Just took the test 50 points. I’m confused what this quiz is supposed to do. Am I supposed to all of a sudden become an atheist?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just took the test 50 points. I’m confused what this quiz is supposed to do. Am I supposed to all of a sudden become an atheist?[/quote]
I think we’re either supposed to burn you, or see if you float. 0:')
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
God wanted people who would love him of their own free will - we’ve had that discussion.
You said it yourself: Foreknowledge does not mean forcing someone to behave in a certain way.
Think about it for a minute.
If you know in advance that John is going to make poor moral choices which lead to eternal suffering, and that Mary is going to make good moral choices which lead to eternal life, does that mean you are actually making these choices for them? Of course not.
The point is that, knowing this, a benevolent god could choose not to create John but could still create Mary.
If you disagree with this point, please specifically explain WHY.[/quote]
forlife - Do you have an intellectual understanding of Romans 5?
Romans 5; ESV - Peace with God Through Faith - Bible Gateway;
I’m not asking if you agree with it or anything, just if you have seen how Paul reasons things out.
vs 3-5 seems to explain God’s purpose for (Christian) suffering.
6-10 Contrary to IrishSteel’s opinion: (sorry IS!)
[quote] All men are born clean.
All men choose for themselves whether they will be evil or not
All men who choose to be evil must bear the consequences of that choice
All men who have chosen to be evil can accept God’s method payment for their evil (confess and repent) and avoid the consequences of their evil - if they choose to
All men who choose to be evil and choose to not accept God’s offer of grace for their sins will have to suffer the consequences of those choices.
yes God made you - but he made you able to not sin or to sin - whichever you choose - that does not make him responsible for your choice - it makes you responsible for your choice NO ONE HAS TO SIN . . .
[/quote]
I think, biblically, the point is that ALL have sinned, ALL are undeserving of God’s mercy/grace/salvation, (define it how you like) BUT He loved us enough to send (I really don’t want to get into modalism here) an atoning sacrifice (His Son) so we wouldn’t ALL perish. I personally am wary of the potential to get into the circular - but legitimate - question of why God couldn’t just cancel the debt, and forgive the sacrifice. I’m only speculating that it would be so that He could be shown to be respecting OUR laws. (maybe it’s a 2000 year old Hebrew-Hellenic mindset)
so… there seem to be 3 states here,
the ‘lawless savage’ who doesn’t know sin - it’s not counted against him.
Mary - someone who knows she’s a(n ex-)sinner, but accepts grace.
John - someone who understands the law, but rejects the ‘free’ ← I know, that’s a loaded value, grace that is offered to him, and instead chooses to be the master of his own destiny.
(I believe God grants that autonomy too,) but the end result (punishment) is separation from God, not Him torturing the unrepentant.
For God to create only people who would make ‘good moral choices/be obedient to HIM’, the speculative atheist (-who couldn’t even exist) would then have a valid argument that He was a coercive tyrant.
From a human perspective, I would prefer that my daughter unquestioningly obey me, (she’s at the ‘why’ infinite loop stage now), but it doesn’t work that way, and I end up having to learn to exercise greater patience & gentleness. Ultimately it improves MY character. (I don’t think I’m arguing for the self-improvement of an omnipotent being, but then we get back to the line of reasoning you don’t care for of: God has reasons of his own for doing things.)
And lastly, defining ‘hell’
Sheol - Hebrew - a grave or pit, gathering place for the dead. Transliterated to Hades for the New Testament. (beggar Lazarus & the rich man in Luke 16)
One Christian commentator on Jude 7 has defined the ‘Hellfire’ of Gehenna, not as a state of continuous burning/punishment, but as a ‘fire’ that has everlasting effect ie - Sodom & Gomorrah aren’t still burning today.
Lastly, lastly: O’s got me speculating on the question of free will / soul for my dog. Goodnight.
Meh, you all really shouldn’t be discussing Christianity. Christianity is not the important topic here. The Christian faith, it’s beliefs, is moot to all but Christians.
Earlier in the thread Christians were trying to answer the questions of atheists. Those atheists didn’t need to be told the beliefs of Christians because they don’t even believe in a god or gods.
The topic that you should be discussing is whether or not you believe in a “god/gods/higher being”. If that is not the topic that you all are discussing, then the entire discussion will be pissing in the wind. You have to get down to the most basic disagreement and work up from there.
The problem with that is that there is no way to really discuss whether or not there is a god because there is zero proof for either side. Sorry, it’s one of those things that we just don’t know now. Even if we did have proof there are those that would completely ignore it.
So, my conclusion is that you should all just shut the hell up and make up your own damn mind about what you believe without needing ideas from others.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Jeffe wrote:
Some choose to sin and never repent, some choose to sin and to repent - there is no cause, there is just their decision. If there where a cause there would be no free will - this is called pre-determinism. [/quote]
Can you list an example that would occur in the real world where someone acts without a cause thereby proving free-will?
I can’t wrap my head around this. Everything we do is towards happiness , whether instant or delayed. Everything we do is based off reason, for humans are rational beings. no?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
It also should be noted that these children are some of the least likely to believe in god as the idea of love is not a good feeling for them, and that they often turn into sociopaths.
How can you say that there is free will in this case?
Thanks for bringing this question - this is a disorder that more people need to be aware of. I first encountered it about 8 years ago working with some adoption agencies.
simple enough . . . RAD also originally called AD (Attachment Disorder) is a newly diagnosed disorder and a tragic one. Besides the circumstances you mentioned above, Eastern European orphans who were basically ignored and cut off from any human contact from their birth through adolescence and well as abused infants (sexually and physically) can also suffer from RAD. These unfortunate infants have their emotional and social development completely stagnated and sometimes they never recover. This is one of the most horrific things that a human being can perpetrate on the most defenseless among us. Let me get my hands on these bastards . . . .
Situations like this are why I’m glad Christ took time to add this warning: “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.”
Basically Christ said that the person who causes harm (spiritual, emotional or physical) to the infant (innocent in their child faith), then it would have been better that he drowned in the sea than to have harmed that child. When God tells you that you have some special punishment coming - you better believe you’ve got some special punishment coming.
Now - obviously, you either forgot or are choosing to ignore my explanation of the age of accountability. It is unique to each individual. If their physical development never reaches the point that their soul is able to understand/discern good from evil, then their free will could never make a morally culpable decision - they remain as innocent as the infant they really are in every sense of the emotional and mental state.
However, as they grow, learn and develop (which many have -some with extensive therapy, some with some truly incredible and loving foster/adopting parent) they will also grow in their ability to comprehend good and evil and will come to their age of accountability. At that point (whenever it comes for them) they will be held responsible for the decisions/choices that they make.
But the person who brought that pain and suffering . . . I’m gonna be on the front row to witness those judgments!
And the people who help, love and work with these individuals - man, they are as brave as SEAL’s in my opinion and worthy of the same respect - there you go making me cry again . . .[/quote]
Nice response.
Another interesting thing about attachment disordered kids is that often they are born with other issues that can increase the likelihood of neglect or abuse. For example, fetal alcohol syndrome. Infants with FAS (very common to those Eastern European orphans) tend to be perpetually agitated and have a high-pitched cry. It grates on the nerves of caretakers, who then avoid the child, who then becomes even more overwrought and shrieking. ADHD is another. We bandy the diagnosis about enough that most people associate it with fairly normal boy behavior, but a kid with severe ADHD is a tremendous challenge. For even mildly lacking parents (inconsistent, irritable, invalidating) the ADHD can become an explosive disorder as frustration outpaces coping skills for both parent and child.
So moving for a moment to the person who “brings the pain and suffering” to these kids…I think if you look closely you’ll find someone similarly damaged and in my view deserving of sympathy as well. I struggle with this, because I sometimes feel I have a front row seat as a child’s psyche is destroyed. So preventable. But not, you know? Because the destroyer is compelled by his or her own hurts and mistrusts.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Pushharder wrote:
I mean I can see some “I don’t know”-in going on for awhile in someone’s life but hey, sooner or later it’s time to get your thumb out of your ass, climb off the fence and stand for something. What do you think?
So you don’t see anything wrong with picking a side just because you need and idea. That’s great.
Methinks you may have misconstrued me thoughts on the subject.[/quote]
Probably. I say I don’t know because I don’t. I find it goes against everything I believe in (apparently not much) to say I know if I don’t.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
It’s a fine definition of omniscience.[/quote]
By going with a nonstandard definition of omniscience, you place yourself in a position which I’m not debating against. It’s the Christians that claim their god is benevolent and knows past, present, and future which are being logically inconsistent.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
How would you describe yourself in this vein? Which one are you? Or are you too a mixture of both?
[/quote]
Indifferent to friendly with people like you, who I view to be generally good human beings, despite your somewhat flawed taste in music.
The problem I have is with people that try to tell me I must do this or that or I’ll burn in eternal hellfire or some such jibberish.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong[/quote]
That’s commendable, but it does set an unrealistically high standard since you can’t prove a negative. Furthermore, it presupposes that your current position is correct.
Actually, I thought you claimed that you had incontrovertible proof for your current beliefs. If you don’t actually believe that, and instead believe that the reasons for your convictions could in fact be misguided, then that seems a more balanced and honest approach.
Again though, I think it is dangerous to plant your flag on a given hill and insist on defending it until your current position is proven wrong, rather than admitting that the hundreds of other hills are equally worth defending.
Just my 2 cents. As I said earlier, if your belief system gives you comfort and provides meaning to your life, that is great. Unfortunately, such beliefs tend to spill over into judgments against others (as seen by your anti-gay stance), but I do understand it and can’t really blame you for it.
[quote]DOA215 wrote:
The problem with that is that there is no way to really discuss whether or not there is a god because there is zero proof for either side. Sorry, it’s one of those things that we just don’t know now. Even if we did have proof there are those that would completely ignore it.
[/quote]
Actually, it is up to those who claim the positive to provide the proof. You don’t prove a negative. Currently, the existence of one or more gods does not hold up to sound scientific hypothesis testing. That is why I’m an aetheist.
You’re right though, people need to form their own opinions. Here’s an excellent, truncated, excerpt from a letter in the book I have “The Life and Selected writings of Thomas Jefferson”. The last sentence should be in bold, but I couldn’t figure out how to format it.
“Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, that that of blindfolded fear. … But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe ther is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; … Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision.”
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (8/10/1787)
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Your definition of love is that it would not cause/create something that it knows would have to suffer - you emphasis is always the level of suffering.[/quote]
I’ve talked about beneficence rather than love, but the logic really applies to both. You’re correct in a limited sense. Love is not solely defined by the level of suffering you knowingly allow for others, but the level of suffering you allow does have relevence. I’m arguing that it is NOT beneficent/loving to create something which you know in advance is going to suffer horribly for all eternity. I’m still wondering how you think that fits the definition of beneficence/love in any sense.
Exactly. Loving someone is doing whatever you can to ensure that they will be happy and have a meaningful, productive life. Knowing that they will experience some difficulties and pain along the way doesn’t justify choosing not to create them in the first place, since in the long run they may experience true joy and fulfillment. However, knowing in advance that they WILL ultimately suffer horribly for centuries, millenia, eons, and all eternity yet STILL choosing to create them cannot be called love in any sense.
You’re ignoring the fact that god KNOWS a given person WILL suffer, WILL be punished, WILL experience pain/torment, and WILL endure separation for all eternity, yet STILL chooses to create that person. This knowledge doesn’t imply predestination, but it does imply complicity, because god INCONTROVERTIBLY KNOWS this will happen, yet still chooses to create this person.
Given that, please explain to me how your god can be considered a truly loving god. I seriously don’t get it.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I didn’t say I chose a husband based on scientific method, I said I looked at what clues there were and then took a giant leap of faith.[/quote]
Are you disagreeing that you made a choice based on the sincere belief that, given existing objective evidence, it was probable your decision to marry your husband would be in your best interest?
If not, my point stands. The scientific method is about formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the probability that those hypotheses are correct, given currently available objective evidence. It seems to me that is exactly what you did.
Furthemore, the scientific method is willing to change its hypotheses when additional objective evidence warrants doing so. If after marrying your husband, you learned that he was really a jerk and was unworthy of being married to you, I suspect you would be willing to revise your hypothesis accordingly.
That is a far cry from choosing a belief system over other belief systems based on scanty evidence, and refusing to ever change that belief system, despite objective evidence supporting the possibility of other belief systems being just as true as your own.
Which is why I believe agnosticism is the most honest approach, based on what we currently know. What is so frightening about admitting that we simply don’t know?
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Your definition of love is that it would not cause/create something that it knows would have to suffer - you emphasis is always the level of suffering.
I’ve talked about beneficence rather than love, but the logic really applies to both. You’re correct in a limited sense. Love is not solely defined by the level of suffering you knowingly allow for others, but the level of suffering you allow does have relevence. I’m arguing that it is NOT beneficent/loving to create something which you know in advance is going to suffer horribly for all eternity. I’m still wondering how you think that fits the definition of beneficence/love in any sense.
so you can understand that Love of a being is not negated by definite punishment, pain, suffering, death and separation - but then insist that because of a specific amount of suffering that then Love would be negated - it all revolves around the extent of the punishment.
Exactly. Loving someone is doing whatever you can to ensure that they will be happy and have a meaningful, productive life. Knowing that they will experience some difficulties and pain along the way doesn’t justify choosing not to create them in the first place, since in the long run they may experience true joy and fulfillment. However, knowing in advance that they WILL ultimately suffer horribly for centuries, millenia, eons, and all eternity yet STILL choosing to create them cannot be called love in any sense.
BUT in his great love he made a way so that NO ONE would HAVE to suffer, NO ONE would HAVE to be punished, NO ONE would HAVE to experience pain/torment, NO ONE wold HAVE to endure separation
You’re ignoring the fact that god KNOWS a given person WILL suffer, WILL be punished, WILL experience pain/torment, and WILL endure separation for all eternity, yet STILL chooses to create that person. This knowledge doesn’t imply predestination, but it does imply complicity, because god INCONTROVERTIBLY KNOWS this will happen, yet still chooses to create this person.
Given that, please explain to me how your god can be considered a truly loving god. I seriously don’t get it.[/quote]
- If we suppose that God KNOWS a given person, once created, is going to choose evil, I can’t imagine that he’d say to himself: “well, I had better abolish this model, because he’s going to make the wrong choices. From now on, I had better only create humans that choose what I want them to choose.”
Because ^^THIS goes against free will - which, we have agreed is neccessary.
-
If evil doesn’t exist in THIS world, how can we have free will?
-
There may exist a larger plan that you and I and the rest of us here cannot even being to apprehend - a plan so out of our realm of human understanding that it would blow our minds if it were revealed to us; a plan that is nevertheless right and true and good, and makes any suffering here on earth but a distant dream. You cannot entirely discount this possibility.
[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
forlife - Do you have an intellectual understanding of Romans 5?[/quote]
Yes, but not sure how it applies to the current discussion, since we are talking about people who suffer forever, rather than those who suffer for a relatively short period of time and ultimately experience joy forever.
Right. The point is that if god KNOWS IN ADVANCE which people are not going to choose Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and thus which people are going to suffer forever in hell, wouldn’t the loving choice be not to create these people in the first place?
No, because as mentioned several times, foreknowledge is different from predestination. Knowing in advance that someone is going to make good choices doesn’t mean you are actually making those choices for him. There is no coercion implied.
This is similar to the earlier discussion on the definition of omniscience. If you believe that people who don’t choose Christ’s atonement are not in fact going to suffer forever, then the current argument doesn’t apply. I’m only speaking to Christians who believe that refusing Christ means everlasting suffering, yet claim that their god is benevolent. If that were the case, their god wouldn’t have created such people in the first place.
[quote]DOA215 wrote:
The problem with that is that there is no way to really discuss whether or not there is a god because there is zero proof for either side. Sorry, it’s one of those things that we just don’t know now. [/quote]
Given that, isn’t agnosticism the most honest approach? If there really is zero proof for belief system A vs. belief system B, why would any sane person choose belief system A and insist that it is true? Clearly, these people think that there is proof for their belief system, or they wouldn’t believe as they do.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (8/10/1787)[/quote]
Great quote, especially the last line. I continue to believe that if there really is a god(s), such a being wouldn’t condemn me for sincerely pursuing the truth and seeking to align my life with it. If such a god(s) would in fact condemn me for being wrong despite the sincerity of my search, he/she/it is not benevolent, honest, or fair, and is unworthy of my worship.
Another nice quote from Thomas Jefferson, which summarizes my approach to truth:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
- If we suppose that God KNOWS a given person, once created, is going to choose evil, I can’t imagine that he’d say to himself: “well, I had better abolish this model, because he’s going to make the wrong choices. From now on, I had better only create humans that choose what I want them to choose.”
Because ^^THIS goes against free will - which, we have agreed is neccessary.[/quote]
Again, foreknowledge is different from predestination. IrishSteel and I agree on this point. Simply knowing that a given person is going to choose evil in no way implies that you are making those choices for that person.
If evil doesn’t exist in heaven, how can we have free will in heaven?
By definition, the lack of evil is the result of people choosing good.
This is the “God’s ways are higher than our ways” argument, which is ultimately a rubber sheet theory that is useless, because it can be stretched to accommodate any argument. We can only reason based on our capacity for reason, recognizing that our capacity is limited, but doing our best to sincerely exercise that reason in the most honest and integrated way.
[quote]forlife wrote:
That’s commendable, but it does set an unrealistically high standard since you can’t prove a negative. Furthermore, it presupposes that your current position is correct.
Actually, I thought you claimed that you had incontrovertible proof for your current beliefs. If you don’t actually believe that, and instead believe that the reasons for your convictions could in fact be misguided, then that seems a more balanced and honest approach.
Again though, I think it is dangerous to plant your flag on a given hill and insist on defending it until your current position is proven wrong, rather than admitting that the hundreds of other hills are equally worth defending.
Just my 2 cents. As I said earlier, if your belief system gives you comfort and provides meaning to your life, that is great. Unfortunately, such beliefs tend to spill over into judgments against others (as seen by your anti-gay stance), but I do understand it and can’t really blame you for it.[/quote]
Didn’t ask anyone to prove a negative - they can prove the positive - and I am always on the lookout for just such an occurrence.
Ahh - they could be misguided, because I am an imperfect human, but I am intellectually honest. I’ve weighed the evidence, tested the theories, examined the documents, reviewed the constructs, and that’s why I believe what I believe.
No, I’ll disagree with on the Hill analogy, and here’s why: Truth exists - if you are on the hunt for truth (as we all should be), then you have to make judgments - claiming that all points are equally valid - is claiming that none of them are valid. That would be a illogical loop. I choose to seek truth - when I know for certain that some things or beliefs are false - they fall by the sword (or hand grenade if I have one). Thus there are many hills that are not worth defending. Some may have some truth, but also falsehoods - so those hills are indefensible by definition and a scary place to take a stand - does that make sense. I appreciate your sentiments on that idea (intellectual honest) but think you took that view a little too far in the face of the existence of truth. Or maybe I misunderstood you . . .
I don’t have an anti-gay stance. If I had an anti-gay stance, I’d have to have an anti-lying stance, an anti-stealing stance, an anti- . . . ok ok I’m funning ya.
The fact is that it is listed as a sin in the Bible - ok, so does that mean I am judgmental against gays - nope. You do not have to live by my standards and I would never try to force someone to live by my beliefs. I have absolutely no judgmental feelings at all - remember, I’m the ultimate “its your free choice” guy - trust me, I’ve got enough hangups of my own to ever begin worrying about other people’s choices . . .
I think you are a pretty fair guy - and trust that you are seeking truth for yourself, and my God promised that everyone that seeks truth honestly will find it - so I will stand for my world view and trust that you will do the same - I think you’d agree with me that if ever you learned that something you held to be true was false - you’d drop it in a heartbeat and grab onto what was true - in that we are kindred spirits.
Thanks FL
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Your definition of love is that it would not cause/create something that it knows would have to suffer - you emphasis is always the level of suffering.
I’ve talked about beneficence rather than love, but the logic really applies to both. You’re correct in a limited sense. Love is not solely defined by the level of suffering you knowingly allow for others, but the level of suffering you allow does have relevence. I’m arguing that it is NOT beneficent/loving to create something which you know in advance is going to suffer horribly for all eternity. I’m still wondering how you think that fits the definition of beneficence/love in any sense.
so you can understand that Love of a being is not negated by definite punishment, pain, suffering, death and separation - but then insist that because of a specific amount of suffering that then Love would be negated - it all revolves around the extent of the punishment.
Exactly. Loving someone is doing whatever you can to ensure that they will be happy and have a meaningful, productive life. Knowing that they will experience some difficulties and pain along the way doesn’t justify choosing not to create them in the first place, since in the long run they may experience true joy and fulfillment. However, knowing in advance that they WILL ultimately suffer horribly for centuries, millenia, eons, and all eternity yet STILL choosing to create them cannot be called love in any sense.
You’re ignoring the fact that god KNOWS a given person WILL suffer, WILL be punished, WILL experience pain/torment, and WILL endure separation for all eternity, yet STILL chooses to create that person. This knowledge doesn’t imply predestination, but it does imply complicity, because god INCONTROVERTIBLY KNOWS this will happen, yet still chooses to create this person.
Given that, please explain to me how your god can be considered a truly loving god. I seriously don’t get it.[/quote]
Actually - that leads to an interesting choice for God - He could choose to not create anyone who would sin - but we all sin - so then he could choose to not create anyone who would not repent of their sin - but then he would have created only people who would choose to repent - and free will is lost, because he made them to repent . . . by negating the possibility of not choosing to repent, you negate the free will of the individual and end up with robots made with the ability to make one choice . … So that leads to another choice, God could choose to create everyone, give them free will and then completely destroy the immortal souls of the ones who choose to not repent - but then, they are not truly immortal souls. Don’t you see, It would fundamentally alter the nature of God and of man to do what you say should have been done.
But that is not your question . . .
Well if it is the level of torment that a soul must endure for the sins that it has chosen, what would be an appropriate level of suffering? You do agree (accpeting the basic premises of Christianity for argument’s sake) that a soul that sins should be punished for the sins it freely commits, right? So what level of suffering would be appropriate?
The funny thing is - you mentioned suffering for centuries, millenia and eons - but the reality is that there will be no time in eternity. There is no - well, I’ve been suffering torment for 1,348,340,459 years now . . . Don’t ask - I cannot explain it - I have no concept of it, But God created time for this universe and he will end time at the end of time (just had to say that). He plainly said: “And time shall be no more”.