)

If I trusted you to mail me a huge sum of money to pay a debt, I would be at your whim. I would be entirely dependent on you to save me from my debt, I would be preocuppied with the hope of getting the money from you. Anyone who exercises that much power over another is too dangerous.

Wait. Wait.
-- To use your example: But would *you* trust *me* with *that*?
The prerequisite of trust is knowing the other person. The more you know someone, the more you know whether you can trust them and what in you can trust them.
If I would be a rich relative whom you are on close tems with and who has helped out before, then it would make sense to trust me for that money. Otherwise, no, and you also wouldn't be at that person's whim.

But I am tired of waiting. I am not used to this sort of insecurity actually. I was used to bliss and now look at me.

I understand this. Such is life.

I am waiting for that dove from heaven to glide down and give me some inspired revelation of peace and joy and enlightenment. I can't go looking for God because I don't know where He is. So I have to wait until He comes to me. It doesn't look like He is either.

My heart is sore pained within me: and the terrors of death are fallen upon me. Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me. And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.

No, I am not asking you this!

And secondly, if you don't know who God is or how to address Him -- then how do you know that even if you did ask Him something, that the request came to the right address, so to speak?!

I could learn from you. You could tell me how to find God.

Why do you think I could tell you how to find God?

And saying that you "fooled yourself into thinking you were doing it for God and God alone" is odd to me, considering that you later said that "My identity depends on my environment. This isn't my fault." If you think that the environemnt determined your identity, and with it, your actions -- then how can *you* say that *you* "fooled yourself into something?!

I am changing the definitions of "I". When I say I fooled myself I mean my brain fooled me. It's quite difficult to explain until you see my theory.

I know what you mean, but I think you are shifting the onus.

Who is to blame then? Somebody has to take it.

No.
First of all, no crime happened.
Secondly, what we are after is an *explanation*, we are not seeking someone or something to accuse, put to jail or destroy and then feel relieved.
There is no blame here, only an explanation.

I disappoint myself by not living up to my goals, whatever they may be. What I will and what I do are not the same. And don't say 'set lower goals' because I don't know how to set lower goals. It's like what you said about love, even if I wanted to, I couldn't.

I think you need to rethink the way you understand success.
Right now, I see that you are being crushed under the weight of seeing that you aren't perfectly achieving your goals. The pressure of accomplishing what you want is so high that it paralyzes you and prevents you from doing what you actually could do, if that pressure wouldn't be there.
I'm not saying lower your goals. But I do think that one is not one's success.

Trust isn't "forged".

Why not?

If it would be forged, it wouldn't be trust, it would be another conditional thing. (See above.)

But I want a wonder pill. I want instant gratification.

In that case, you have to take wonder ways!
Magic, superstition, drugs, whores, you name it!

What does the man want really?
Does he regret ever falling into the pit in the first place (does he desire the status quo ante)? Or does he never want to fall into the same pit again?

I am afraid to know.

I think the man wants both -- that he had never fallen into the pit, and that he would never fall into it again.

One shouldn't set oneself inconsistent demands.

But if I do these things, I overcome my problems.

Really?
Maybe this needs elaboration.
See the hiccup thread.
(I will get to it as soon as I can, I am just so busy lately.)

To say that "Are all viewpoints of God not marred from the outsets of Christianity? How can we know God if we mold Him into a caricature?" is to start from a comparison that supposes you know both the Christian God and God "as He truly is".

As all the Christian Chrurches and sects and believers constantly argue, it is not clear what exactly is to be the "Christian God", so we have to dismiss this idea of a "Christian God" in the first place.
And as for God "as He truly is" -- neither of us now claims to know that. So we have to dismiss this idea also.
Thus, we can't speak of "marred viewpoints" and "caricatures".

Then what am I really looking for?

Yourself?

I'll repeat what I said before:
And thirdly, as far as trust between people is concerned: I'm afraid you have too high expectations. Not too high because humans are fallible beings. But too high because you expect more from that trust than can actually be achieved in a relationship of trust. I'm afraid your identity and self-worth depend on others too much.

I put a lot in, I expect a lot out. Is that a a bad thing?

No, not at all. I think this is how it should be.
But considering that you sometimes feel like an idiot if you get betrayed, I think something isn't right in the way you trust.

Tell me: If you moved to some other place, to some very different environment than the one you were brought up in -- would your identity change completely?

It would change nonetheless. It is always changing. Therefore we have identities, not an identity. Our childhood environment moulds our identity for the most part.

But does the childhood environment inavoidably determine the rest of one's life, without the possibility to ever change the (seemingly) set course?

I will do to the perpetrator what has been done to me: destroy. Tit for tat.

What? You will found a new sect and have all the people who have religiously influenced you in your childhood to become members of that sect and then you will indoctrinate them and all that?

And that would be one time too many. Should've never fallen into the pit. Then I wouldn't have needed to get out.

Ah, "should have"!
If you keep on repeating that things should not be the way they are, then you are unable to see how they truly are.

He treats my experience as if it's the same as his.

I don't have this feeling.

Let us do unto Jenyar as he does unto us.

Oh.

This is exactly why they cannot be trusted. They are all circular and therefore when you are broken free, you have nothing left. I hate it. I HATE IT.

I know you hate it. I think it is good so.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know! That's why you have to tell me. I really don't know. I am used to having someone or something else giving me instructions. What do I do now for myself? I can only look to you.

You are tempting my vanity!
Too many people are too ready to tell you what to do.
All I can and am willing to do is offer a perspective -- but this does in no way mean that I am *telling you* to do as I "told" you.

But I can't just stand there; I must do something! But what?

You are doing something, the best you can at the moment.

Do you think it is realistic for me to seek satisfaction for myself?

Yes, very much so.

*You* are the one who was making the HUGE mistake in believing Christianity can be defended intellectually, not Jenyar.

It should be. If not, it is false.

No, not at all.
An ideological belief system is a matter of values and preferences. These cannot be intellectually defended.

Since it is a circular system, it is not defendable. So it is inconsistent with itself. Incompleteness.

Eventually, nothing is defendable or justifiable!
You *can* doubt everything.

I was zealous back then, sheesh. I was full of the sperit' and I was a-comin to the forum to evangelize to the heathen. Did you really expect me to be Mother Theresa?

No, not at all. I had no expectations.

Besides, I have never been one to show emotion. I hate showing emotion. It makes me weak. Makes me vulnerable. I still hate crying. I LOATHE crying. Oh how I hate it! Emotions are superfluous.

Oh.

If I am not right and I am conscious of that fact, then I become a hideous hypocrite for being complacent about it.

Non sequitur.

So? This is actually to your advanatage. Now you can at least tell when you are fooling yourself, and when you are not fooling yourself.

I can't actually. I could only tell ex post.

Such is being human.

But then it wasn't *you* fooling yourself anyway!! Why the fuss then?!

Well who was it then!

There was a long line of factors, as far as I can tell, and none of them can be ascribed full responsibility for what happened. What happened was a combined effort of those many factors, this is why it seems so ungraspable and inexplicable, so beyond reach and control.

So you explicitly wish to *change* people?
And you are who? the new Messiah?

The Buddha. I have been through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale. I almost feel the need to pat myself on the back.

Hehe.
And no, you haven't been "through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale". In order to be able to tell which circle is the worst, you'd have to experience many, many.
Ever devotedly, passionately, blood-sheddingly tried Islam? Hinduism? Scientology, perhaps? No. So you can't tell which is worse.

For starters, you can tell yourself "I don't have to feel like an idiot if I trust someone".

Isn't that an inconsistent demand too?

Yes, this was the objection I had in mind as I wrote that post.
But it is also true that there is no reason to feel like an idiot if you trust someone -- someone whom you know and whom you have found to be trustworthy.

We trust, or life is impossible.

And so we become inconsistent. Hypocrites. We pretend our arbitrariness isn't there.

No. From my perspective, what *you* call "arbitrariness", is understood as 'not taking for granted'.

Tell me this: why should I trust again after what I am going through?

(And don't say I will have to answer it for myself because I don't know how)

Trust whom, trust what?
You are not a robot at the mercy of other people! Uh.
First get to know people, ideas, then there will come a time when you will be able to decide whether to trust them or not.

So we are to be arbitrary? This somehow does not satisfy me. It does not satisfy me to know I am being arbitrary and content with being so. I want to be consistent but every where I turn I find circularity and arbitrariness. Inconsistency will drive me mad. Why is this so?

Look, if you cling on to this arbitrariness, then sure, everything will look like relativistic shit.
But that's the inevitable problem if one wants to have everything intellectually justifiable -- one ends up feeling a hypocrite and a scumbag of arbitrariness.

As an aside -- why such negative evaluations (hypocrite, arbitrariness), if everything is arbitrary anyway?!

My understanding of Christianity was correct within the circle even though I now see it as wrong. Anyone else's interpretation, if it differs, is wrong. Any differing viewpoint is an arbitrary deviation from orthodoxy;heresy.

But which one is orthodoxy?! Each understanding of Christianity is correct within its circle!

We can if we want to. But that doesn't satisfy me I say. What caused the Big Bang then? Why did the universe not just continue to be in the primordial state? To just throw our hands up in the air and say we can't know, to be complacent, that kills me. I cannot live with myself - for some reason.

Oh, you can live with yourself, you just don't like it the way it is at the moment. And you are working to fix it.

Do you think it is still a wise choice to take the risk of trusting someone?

Yes.

Then why can I not do it? My will and my actions, they repel.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand: What repels? Your will and your actions repel other people, and hence trust is impossible? Or do your will and your actions rebel?

And doubt we rightly should. There is no reason to be complacent. None.

But don't let doubt become your master.

Like I said. There is no reason to be complacent. Even if I wanted to be complacent or remotely satisfied, I couldn't be. I can't. Don't know how to. I feel like I should be doing something. Don't know what though.

I think you are doing something.
For one thing, you are talking here to me, to people on this forum.
Maybe it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but this shouldn't discourage you from keeping on looking.

But *you* do not know whether *you* are hardened or not, *you* do not know whether *you* are shown grace or not!

You don't even know what to think of God! So how could you claim that He has either hardened you, or showed you grace?!

Some people claim to know. I should be able to.

Ah, should, should, should. Bah!
To should is to not.

Which is exactly my point. I cannot even want to be saved or be saved or find peace or whatever without God having power over every circumstance. If He did not, then He would not be omniscient. That is why He is to blame. Now you understand.

But blaming God doesn't help you, does it?!
Namely, you don't know who God is or where to find him, so blaming him really isn't a solution to your problems. You are blaming someone whom you don't know.

That argument contains these premises:

A1:
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.
P3: Things can happen.

Per se, each premise is valid. But you cannot put all three into one argument, as P3 is in opposition to what P1 and P2 say.

Therefore either P1 or P2 must be false.

No.
It only means that you cannot use all three premises in one and the same argument!

Yes. I read the question and stumbled for a moment. I had wondered it before but was afraid to ask. Don't want to sound all sentimental and whatnot - hate it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[§outh§tar]

If you don't want me to be arbitrary then do you also want me to accept that the earth is flat because the Bible says so? Or that Jesus is God because the Bible says so?

*squeezes SouthStar so strongly that he squeaks*

If I shouldn't be arbitrary then I shouldn't have double standards. That means I can't read the Bible the way I *want* to.. I just take it all literally

There are many, many people who would be more than happy to tell you what you should do.
But this doesn't mean they know what is good for you.
Only you know that.

I think I know. I think I think I know. They think they know. They think they think they know. To trust others when they themselves are inconsistent. To trust ourselves when we ourselves are inconsistent. What a dangerous risk to take.

No, not at all, I'm not telling you to trust a circular system. I would like you to see though that language isn't a circular system.

Language is a circular system. Words are defined by words. You use language to show that language is a circular system. Why is language not a circular system? Because it is not a circular system. Nope, don't see the circularity there. It is by language we know there is even a circularity to begin with, which means that language is responsible for the circularity.

Just as the blind do not dream visually, the deaf and dumb do not think circularly since they don't think verbally.

But that "no matter what' mentality equals complacency.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes, things break down, and one must start from scratch. And in that situation, one must start with things that work no matter what.
One cannot plan how to decorate the living room and buy that furniture, if one hasn't even poured the foundations of the house.

Why must one start with things that work no matter what?

The point is although we don't know why this is true, we are just complacent about it all and accept it. That is what my ranting about circularity has been about: people do not care that their thinking is circular and are just complacent about it all.

There is more to people, and things, than face value.

But face value is all we get to see.

In the many threads I have started, it is for topics that came up here, faith being one of them -- in "Lack of faith".
A habit is something that took effort to learn, but once you've learned it, you do it without thinking much. Surely, to some people, faith is something like that, a habit. If anything, habit breeds confidence.

But, and here's the crux of the matter, when it comes to faith, it is essential to not let yourself become complacent in it -- becoming complacent in your faith is the same as betraying it, if that faith is such that it is about love and work (for example).
Letting love and work become a habit is betraying love and work.

"Habit breeds confidence", and that is what faith is. Confidence.

We become complacent in our faiths because we have assumed them true for so long. But to have a faith in something is to assume it t be true anyway so I suppose we are complacent in our faiths from the very beginning - otherwise we wouldn't have faith in that something to begin with.

But why should we want to be complacent?

I see your point, but the problem isn't with faith as such -- but with justification in general.

Many things come naturally to us, are such that we do not question their origin or importance for us. But when challenged to explain why we have certain values and preferences -- we cannot logically, rationally, satisfactorily justify why we have those certain values and preferences.

We *can* come up with justifications, but just because we can, does not mean that they indeed are proper justifications. And then we can spin in circles, fight, ad infinitum.

I cannot justify my love for my cat.
I *can* come up with reasons *why* I love my cat -- that he is beautiful, endearing, social etc. But the truth is, that all those reasons are so limiting, so abstract and have so utterly nothing to do with how I feel for my cat -- that these reasons are useless.

Similarly with why have faith in God, or what is a justifiable faith. I find the questions possible, frequent, but utterly nonsensical.

One can answer "I have faith in God because God will grant me eternal life" or "because God will see that justice will be served". But in my opinion, those are such gross abstractions and limitations that they downright equal a betrayal of faith and God.

It's like saying "I love you because you are good to me" or "because you are beautiful". It's so instrumental!
And what -- if the other person isn't good to you at some point, will you stop loving them because of that? Or if something happens to them and they aren't beautiful anymore (physically), you will stop loving them because of that? This is conditional love, and conditional love doesn't last, neither is it meaningful and fulfilling.

Also, conditional faith also doesn't last, and it isn't meaningful and fulfilling.

Love is.
Faith is.
One loves.
One has faith.

"Why?" is the wrong question here. Why is "Why?" a wrong question? Because answering it limits love and faith to something describable, something reasonable, and thus also something conditional.

Well said!

Tell this to Jenyar.. I wonder why apologists do what they do then? Is that not self defeating?

What I am most interested in is that "it comes naturally to us". Yet another blow to free will I say! Like I said in the other thread, I think the predispositon to axiomatizing our faith is entirely biological - we can't help it. The things we actually do axiomatize is left for social factors to determine. The beloved theory talks a little bit about why we can't reason out these things.

I wonder why society has laws then? Why tell someone they can't follow their proclivity to stealing? Because you think it is immoral does not follow. There is something stupidly wrong about the legal system. I hate laws very deeply.

I don't know who God is. But I surely am on a good way to show what God is *not*!
We can approach the definition ex negativo.

Knowing what God is not does not tell us what God is. I think this approach does not address the problem.

Yes, and putting in a lot makes one vulnerable. What people really shun is the vulnerability, not trust as such.
And it is this vulnerability that needs to be looked in. (A thread of its own!)

Is it bad to not want to be vulnerable?

More importantly, do you think that is cowardice - to be afraid of being vulnerable?

I think it is an irrational fear - what you talked about earlier. It just comes to some to not want to be vulnerable and there can be no proper justification for it.

Wait. Wait.
-- To use your example: But would *you* trust *me* with *that*?
The prerequisite of trust is knowing the other person. The more you know someone, the more you know whether you can trust them and what in you can trust them.
If I would be a rich relative whom you are on close tems with and who has helped out before, then it would make sense to trust me for that money. Otherwise, no, and you also wouldn't be at that person's whim.

This is where face value comes in. On close terms or not, you still know them at face value. Therefore you must make 'estimations', assumptions, prima facie on what you think you know about this person.

Their being a relative is one of the reasons we might trust such a person but. It does not follow that since they are a relative they are more trustworthy. So why are we inclined to trust relatives? It comes naturally to most. Social factors may deter others from doing so - from trusting anyone at all. Neither party can satisfactorily justify whythey trust or don't trust.

You may say you know about this person but. You think you know about this person is the reality. You think you think you know about this person. There is no direct knowledge and therefore we make assumptions. A very dangerous risk indeed.

My heart is sore pained within me: and the terrors of death are fallen upon me. Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me. And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.

Don't we all wish to take the easy way out.

Why do you think I could tell you how to find God?

You seem to be farther up the ladder than I am when it comes to these things. Of course this assumption is made at face value..

I know what you mean, but I think you are shifting the onus.

I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so.

No.
First of all, no crime happened.
Secondly, what we are after is an *explanation*, we are not seeking someone or something to accuse, put to jail or destroy and then feel relieved.
There is no blame here, only an explanation.

Will an explanation be as satisfactory?

I think you need to rethink the way you understand success.
Right now, I see that you are being crushed under the weight of seeing that you aren't perfectly achieving your goals. The pressure of accomplishing what you want is so high that it paralyzes you and prevents you from doing what you actually could do, if that pressure wouldn't be there.
I'm not saying lower your goals. But I do think that one is not one's success.

This smells of complacency..

One is not one's sucess, but one is one's failure all the same.

If it would be forged, it wouldn't be trust, it would be another conditional thing. (See above.)

In that case, you and I agree that trust is unreasonable. Why trust if you have no reason to trust? A dangerous risk I say.

In that case, you have to take wonder ways!
Magic, superstition, drugs, whores, you name it!

It almost sounds like you disdain these things.

I think the man wants both -- that he had never fallen into the pit, and that he would never fall into it again.

This man had better make up his mind on what he really wants. He doesn't live forever you know. So how does he make up his mind?

Then what am I really looking for?

Yourself?

Truth. I am looking for truth. Truth which is not there. I know there is no truth and yet I am looking for it. Look how I scour the desert for glistening lakes.

No, not at all. I think this is how it should be.
But considering that you sometimes feel like an idiot if you get betrayed, I think something isn't right in the way you trust.

Conditional trust is reasonable (somewhat). Unconditional trust? Utterly absurd. Not a scrap of justification. If I thought I had a reason for trusting and find that the trust has been betrayed, then who is the fool for trusting in the first place? You see?

But does the childhood environment inavoidably determine the rest of one's life, without the possibility to ever change the (seemingly) set course?

The childhood environment determines whether one wants to change the course in the first place.

I will do to the perpetrator what has been done to me: destroy. Tit for tat.

What? You will found a new sect and have all the people who have religiously influenced you in your childhood to become members of that sect and then you will indoctrinate them and all that?

I will tell them I am going to blast them away with psychic powers if they don't obey me. And after a great many years of toil and devotion, they will find out that I am a quadraplegic without psychic powers.

Ah, "should have"!
If you keep on repeating that things should not be the way they are, then you are unable to see how they truly are.

Hmm.. don't think so. Face value. Not how something "truly" is. That can never be determined. Only face value assumptions.

You are tempting my vanity!
Too many people are too ready to tell you what to do.
All I can and am willing to do is offer a perspective -- but this does in no way mean that I am *telling you* to do as I "told" you.

I can trust you can't I?

No, not at all.
An ideological belief system is a matter of values and preferences. These cannot be intellectually defended.

Eventually, nothing is defendable or justifiable!
You *can* doubt everything.

Tell that to Jenyar.. who thinks one can change their preferences at a whim (under the threat of eternal torment).

Why do Christians not doubt their beliefs then?

If I am not right and I am conscious of that fact, then I become a hideous hypocrite for being complacent about it.

Non sequitur.

Why?

Could've saved me the trouble of asking..

There was a long line of factors, as far as I can tell, and none of them can be ascribed full responsibility for what happened. What happened was a combined effort of those many factors, this is why it seems so ungraspable and inexplicable, so beyond reach and control.

True, we don't control anything. Free will is a farce as I will claim for the millionth time. I wonder why all those who challenged this did not show why it is not..

Hehe.
And no, you haven't been "through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale". In order to be able to tell which circle is the worst, you'd have to experience many, many.
Ever devotedly, passionately, blood-sheddingly tried Islam? Hinduism? Scientology, perhaps? No. So you can't tell which is worse.

I'm not planning to try any of them either!

No. From my perspective, what *you* call "arbitrariness", is understood as 'not taking for granted'.

What do you mean by that?

Trust whom, trust what?
You are not a robot at the mercy of other people! Uh.
First get to know people, ideas, then there will come a time when you will be able to decide whether to trust them or not.

Trust them at face value. You seem to be contradicting yourself: if there is no reason for you loving your cat, then why is intimacy a reason for trusting someone? Intimacy shouldn't even be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and yet it is.

Look, if you cling on to this arbitrariness, then sure, everything will look like relativistic shit.
But that's the inevitable problem if one wants to have everything intellectually justifiable -- one ends up feeling a hypocrite and a scumbag of arbitrariness.

As an aside -- why such negative evaluations (hypocrite, arbitrariness), if everything is arbitrary anyway?!

That's part of what makes me irate. Why do people look down on arbitrariness? Why is circularity disdained? People arbitrarily look down on arbitrariness; people circularly disdain circularity. It angers me to see such foolishness.

But which one is orthodoxy?! Each understanding of Christianity is correct within its circle!

Tell that to Jenyar. Each disbelief of Christianity is correct within it's own circle. Let him challenge this. Let him show why God still finds fault with us.

Oh, you can live with yourself, you just don't like it the way it is at the moment. And you are working to fix it.

Fix arbitrariness, fix circularity, show me truth. And I will be in tip-top shape.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand: What repels? Your will and your actions repel other people, and hence trust is impossible? Or do your will and your actions rebel?

I want to trust but I do not. I want to believe but I do not. My will and my actions are polarized. Hence this thread.

But don't let doubt become your master.

Misses the point of the thread. See above. I don't WANT doubt to be my master, but it is in any case. I just can't help it.

I think you are doing something.
For one thing, you are talking here to me, to people on this forum.
Maybe it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but this shouldn't discourage you from keeping on looking.

Where should I look? I know what I am looking for I cannot find, why do I still search? Why do I still hope? No reason to do so.

But blaming God doesn't help you, does it?!
Namely, you don't know who God is or where to find him, so blaming him really isn't a solution to your problems. You are blaming someone whom you don't know.

It's a start in any case. An irrational one but.

hat argument contains these premises:

A1:
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.
P3: Things can happen.

Per se, each premise is valid. But you cannot put all three into one argument, as P3 is in opposition to what P1 and P2 say.

Therefore either P1 or P2 must be false.

No.
It only means that you cannot use all three premises in one and the same argument!

Why not?

You're welcome.

//gruff voice
Now that I've let it out let's pretend I never said that!

 

[MarcAC]

... I was-a-comin to the...

That one will take a while to get over.

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.
P3: Things can happen.

Sorry to butt into all the mushy stuff... so sweet.

I'd say there's no prob in using them in the same argument - you just have to remember that you aren't God - you have to switch perspective.

Omniscient = All knowing. Knowing what has happened what happens and what will happen. Things can happen, have happened, do happen, and will happen.

Omnipotent = All Powerful (ability): not all doing. We have free will. We (also) make things happen.

 

[§outh§tar]

I'd say there's no prob in using them in the same argument - you just have to remember that you aren't God - you have to switch perspective.

Omniscient = All knowing. Knowing what has happened what happens and what will happen. Things can happen, have happened, do happen, and will happen.

Omnipotent = All Powerful (ability): not all doing. We have free will. We (also) make things happen.[/color]

Not so.

If something is going to happen, God already knew about it. This is the power of omniscience. If God already knew about it, then He planned it in advance. If He did not plan it in advance, then the event is outside His control and He is therefore not omnipotent. This too is inescapable. Therefore all things God planned deliberately. If He did not plan something to happen but it happens anyway, then it means that such event is itself autonomous and does not depend on God to function. I am sure you do not want to come to that conclusion.

Romans 8
28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

And this we see in the Scriptures. He foreknew the elect, He predestined the elect. If he did not know who the elect were going to be, if He did not predestine who the elect were going to be, then He is not possibly omnipotent - salvation could occur without His will. If we are to assume God's will prevails in all circumstances, then it is simply inescapable that He willed the circumstance. For this reason, he has deliberately (and unreasonably?) damned many human beings to eternal torment knowing and intending for them to never achieve salvation.

 

[cole grey]

Southstar,

I was just thinking that the first thing you would need to do to find a less negative opinion on spirituality, would be to let go of the idea that everything in the bible has a one-dimensional truth that, once found, will make sense to everyone.
The idea of pre-destination, although it seems quite simple to you, has been argued about by christians for many hundreds of years. The way you describe it is only accepted by a few sects of christianity. Although I personally believe that the only way to reach God is through God's calling, I haven't been able to work out all the details in a way which is satisfactory to me. This is not sufficient reason for me to give up on the whole thing, though. I am also working on other things in my life that have not come to satisfactory conclusions yet, but I am not ready to give up on them either. I don't blame you for being confused by christianity and the bible, I am confused as to how all the ideas I have been presented with can be reconciled, also.

Omnipotence as you describe it in its relation to pre-destination seems to be correct, but omnipotence, in the sense of it meaning the implementation of total control over every action in the universe, is not a good definition, I think. The ability to control and the taking of that control are two different things. The omnipotence of God sure seems to put a lot of responsibility on God, but I am working under the impression that God somehow gives me responsibility for this piece of the physical universe I call, "my life".

 

[MarcAC]

Southstar,

I was just thinking that the first thing you would need to do to find a less negative opinion on spirituality, would be to let go of the idea that everything in the bible has a one-dimensional truth that, once found, will make sense to everyone.

Couldn't have said it better.

I don't blame you for being confused by christianity and the bible, I am confused as to how all the ideas I have been presented with can be reconciled, also.

I think you just have to realise what is important and what isn't. Predestination and free will can be reconciled and have been reconciled - at least in my mind.

Omnipotence as you describe it in its relation to pre-destination seems to be correct, but omnipotence, in the sense of it meaning the implementation of total control over every action in the universe, is not a good definition, I think.

I agree.

The ability to control and the taking of that control are two different things.

Accolades.

The omnipotence of God sure seems to put a lot of responsibility on God, but I am working under the impression that God somehow gives me responsibility for this piece of the physical universe I call, "my life".

Well said Grey.

 

[MarcAC]

Not so.

If something is going to happen, God already knew about it. This is the power of omniscience.

You just have to make sure you know which determines which. God knows what [will] happen [s/ed]; therefore what happens necessarily determines his knowledge. His knowledge doesn't determine what will happen.

If God already knew about it, then He planned it in advance. If He did not plan it in advance, then the event is outside His control and He is therefore not omnipotent.This too is inescapable.

If God already knew about it doesn't mean he planned it in advance, as knowledge is not action. If He did[does/will] not plan it in advance it simply means He does[did/will] not exercise His omnipotence to it's fullest - thus free will - Cole Grey adds the rest.

Therefore all things God planned deliberately. If He did not plan something to happen but it happens anyway, then it means that such event is itself autonomous and does not depend on God to function. I am sure you do not want to come to that conclusion.

Not a matter of want; it's absolutely unnecessary. Your "therefore" does not necessarily follow from above. Autonomous - for example; us and our decisions. Simply because I allow something to function without my intervention doesn't mean I have no control over it. Jet aircraft can practically fly themselves if properly outfitted; this does not mean the pilot cannot seize the controls at any moment (manual override).

As you submit more to God's Will through your free will I think something equating to "Divine Override" occurs. The more Divine Control through submission the more predestination becomes the relevant issue. I think they work in concert - no need for Christians to argue or debate among themselves.

 

[Jenyar]

I think one should also not be too confident that predestination as understood in the Bible necessarily corresponds with your personal definition of predestination. If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore.

For instance, we read in Luke 7:

29 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptised by John.

30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptised by John.)​

Tell that to Jenyar. Each disbelief of Christianity is correct within it's own circle. Let him challenge this. Let him show why God still finds fault with us.

It's not the ones who are right that are right before God. We can take some comfort in that, but not too much, as Paul argues in Romans 3 -- it's not our unfaithfulness (our "being wrong") that makes God "more right". Conversely, our faithfulness only confirms that He is right; it does not take away our sin. No, "all are alike under sin" (Rom.3:9) and that's why God finds fault in anyone.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.​

It's not our understanding of Christianity that is important, but our obedience to God. That obedience is shown by acknowledging our sins and accepting his grace, made universally available through Christ. God's promises were to faithful Israel; Christ is faithful Israel. Not any "circle of Christianity".

 

[water]

If I shouldn't be arbitrary then I shouldn't have double standards. That means I can't read the Bible the way I *want* to.. I just take it all literally

Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it?

I think I know. I think I think I know. They think they know. They think they think they know. To trust others when they themselves are inconsistent. To trust ourselves when we ourselves are inconsistent. What a dangerous risk to take.

This is as good as it gets.

Language is a circular system. Words are defined by words. You use language to show that language is a circular system. Why is language not a circular system? Because it is not a circular system. Nope, don't see the circularity there. It is by language we know there is even a circularity to begin with, which means that language is responsible for the circularity.

If you view language as "words are defined by words", then you can NEVER use this language to say something about extralingual reality.
But if we look at ourselves, we see that we use language as a medium, a tool -- and we use it to REFER to things. How then can we still claim that language is circular?!

And language is not responsible for circularity. Circularity can only emerge when we try to justify something.

Just as the blind do not dream visually, the deaf and dumb do not think circularly since they don't think verbally.

I doubt it is so.
Logic exists without language, and it is only a certain kind of logic that leads to circularity. (If we think in terms of cause and effect.)

Why must one start with things that work no matter what?

!
What else?!
Not to argue "from ignorance", but I think "start with things that work no matter what" is simply a matter of common sense.
Of course, you can analyze it to death -- and this is exactly where such analysis leads to: death.

The point is although we don't know why this is true, we are just complacent about it all and accept it. That is what my ranting about circularity has been about: people do not care that their thinking is circular and are just complacent about it all.

I think you are being negativistic.

But face value is all we get to see.

We do learn, get to know people, construct ourselves images of them. This eventually leads to us seeing past this face value.

"Habit breeds confidence", and that is what faith is. Confidence.

I don't think so.

We become complacent in our faiths because we have assumed them true for so long. But to have a faith in something is to assume it t be true anyway so I suppose we are complacent in our faiths from the very beginning - otherwise we wouldn't have faith in that something to begin with.

But why should we want to be complacent?

Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" ").
And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them.

Tell this to Jenyar.. I wonder why apologists do what they do then? Is that not self defeating?

The issue is much much broader I think.
While seen from a relativistic perspective, nothing is justifiable, indeed, and "why?" is the wrong question.
However, humans seem to have a natural proclivity (thank you, Merriam-Webster) to seek purpose, to seek reasons, causality. We cannot but attempt to answer that "why?".

What I am most interested in is that "it comes naturally to us". Yet another blow to free will I say! Like I said in the other thread, I think the predispositon to axiomatizing our faith is entirely biological - we can't help it. The things we actually do axiomatize is left for social factors to determine. The beloved theory talks a little bit about why we can't reason out these things.

I wonder why society has laws then? Why tell someone they can't follow their proclivity to stealing? Because you think it is immoral does not follow. There is something stupidly wrong about the legal system. I hate laws very deeply.

Why society has laws? It "comes naturally to it".
We can say that society behaves like a big organism, another system that seeks internal consistence. The same as an individual is trying to be consistent, the whole of society is trying to do that too.

Knowing what God is not does not tell us what God is. I think this approach does not address the problem.

I think it does -- it has preliminary value.
There is so much we suposedly know about God -- but most of it is severly shaped by religious practice and tradition, politics, education, many other factors. So attempting to answer what God is not is a way to clear off those inconsistent conceptions that have piled up in our minds over the years.

Yes, and putting in a lot makes one vulnerable. What people really shun is the vulnerability, not trust as such.
And it is this vulnerability that needs to be looked in. (A thread of its own!)

Is it bad to not want to be vulnerable?

More importantly, do you think that is cowardice - to be afraid of being vulnerable?

I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable.

"Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt.

I think it is an irrational fear - what you talked about earlier. It just comes to some to not want to be vulnerable and there can be no proper justification for it.

No, I don't think so.
I think the issue here is that people don't want to be hurt. But not wanting to be hurt is not the same as not wanting to be vulnerable.
But.

Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, this sets the line of thinking in the direction of *what* is it that can hurt one.
But what can really hurt you? I mean really hurt you?
Physical hurt is one thing -- it is reasonable to be afraid of that.
But being so afraid of betrayal that one refuses to commit -- this is an act of a person who does not know himself.

You may say you know about this person but. You think you know about this person is the reality. You think you think you know about this person. There is no direct knowledge and therefore we make assumptions. A very dangerous risk indeed.

Either this, or face the consequences of not paying the debt.

You seem to be farther up the ladder than I am when it comes to these things. Of course this assumption is made at face value..

I do not think there is a "ladder".

I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so.

Exactly. Now you can put down your cross of martyrdom!

No.
First of all, no crime happened.
Secondly, what we are after is an *explanation*, we are not seeking someone or something to accuse, put to jail or destroy and then feel relieved.
There is no blame here, only an explanation.

Will an explanation be as satisfactory?

Yes.
You'll know when you have the right explanation: It will upset you, make you a bit unease, angry, but literally minutes after, you will feel calm and at peace with the matter that caused you so much anguish.

One is not one's sucess, but one is one's failure all the same.

No.

In that case, you and I agree that trust is unreasonable. Why trust if you have no reason to trust? A dangerous risk I say.

Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you.
Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone.

In that case, you have to take wonder ways!
Magic, superstition, drugs, whores, you name it!

It almost sounds like you disdain these things.

I typed them in deep disdain.

This man had better make up his mind on what he really wants. He doesn't live forever you know. So how does he make up his mind?

I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so.

Then what am I really looking for?

Yourself?

Truth. I am looking for truth. Truth which is not there. I know there is no truth and yet I am looking for it.

What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand?

Look how I scour the desert for glistening lakes.

... and whom are you talking to right now?

(Sorry, I am just so full of myself sometimes ...)

Conditional trust is reasonable (somewhat). Unconditional trust? Utterly absurd. Not a scrap of justification. If I thought I had a reason for trusting and find that the trust has been betrayed, then who is the fool for trusting in the first place? You see?

You are not being fair to yourself.

You cannot judge past actions with the knowledge that these actions later on produced. I mean, you can do that, but it is not fair.
We cannot judge the past with the present and say "oh what a fool I was". Had I not done what I did, I could have never come to the knowledge I have now.
Learn from the past, but don't condemn it.

The childhood environment determines whether one wants to change the course in the first place.

And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course.
Okay.

I will tell them I am going to blast them away with psychic powers if they don't obey me. And after a great many years of toil and devotion, they will find out that I am a quadraplegic without psychic powers.

Uh.

Ah, "should have"!
If you keep on repeating that things should not be the way they are, then you are unable to see how they truly are.

Hmm.. don't think so. Face value. Not how something "truly" is. That can never be determined. Only face value assumptions.

You are digging your own grave.

I can trust you can't I?

I think you can.

No, not at all.
An ideological belief system is a matter of values and preferences. These cannot be intellectually defended.

Eventually, nothing is defendable or justifiable!
You *can* doubt everything.

Tell that to Jenyar.. who thinks one can change their preferences at a whim (under the threat of eternal torment).

I do understand very well how it comes across as if he "thinks one can change their preferences at a whim". But it's not true, I can tell you that he doesn't think so.

Why do Christians not doubt their beliefs then?

I think they have their reasons.
And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe.

If I am not right and I am conscious of that fact, then I become a hideous hypocrite for being complacent about it.

Non sequitur.

Why?

Are you to think yourself weak if you cannot lift 350 kg?
Are you to think yourself slow if you cannot run at 100 km/h?
Are you to think yourself stupid if your IQ isn't above 140?
...

None of these things (and the list is vast) can determine your personal worth. But just because I cannot lift 350 kg, run at 100 km/h and so on, and don't feel weak, slow, stupid etc. does NOT mean that I am being "complacent" about it.
What standards is one to live up -- other than one's own?!

True, we don't control anything. Free will is a farce as I will claim for the millionth time. I wonder why all those who challenged this did not show why it is not..

See my reply to your theory.

No. From my perspective, what *you* call "arbitrariness", is understood as 'not taking for granted'.

What do you mean by that?

It means that the same reality is addressed from two very different perspectives: While you condemn yourself for being a hypocrite and arbitrary, I take the position of being cautious and not take things for granted. You get negative results and dissatisfaction, I have chances to be rewarded.

Trust them at face value. You seem to be contradicting yourself: if there is no reason for you loving your cat, then why is intimacy a reason for trusting someone?

Indeed, there is no "reason" for loving my cat. I could find "reasons", but any "reason" I would name would be insufficient to me. This is how there is no "reason" for loving my cat.

Intimacy isn't a *reason for* trusting someone. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible.

Intimacy shouldn't even be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and yet it is.

Where on earth did you get this?!

That's part of what makes me irate. Why do people look down on arbitrariness? Why is circularity disdained? People arbitrarily look down on arbitrariness; people circularly disdain circularity. It angers me to see such foolishness.

:bugeye:

Fix arbitrariness, fix circularity, show me truth. And I will be in tip-top shape.

Stuff takes time.
You'd be too overwhelmed if it'd all happen from one moment to another; chances are, you would lose all continuity of your identity.

I want to trust but I do not. I want to believe but I do not. My will and my actions are polarized. Hence this thread.

Why do you think that you want to trust?

Why do you think that you want to believe?

Misses the point of the thread. See above. I don't WANT doubt to be my master, but it is in any case. I just can't help it.

I think this doubt now is just a creative step to something new.

Where should I look? I know what I am looking for I cannot find, why do I still search? Why do I still hope? No reason to do so.

Well, if you have defined that what you are looking for cannot be found ... then ... then you must be mad. Or something else is the reason.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, is madness.

A1:
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.
P3: Things can happen.

Per se, each premise is valid. But you cannot put all three into one argument, as P3 is in opposition to what P1 and P2 say.

Therefore either P1 or P2 must be false.

No.
It only means that you cannot use all three premises in one and the same argument!

Why not?

The argument structure is invalid if the argument contains premises that contradict eachother.

The premise P3: Things can happen. implies 'Things can happen without God knowing about them', and this is in contradiction with P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.

//gruff voice
Now that I've let it out let's pretend I never said that!

Uh.



* * *

Sorry to butt into all the mushy stuff... so sweet.

Well, don't just stand there!

I'd say there's no prob in using them in the same argument - you just have to remember that you aren't God - you have to switch perspective.

There is a problem -- as I have addressed it in my reply to SouthStar.

As for remembering one isn't God: Yes, I keep saying this!


* * *

Not so.

If something is going to happen, God already knew about it. This is the power of omniscience. If God already knew about it, then He planned it in advance.

K.

If He did not plan it in advance, then the event is outside His control and He is therefore not omnipotent.

FALSE. We did say that "He planned it in advance." Everything.

This too is inescapable. Therefore all things God planned deliberately. If He did not plan something to happen but it happens anyway, then it means that such event is itself autonomous and does not depend on God to function. I am sure you do not want to come to that conclusion.

Within the same argument you use premises that contradict eachother!
P1: God planned everything.
P2: God did not plan everything.

It's bad logic!

And this we see in the Scriptures. He foreknew the elect, He predestined the elect. If he did not know who the elect were going to be, if He did not predestine who the elect were going to be, then He is not possibly omnipotent - salvation could occur without His will. If we are to assume God's will prevails in all circumstances, then it is simply inescapable that He willed the circumstance. For this reason, he has deliberately (and unreasonably?) damned many human beings to eternal torment knowing and intending for them to never achieve salvation.

To quote Marc: you just have to remember that you aren't God.

You do not know who the elect are, you do not know who will indeed be saved and who won't.

One thing is if one is afraid that one is not among the elect. But to think that one is not among the elect is sheer self-victimizing vanity.


* * *

I think one should also not be too confident that predestination as understood in the Bible necessarily corresponds with your personal definition of predestination. If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore.

I just quoted this to emphasize and repeat a point I have brought up earlier.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
It's not our understanding of Christianity that is important, but our obedience to God. That obedience is shown by acknowledging our sins and accepting his grace, made universally available through Christ. God's promises were to faithful Israel; Christ is faithful Israel. Not any "circle of Christianity".

To clarify the issue with these circles: They have to do with the meta-aspect of a belief, from the general methodological perspective. We could have also used the terms "Christian sects", "Christian churches" and such. But in the light of discussions held elsewhere, the term "circle" refers to an individual system as such (this system being closed and self-referential, and as such, a circle).

 

[Medicine*Woman]

water: Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it?

This is as good as it gets.

If you view language as "words are defined by words", then you can NEVER use this language to say something about extralingual reality.
But if we look at ourselves, we see that we use language as a medium, a tool -- and we use it to REFER to things. How then can we still claim that language is circular?!

And language is not responsible for circularity. Circularity can only emerge when we try to justify something.

I doubt it is so.
Logic exists without language, and it is only a certain kind of logic that leads to circularity. (If we think in terms of cause and effect.)

!
What else?!
Not to argue "from ignorance", but I think "start with things that work no matter what" is simply a matter of common sense.
Of course, you can analyze it to death -- and this is exactly where such analysis leads to: death.

I think you are being negativistic.

We do learn, get to know people, construct ourselves images of them. This eventually leads to us seeing past this face value.

I don't think so.

Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" ").
And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them.

The issue is much much broader I think.
While seen from a relativistic perspective, nothing is justifiable, indeed, and "why?" is the wrong question.
However, humans seem to have a natural proclivity (thank you, Merriam-Webster) to seek purpose, to seek reasons, causality. We cannot but attempt to answer that "why?".

Why society has laws? It "comes naturally to it".
We can say that society behaves like a big organism, another system that seeks internal consistence. The same as an individual is trying to be consistent, the whole of society is trying to do that too.

I think it does -- it has preliminary value.
There is so much we suposedly know about God -- but most of it is severly shaped by religious practice and tradition, politics, education, many other factors. So attempting to answer what God is not is a way to clear off those inconsistent conceptions that have piled up in our minds over the years.

I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable.

"Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt.

No, I don't think so.
I think the issue here is that people don't want to be hurt. But not wanting to be hurt is not the same as not wanting to be vulnerable.
But.

Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, this sets the line of thinking in the direction of *what* is it that can hurt one.
But what can really hurt you? I mean really hurt you?
Physical hurt is one thing -- it is reasonable to be afraid of that.
But being so afraid of betrayal that one refuses to commit -- this is an act of a person who does not know himself.

Either this, or face the consequences of not paying the debt.

I do not think there is a "ladder".

Exactly. Now you can put down your cross of martyrdom!

Yes.
You'll know when you have the right explanation: It will upset you, make you a bit unease, angry, but literally minutes after, you will feel calm and at peace with the matter that caused you so much anguish.

No.

Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you.
Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone.

I typed them in deep disdain.

I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so.

\What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand?

... and whom are you talking to right now?

(Sorry, I am just so full of myself sometimes ...)

You are not being fair to yourself.

You cannot judge past actions with the knowledge that these actions later on produced. I mean, you can do that, but it is not fair.
We cannot judge the past with the present and say "oh what a fool I was". Had I not done what I did, I could have never come to the knowledge I have now.
Learn from the past, but don't condemn it.

And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course.
Okay.

Uh.

You are digging your own grave.

I think you can.

I do understand very well how it comes across as if he "thinks one can change their preferences at a whim". But it's not true, I can tell you that he doesn't think so.

I think they have their reasons.
And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe.

Are you to think yourself weak if you cannot lift 350 kg?
Are you to think yourself slow if you cannot run at 100 km/h?
Are you to think yourself stupid if your IQ isn't above 140?
...

None of these things (and the list is vast) can determine your personal worth. But just because I cannot lift 350 kg, run at 100 km/h and so on, and don't feel weak, slow, stupid etc. does NOT mean that I am being "complacent" about it.
What standards is one to live up -- other than one's own?!

See my reply to your theory.

It means that the same reality is addressed from two very different perspectives: While you condemn yourself for being a hypocrite and arbitrary, I take the position of being cautious and not take things for granted. You get negative results and dissatisfaction, I have chances to be rewarded.

Indeed, there is no "reason" for loving my cat. I could find "reasons", but any "reason" I would name would be insufficient to me. This is how there is no "reason" for loving my cat.

Intimacy isn't a *reason for* trusting someone. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible.

Where on earth did you get this?!

:bugeye:
*************
M*W: Intimacy is what occurs between husband and wife -- between Jesus and mary Magdaoen.


Stuff takes time.
You'd be too overwhelmed if it'd all happen from one moment to another; chances are, you would lose all continuity of your identity.




Why do you think that you want to trust?

Why do you think that you want to believe?




I think this doubt now is just a creative step to something new.




Well, if you have defined that what you are looking for cannot be found ... then ... then you must be mad. Or something else is the reason.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, is madness.




The argument structure is invalid if the argument contains premises that contradict eachother.

The premise P3: Things can happen. implies 'Things can happen without God knowing about them', and this is in contradiction with P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge.




Uh.



* * *



Well, don't just stand there!





There is a problem -- as I have addressed it in my reply to SouthStar.

As for remembering one isn't God: Yes, I keep saying this!


* * *



K.




FALSE. We did say that "He planned it in advance." Everything.




Within the same argument you use premises that contradict eachother!
P1: God planned everything.
P2: God did not plan everything.

It's bad logic!




To quote Marc: you just have to remember that you aren't God.

You do not know who the elect are, you do not know who will indeed be saved and who won't.

One thing is if one is afraid that one is not among the elect. But to think that one is not among the elect is sheer self-victimizing vanity.


* * *



I just quoted this to emphasize and repeat a point I have brought up earlier.





To clarify the issue with these circles: They have to do with the meta-aspect of a belief, from the general methodological perspective. We could have also used the terms "Christian sects", "Christian churches" and such. But in the light of discussions held elsewhere, the term "circle" refers to an individual system as such (this system being closed and self-referential, and as such, a circle).[/QUOTE]

 

[MarcAC]

For instance, we read in Luke 7:

29 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptised by John.

30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptised by John.)​

Interesting stuff.

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar,

I was just thinking that the first thing you would need to do to find a less negative opinion on spirituality, would be to let go of the idea that everything in the bible has a one-dimensional truth that, once found, will make sense to everyone.
The idea of pre-destination, although it seems quite simple to you, has been argued about by christians for many hundreds of years. The way you describe it is only accepted by a few sects of christianity. Although I personally believe that the only way to reach God is through God's calling, I haven't been able to work out all the details in a way which is satisfactory to me. This is not sufficient reason for me to give up on the whole thing, though. I am also working on other things in my life that have not come to satisfactory conclusions yet, but I am not ready to give up on them either. I don't blame you for being confused by christianity and the bible, I am confused as to how all the ideas I have been presented with can be reconciled, also.

Omnipotence as you describe it in its relation to pre-destination seems to be correct, but omnipotence, in the sense of it meaning the implementation of total control over every action in the universe, is not a good definition, I think. The ability to control and the taking of that control are two different things. The omnipotence of God sure seems to put a lot of responsibility on God, but I am working under the impression that God somehow gives me responsibility for this piece of the physical universe I call, "my life".

So we pick and choose what to believe about God as we will. Believe what is most comforting. Do you believe because you believe cole grey?

 

[§outh§tar]

Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it?

The brain.

If you view language as "words are defined by words", then you can NEVER use this language to say something about extralingual reality.
But if we look at ourselves, we see that we use language as a medium, a tool -- and we use it to REFER to things. How then can we still claim that language is circular?!

And language is not responsible for circularity. Circularity can only emerge when we try to justify something.

How did you know language was a medium? By language maybe? Hmm

Circularity is long before that. To try to justify something, you must first assume it. Assume it because you want to. Or so you assume because you simply don't know. So is it then you who wants to assume? You don't know.

But.

You still assume anyway.

Doesn't all that smell like smelling rotten tuna to you? Leaves a bad taste.

I doubt it is so.
Logic exists without language, and it is only a certain kind of logic that leads to circularity. (If we think in terms of cause and effect.)

That would be the way most people think - in terms of cause and effect. So why think in terms of cause and effect? Don't know. But the absence of knowledge doesn't bother, why not still think that way because it is common sense.. Seeing circles yet?

!
What else?!
Not to argue "from ignorance", but I think "start with things that work no matter what" is simply a matter of common sense.
Of course, you can analyze it to death -- and this is exactly where such analysis leads to: death.

I have told you millions of times, don't exaggerate your point. The alternative is confoundingly simple. Just say, Lord, I don't know. And since you know that you don't know, don't assume. That is the real trap. Not analyticity.

I think you are being negativistic.

I think you are being unnecessarily positivistic. I don't want to say it out here just in case.

We do learn, get to know people, construct ourselves images of them. This eventually leads to us seeing past this face value.

And we see what we want to see. Call it negativism all you want but it's true.

Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" ").
And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them.

That sounds very much like a cop out to me

Also sounds very much like "free will is inferred anyways" and a host of other 'that's just the way it is' type comments. I didn't say it was good or bad, only observing.

The issue is much much broader I think.
While seen from a relativistic perspective, nothing is justifiable, indeed, and "why?" is the wrong question.
However, humans seem to have a natural proclivity (thank you, Merriam-Webster) to seek purpose, to seek reasons, causality. We cannot but attempt to answer that "why?".

Well if we don't know why, then what is the point in assuming? Isn't that self defeating?

Why society has laws? It "comes naturally to it".
We can say that society behaves like a big organism, another system that seeks internal consistence. The same as an individual is trying to be consistent, the whole of society is trying to do that too.

Did I mention I don't like the 'that's just the way it is' response? Blame the neurons.

I think it does -- it has preliminary value.
There is so much we suposedly know about God -- but most of it is severly shaped by religious practice and tradition, politics, education, many other factors. So attempting to answer what God is not is a way to clear off those inconsistent conceptions that have piled up in our minds over the years.

You know what image came to mind? A haystack with a needle in it. Burn the straw I say.

I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable.

"Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt.

Let me guess: that's just human tendency. That's just the way it is.

No, I don't think so.
I think the issue here is that people don't want to be hurt. But not wanting to be hurt is not the same as not wanting to be vulnerable.
But.

Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, this sets the line of thinking in the direction of *what* is it that can hurt one.
But what can really hurt you? I mean really hurt you?
Physical hurt is one thing -- it is reasonable to be afraid of that.
But being so afraid of betrayal that one refuses to commit -- this is an act of a person who does not know himself.

An act of a person who does not know himself?

In reality, that is the wisdom of a person who does not pretend or assume he knows his fellow human. An extremely wise step in the right direction.

Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, one knows that one is a coward. It is not self deprecating, it is not negativism. You might not want to face it or you might want to make it pretty or whatever but that's the truth. The truth doesn't hurt when you don't want to know it.

Nothing hurts you until you say it hurts you. And so it does not hurt me.

Either this, or face the consequences of not paying the debt.

The latter is for he who is not a coward. The former, for the sage.

Exactly. Now you can put down your cross of martyrdom!

You wouldn't believe how much has changed since our last conversation.

Yes.
You'll know when you have the right explanation: It will upset you, make you a bit unease, angry, but literally minutes after, you will feel calm and at peace with the matter that caused you so much anguish.

I think I have found the explanation. It is rather amusing and I often giggle when I think of how absurd it sounds. I don't think anyone is going to believe me if I told them the truth. The crazy crazy truth.

Beyond your wildest dreams I promise.

No.

Yes. I win.

Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you.
Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone.

And so you trust because of a feeling?! I certainly do not will myself to be happy when I am with something - but I am anyway. The experiencer, that's what I am. Haha. If I told you, you would think I was absolutely crazy for having entertained it.

I trust because it makes me feel good. Now there's something I can live with. That makes sense.. for some odd reason. I like it. Selfish but good. We are getting somewhere.

I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so.

Damn you and your pointing out my self contradictions.

What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand?

I still don't know who she is and I see her name here and there. Is she also a she-deathbeast with claws?

... and whom are you talking to right now?

(Sorry, I am just so full of myself sometimes ...)

It took a while to click..

You are not being fair to yourself.

Optimism never changed reality.

You cannot judge past actions with the knowledge that these actions later on produced. I mean, you can do that, but it is not fair.
We cannot judge the past with the present and say "oh what a fool I was". Had I not done what I did, I could have never come to the knowledge I have now.
Learn from the past, but don't condemn it.

But if we don't make baseless assumptions in the first place, we would not even be looking at the past ruefully. Don't make an assumption and you won't have to live with it. How simple is that? A marvelous truth!

And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course.
Okay.

Okay. Show me the way.

You are digging your own grave.

Not at all. I am on the highest mountain! My truth is my truth alone. Mine!

The secret is: You have to be indifferent. You can't put yourself at the center of your life. This might seem absurd but it is shockingly true. Haha. I can't believe I didn't think of this before.

I think they have their reasons.
And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe.

Belief because we believe in faith. I am trying SO HARD to knock it into you that there is something fishy about that. Faith cannot be trusted. It should not. It just should be avoided like a crushed bird's carcass in the roadside.

Take the narrow road.

Are you to think yourself weak if you cannot lift 350 kg?
Are you to think yourself slow if you cannot run at 100 km/h?
Are you to think yourself stupid if your IQ isn't above 140?
...

None of these things (and the list is vast) can determine your personal worth. But just because I cannot lift 350 kg, run at 100 km/h and so on, and don't feel weak, slow, stupid etc. does NOT mean that I am being "complacent" about it.
What standards is one to live up -- other than one's own?!

Well we are getting somewhere.

Back to laws. Is it then not an absurdity to impose laws. It is absurd!

I have never seen such a gross oversimplification of life as is clearly evident in the ignominious doctrine of free will. It is not even self evident for Christ's sake!

It really really is not that simple.

If society is going to presuppose an absurd concept, it might as well not be one which is riddled with problems. From free will, an absurd system of standards is opposed for the alledged "good" of the individual when this good is clearly not self evident and is most surely presupposed. And so the people see the good of laws because they see what they want to see. Assume it is so and it will be so for you. How any so-called "intelligent" human being cannot see the error of presuming and the consequential errors in their assumptions is beyond me.

We MUST be suspicious of our knowledge and the very reason for which we know. Taking it for granted is unacceptable. Saying that's just the way it is is unsatisfactory. Calling it impractical is unjustified.

You simply can NOT be complacent about this. It is dangerous. Very dangerous.

See my reply to your theory.

Whether or not my biological solution is an adequate alternative or not does not change the fact that free will is presupposed. We want to see free will and so we see free will. I cannot stress this enough. HOW we know and WHY we know are to be regarded with utmost suspicion.

It means that the same reality is addressed from two very different perspectives: While you condemn yourself for being a hypocrite and arbitrary, I take the position of being cautious and not take things for granted. You get negative results and dissatisfaction, I have chances to be rewarded.

I am beginning to be satisfied with a lot of things. I just need to try.. a little more..

Listen. I am NOT condemning myself. I am observing that because of vanity and because of pride, I presuppose and I don't care that there is no reason to presuppose and I don't care that the presupposition will lead to an infinite chain of assumptions. I am getting the most positive results I can *realistically* expect. I just don't have the time I used to have anymore but I am progressing, really I am.

Indeed, there is no "reason" for loving my cat. I could find "reasons", but any "reason" I would name would be insufficient to me. This is how there is no "reason" for loving my cat.

Intimacy isn't a *reason for* trusting someone. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible.

Intimacy shouldn't even be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and yet it is.

Where on earth did you get this?!

Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible sounds a lot to me like 'intimacy is the reason for trusting someone' reworded vaguely.

I don't see any reason why intimacy should be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and you don't either.

Stuff takes time.
You'd be too overwhelmed if it'd all happen from one moment to another; chances are, you would lose all continuity of your identity.

Thanks for the warning but it's a little for that right now..

Why do you think that you want to trust?

Why do you think that you want to believe?

I think this goes back to free will and just how absurd it is. (Sorry but I must insult free will every change I can. I can't resist the impulse)

"I" don't want to believe. "I" don't want to trust. There is no "I" as I have been telling you all along. The "I" is a grand delusion. I knew you would never believe me if I told you and even know I am chuckling to myself. The reality is beyond our wildest dreams.

I want to believe because the brain wants to believe.

Take it or leave it. The explanation I have is just fantastic. Haha. I think I am satisfied. I don't have enough time to enjoy the satisfaction but I am satisfied alright. Yes I am.

I think this doubt now is just a creative step to something new.

Bingo!

Well, if you have defined that what you are looking for cannot be found ... then ... then you must be mad. Or something else is the reason.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, is madness.

That oversimplifies it. A lot of what you are saying oversimplifies the reality. Haha. You'll be shocked at the reality. Shocked!

I like talking to you. It makes me see things a lot differently. I must have been mad not to realize this earlier.

Uh.

I'm going back and encoding everything..

 

[§outh§tar]

I think one should also not be too confident that predestination as understood in the Bible necessarily corresponds with your personal definition of predestination. If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore.

For instance, we read in Luke 7:

29 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptised by John.

30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptised by John.)​

It's not the ones who are right that are right before God. We can take some comfort in that, but not too much, as Paul argues in Romans 3 -- it's not our unfaithfulness (our "being wrong") that makes God "more right". Conversely, our faithfulness only confirms that He is right; it does not take away our sin. No, "all are alike under sin" (Rom.3:9) and that's why God finds fault in anyone.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.​

It's not our understanding of Christianity that is important, but our obedience to God. That obedience is shown by acknowledging our sins and accepting his grace, made universally available through Christ. God's promises were to faithful Israel; Christ is faithful Israel. Not any "circle of Christianity".

You'll be shocked to know Jenyar. Shocked!