1. IrvingSnodgrass - May 10, 1999 - 9:01 AM PT
Here it is... a brand new Religion thread, for whatever comments or discussions you'd like to make about religion.
I'll be starting a new specific thread in a few days on "Early Christianity," so you all can start thinking of that topic, too.
To start things off, I'll replay the topic from Slate's very first Religion thread, almost three years ago:
Is there a God?
2. ChristiPeters - May 10, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
Yes.
Next question?
3. incognito - May 10, 1999 - 9:10 AM PT
I agree.
4. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
Ofcourse there is no God, but I can't do without him.
5. vonKreedon - May 10, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
How would one know if there is a God? How does one discriminate between the voice of God and the voices heard by schizophrenics? How does one discriminate between apparent order resulting from a divine watchmaker and apparent order resulting from the interaction of chaotic forces? Why does the existence/non-existence of God matter?
6. incognito - May 10, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
"How would one know if there is a God?"
He communicates with you.
"How does one discriminate between the voice of God and the voices heard by schizophrenics?"
God comes to Noah and tells him to build an ark because it is going to do something it never did before, rain, and rain hard. One could probably argue that when God speaks to you you just "know" it because the communication comes with an assurance that this is indeed God speaking. But let's assume Noah wasn't too sure it was God or just his schizophrenia kicking in.
When it rained a year later and wiped out all of mankind, Noah had a fairly good guess that is really was God speaking to him!
"Why does the existence/non-existence of God matter?"
Let's assume God exists and made us. And let's further assume he requires of us certain things such that our entire existence depends upon them. The existence of such a God is extremely important, wouldn't you say?
7. AuNaturel - May 10, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
What if you are *absolutely sure* that God just told you to set off a truck load of fertilzer next to a public building? What if you are *99%* sure?
8. dexceus - May 10, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
I still think the real big qeusrion would be are there more then one God or goddess.
9. vonKreedon - May 10, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Cog - God spoke routinely to my brother, telling him things that my brother was certain came true (the rest of us missed them), God called on my brother to give pieces of God to those who needed it, those that God pointed out to my brother. My brother, clinically insane or ignored prophet?
You put forward Noah and the flood, but of course if Noah had waited for objective proof he would have drowned, according to the Bible. And there are darned few called upon to perform in that manner by God, so how do the rest of us discriminate between God and simple inner voices? I recieve messages, but I percieve them as being myself talking to myself, not an external diety talking to me. How would I make the discrimination, assuming that bushes don't burst into flame and speak to me?
Regarding divine relevance, if God requires certain things from us such that our entire existence depends on it then God is not doing a good enough job of communication for this to be relevant. If God requires something of me then I require that God be explicit and available for questions of clarification before this can be relevant.
The current situation, IMO, presents us with a variety of contradictory views of God (both intra and inter-contradictory) and what God requires of us. This leaves us humans to use our own powers of critical reasoning and morality to interpret these writings. This is dangerous because we then cloak our human and temporal morality in undeserved divine and unchanging status. This allows us to stop thinking for ourselves and to rationalize monstrous behavior. I am NOT saying that all or most religious behavior is monstrous, or that religion is the source of all monstrous human behavior.
God is not relevant because if God exists we are still on our own.
10. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
VonKreedon:
Well you know my fondness for the schizophrenic-Bible connection. Bloodnfire was very helpful with the talking donkey in Numbers. I forget the name of the donkey's owner but it began with B. Balak?
Anyway, I'm just about burnt out on this crap. I have had a premonition concerning the progress of this thread. A voice spoke to me. I think it was god. He told me to find happiness and fulfilment elsewhere, for there is nothing here for uzmakk but walls and circles. When I check in on this thread in a month's time I will know, by the acuracy of the premonition, if it was indeed the voice of God that spake unto me.
BTW, it is not precisely schizophrenia that I imagine in the Bible. I think it is quite possible that when men had to think and think hard, that their thought may have occurred to them in the form of voices.
11. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
To make sure it is God's voice and not my own that I'm hearing, I test it against scripture. If what I hear, in anyway contradicts scripture, it's not from God.
12. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
Jenerator:
I love you.
13. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
Wow Uz, thank you!;-)
14. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Thank you???? Thank you????? Thank you is not good enough.
15. dexceus - May 10, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Do the Gods/eses talk to people or is it just schizophrenia. That's a real tough one. To be schizophrenia the subject must have disconnection with reality, possibly including preceptual problems (a.k.a. seeing little blue gremlins and hearing voices). Normaly this disaccosiation with reality comes out very clearly in speech patterns. The subject will jump form topic to topic, sometimes even within the same sentence with sever cases. (Beleive it or not we were discussing Schizophrenia in my psyche class today not an hour ago) So the biggest acid test on whether one was schizophrenic or talking a God would probably be how coherant the person was. Of course, even if the person was coherant, it could still be some kind of obseesive disorder.
I'll go ahead and risk what little credability I may have here and say that I do talk to my Goddess on a regular basis. She tells me things and the always come true. Sometimes she will tell me to do something and sometimes I do them and other times I don't. Invaribly when I don't, life will always end up nudgeing me in that dirction. Judge for yourself.
16. ChristiPeters - May 10, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
Why is it that when the question is asked, "Does God exist?" and someone answers, "yes", that so many people assume that the God being talked about is exclusively the God of Christianity?
Why?
17. pellenilsson - May 10, 1999 - 1:07 PM PT
incognito
Message #6
You use Noah as an argument for God. Prove the existence of Noah.
18. pellenilsson - May 10, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
dexceus
Message #8
"I still think the real big qeusrion would be are there more then one God or goddess."
No dexceus, the real question: is there any God?
19. ChristinO - May 10, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
Hey Cos,
I don't know that it does matter in the great scheme of things. One either believes or does not believe. The purpose of the belief? I suppose one could say that it's a kind of "security blanket" or that it keeps fear at bay or whatever, but one can as easily argue that lack of belief holds fear at bay by denouncing the possibility of anything beyond the empirical.
I don't think that either position is inherently better or worse than the other.
20. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
Uz,
You made me speechless, okay?!?
21. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT
I can accept that, Jenerator.
22. harper - May 10, 1999 - 2:58 PM PT
What do you call some one who doesn't care whether God exists or not?
23. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Pre-occupied with self?
24. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
Uz,
Are you really going to leave for a month? You *have* to stick around for the early Christianity thread!!
25. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 3:14 PM PT
Harper:
A carefree fellow.
26. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
Jenerator:
Who said I was going anywhere for a month? I wouldn't miss the early Christianity thread for a guaranteed spot in heaven.
27. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
It's gonna be a rumble between the orthodox and the gnostics.
28. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
Also, I thought you might be leaving because of Message #10. Glad I was wrong.
29. uzmakk - May 10, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
Message #16 Christipeters:
Because there are many Christians about, and when a Christian concieves God it is a Christian God. Most people are simply not used to conceiving god with the head of an ibis, eight arms, and the feet of a lion, as am I.
30. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
Uz,
You're a strange bird.
31. bloodnfire - May 10, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
I love you too, Jen, and Marshame. Wouldn't it be refreshing if this thread was just full of friendly greetings ? I'm fond of you too, Uzmakk, and I want to be friends with everyone.
Even Resonance !!I'm sick of this crazy dance we all do on these 'religion' threads. Trying to prove and disprove, to justify and disparage. Perhaps if we concentrated on the truly kind and gentle and generous things which God motivates us to do, (you choose which God does the motivating), it might be very encouraging.
Might be a little boring too :-)
32. Jenerator - May 10, 1999 - 3:27 PM PT
bloodnfire,
You're very sweet. I look forward to discussing Early Christianity without allowing anyone to steer me into pointless arguments. Hopefully, incognito will keep me accountable.;-)
P.s. talking about the love of Christ is never boring.
33. incognito - May 10, 1999 - 3:34 PM PT
"You use Noah as an argument for God."
No I didn't pelle. I used the example of Noah off the top of my head as an example of how a person could tell the difference between this really being God and just his schizophrenia kicking in per vonKreedon's questions. Once the rains came and wiped everybody out, Noah could be pretty sure the voice he had heard telling him this would happen didn't just come from his own head.
34. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 3:53 AM PT
Speaking of Noah, after the flood when Noah and family are back on dry land we have the following--
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a grament, and laid it upon both their shoulders , and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. etc., etc.
----------
What did Ham do to his father which has been left out of the Biblical story of Noah.?
35. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 6:04 AM PT
Pellen:
"Prove the existence of Noah."
Prove the non-existence of Noah.
36. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 6:27 AM PT
truckluck has begun the typical degenerative spiral. Oh so boring. Any thoughts on Ham, trukluk.
37. dexceus - May 11, 1999 - 7:38 AM PT
You cannot prove or disprove the existance of any God, so what is the point in that argument? There is about as much point in me trying to prove that their are deities to an atheist as there is for someone to try and prove that my goddess does not exist. I can promise you that you will not prove to me that I'm wron. I feel her influence daily and nothing you can say can change that, so why don't we move away from that argument and on to smoething more productive?
38. SeaSailor - May 11, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
vonkreedon and uzmakk
All religions tell us to meditate. Even Buddhism tells us that we must know our inner self. There need not be any voices or schizophrenia involved.
You do have to be still and without distractions. This allows your mind to understand more things and understand them better. We are not sure exactly how this works but we do know that our mind works on more than sensory input. That there is much about the mind that is not understood is an understatement.
It is very hard in our present society to avoid distraction. It takes a real commitment to attain it. Most people find it almost impossible to tolerate silence for more than a few minutes; they get restless and fidget like kids. If you can take it for a day, the second day is wonderful and easy.
Religion tells us that God will speak in that silence. But it doesn't know that for sure. But something does happen. American indians have a very rudimentary cultural religion but meditation is an importanat part of it. Some Buddhists believe that God speaks to them when they meditate, and others deny the existence of any God.
Try being quiet. Set an hour as your goal. Why it is important to do this will begin to become apparant. Something happens even if you cannot describe it. There are places you can go to spend a day or two in silence; look for them. Some of the places offer speakers who will give you things to meditate on but you need not intend.
I can tell you it works because I've done it many times. My studies in sociology and psychology as well as my studies of religions reach the same conclusions from very different starting places. Try it.
39. SeaSailor - May 11, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Read about Joan of Ark. She is considered a saint but was executed by the Inquisition because she could not deny her visions or voices. Decide for yourself if she was crazy or truthful.
40. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
"American indians have a very rudimentary cultural religion..."
On what do you base this statement?
BTW, it is the "very rudimentary" I am wondering about.
41. justlooking - May 11, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
Christiepeters
Message #16
Thank you, christiepeters!
Even among Christians, there are so many more streams of thought than are reflected among our usual suspects.
42. justlooking - May 11, 1999 - 9:16 AM PT
Sorry, I meant Christipeters. Why don't I have a secretary to correct my posts?
43. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
Anyway, Ham castrated Noah. Ofcourse, its not in the Bible so he didn't, but he "really" did. Message #34
SeaSailor:
My life is one big OM.
44. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 9:20 AM PT
Message #38 Seasailor:
I don't read about much meditation in the Bible, but I read about a lot of voices.
45. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 10:22 AM PT
Uz:
"truckluck has begun the typical degenerative spiral. Oh so boring. Any thoughts on Ham, trukluk."
What you see as a "degenerative spiral" is to me a potentially interesting discussion textual historicity, etc. I don't complain when you babble about being some Norse god so I would ask that you would similarly refrain.
I will look into the Ham story later.
46. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
I recall reading something about Ham and the statement "saw his father's nakedness" and that statement being an idiom used to convey the sleeping of a man with another man's wife. In this case it would be incest I guess but I don't know if the passage supports such a notion or not.
tckrulak are you still limited time-wise, or would you be willing now to discuss the matter of God loving everybody?
47. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
Incog:
I am pressed for time, but I will give you one of the things that I have thought about. I just hope that I can type it in a coherent manner as it is not *totally* straight in my head. The issue is whether/why God creates those that He knows are going to go to Hell. If God can read a person's future, this necessarily means that the person *had* to be created, otherwise he would not have a future. For God to look down the hallway of time and see that John Doe was an unrepentant sinner who ends up in Hell, he had to be a created being. BUT, once John is created, his destination is out of God's hands because John is a free moral agent. Does this make any sense to you?
48. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 10:37 AM PT
Ooops, I just realized that this might not have addressed the issue up for discussion in Message #46, but my Message #47 is out there and it does tie in to 46.
49. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
Message #45
Quite so, trukluk. I am glad to discover that your are a serious fellow. Unfortunately we are in alternate universes.
50. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT
tckrulak I agree the topics are related.
"If God can read a person's future, this necessarily means that the person *had* to be created, otherwise he would not have a future."
If God is omniscient, wouldn't he know all "possibilities" whether real or not? I'm not really sure what your point is with the above statement.
But maybe we can sidestep it by simply dealing with *real* people, ones God really created, ones that went to Hell. (I'm not sure if by your use of *had* you mean to imply God MUST have created the person).
"BUT, once John is created, his destination is out of God's hands because John is a free moral agent."
I don't see how this follows at all. How is John's destination out of God's hands?
51. uzmakk - May 11, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
I have a book[in/through] which I look
It is my [only[only]] book.
52. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
Incog:
"If God is omniscient, wouldn't he know all "possibilities" whether real or not? I'm not really sure what your point is with the above statement."
Sure, God knows all the possibilities, but He doesn't know what will happen in *actuality* until after the being has been created. Right now, I have a myriad of different possibilities for my future, but I have only *one* future.
"'BUT, once John is created, his destination is out of God's hands because John is a free moral agent.'
I don't see how this follows at all. How is John's destination out of God's hands?"
Because at this point, it is John who decides whether He wants to believe in Jesus Christ or not. Because John is a free moral agent, God will allow John do follow the path of his own choosing.
53. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
TCK - Are you saying that you do not believe that your God knows what it is that John will choose to do, that God does not know the future?
54. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
VK:
If God is "outside of time, as many posit, then He is able to see the pas, the present, and the future. If that future involves a John Doe, then it means that John Doe has *been* created. Suppose God is in His Heaven before the creation of the world and He says to Himself, "Theoretically,I could create someone named Adolf Hitler." At this point, Hitler's future is wide open. He has not been created and he could either be someone as wonderful as Mother Theresa or as awful as, well, Adolf Hitler. However, once there is a future to see, a future that includes Adolf Hitler, it is a moot point as to whether God should or should not create Hitler; Hitler has already been created. At this point, it is a matter of God working to limit the evil of Hitler and use his disgusting acts for some sort of good.
55. pellenilsson - May 11, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
dexceus
Message #37
"You cannot prove or disprove the existance of any God,
so what is the point in that argument? "
".... so why
don't we move away from that argument and on to
something more productive?"
Such as?
56. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
TCK - Still not clear on God knowing what we will do. My understanding of standard Christian catechism is that God knows what we will do, but does not interfere with our deciding to do it; we have free will, but God already knows what we will do with our free will. Is this your understanding?
Also, you say, "At this point, it is a matter of God working to limit the evil of Hitler and use his disgusting acts for some sort of good." Are you saying that you believe that God acts in the world to limit the effect of 'evil'?
57. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Pelle - Thanks for getting back to Dex's statement.
If it is true that one cannot prove/disprove the existence of God then why is God relevant to living a human life?
58. pellenilsson - May 11, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
tckrulak
My little remark about Noah was an oblique reference to a discussion we had in the thread before last about self-referencing systems of which Christianity is one. Marxism-Leninism is another good example. The common denominator is, simply speaking, that certain texts are held to be true and then used to prove that the thought edifice as a whole is also true, which in turn proves that the text must be true.
59. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
tclkrulak I too am wondering what your answer will be to vonKreedon's question, because it seems from your post earlier that God does NOT know what John will do.
"Because at this point, it is John who decides whether He wants to believe in Jesus Christ or not."
I'm unsure if you mean this as a statement of fact, or only as one possibility in the discussion. Because there are other possibilities, like God deciding for John for example.
What if God created Hitler expressing because he wanted Hitler to perform his evil deeds? Is that in the realm of possibilities per your thinking?
60. pellenilsson - May 11, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
tckrulak
Message #47
"... once John is created, his destination is out of God's hands ...."
All of us are created. Our destination includes our acts of good or evil. You are saying that all this is out of God's hands. This means that God is a Creator who does not concern himself with the world we live in. That's OK by me but for a Christian it is of course heresy.
61. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Incog,
It seems to me, after much thought and biblical investigation, that (IMO) God does create some people to be destroyed. For what ultimate purpose, I am not sure, but I know that God is in control, and for those people who do go to hell, their destruction serves a purpose, whether it be to display God's power or His love for those He *has* chosen. I do not believe that God's omniscience is limited, so I disagree with Tckrulak's assessment that His omniscience only works until after the person is created. Plus, I'm not ntirely convinced that we're free moral agents.
I hope I didn't just open a can of worms!;-)
62. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
A can of worms? Naaaaah.
I don't think tckrulak said God doesn't know until he has created.
Tell me what you mean by your last comment about "free moral agents."
63. RosettaStone - May 11, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
I opened up this thread and the first thing I saw was post #12.
You don't normally see those three words in fray, but it brought a smile to my face.
64. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Incog:
"I'm unsure if you mean this as a statement of fact, or only as one possibility in the discussion. Because there are other possibilities, like God deciding for John for example."
No, I am definitely NOT saying that any part of which I am saying is a fact. As I mentioned, these are thoughts that I am having as I try to wrap my mind around God's omniscience and omnipotence. I certainly agree that there *are* other possibilities, although I am not of the mind that your example is valid.
Jen:
What does 2 Peter 3:9 mean to you?
65. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
I was using "free moral agent" as used by Tckrulak in Message #47. He [Tck] says
"BUT, once John is created, his destination is out of God's hands because John is a free moral agent."
I don't think that we are free moral agents in certain ways. For starters, I believe that it is through the prompting of the Holy Spirit that we are able to first recognize what terrible sinners we are. Secondly, I believe that God elects us, so, we are not "free" to choose Christ.
I think that we are free moral agents when it comes to day to day activity i.e. whether or not I want to take acid, steal a tank of gas, or donate one hundred dollars to the Red Cross is entirely up to me.
66. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
"I certainly agree that there *are* other possibilities, although I am not of the mind that your example is valid."
What do you make of John 1:13?
67. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
"Secondly, I believe that God elects us, so, we are not "free" to choose Christ."
Am I mistaken or didn't you say about 2 weeks ago that you weren't sure about this one Jenerator?
68. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
RSV online bible
69. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Jen:
I agree that the Holy Spirit prompts, but do we necessarily *have* to respond to that prompting?
Incog:
I am not sure what you are getting at WRT John 1:13
70. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Tck,
2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should
perish, but that all should reach repentance."
To me, it seems that this is addressed to the beloved of Christ, in other words, his followers. We are to live a life characterized by holiness and godliness, always leading us to repentance.
71. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
Jen:
"To me, it seems that this is addressed to the beloved of Christ, in other words, his followers. We are to live a life characterized by holiness and godliness, always leading us to repentance."
But how can this be? Can Christians lose their salvation? If not, then why would Christ's "followers" perish? I will have to do some exegesis on this passage and see what exactly is being said. I will try to do that tonight. I just hope my Greek isn't too rusty!!! :-)
72. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
Is it possible that God *is* an omnipotent, omniscient Creator Who *chooses* to GIVE his creations free will?
If God's creations (people) have free will, this may not mean that God is *not* all powerful or all-seeing. Can God not choose when and where and how He/She applies/uses His/Her power?
73. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT
tck,
I think that because we are sinners, we can resist our consciences. When God tells us in our hearts that we shouldn't do something, and we do it anyway, I think that we grieve the Holy Sprit and are rejecting what we know to be right. However, when it comes to knowing God as God, I do not think that we can reject God's calling. We know that God is both the author and finisher of our faith, so I do not believe that God prompts us, then gives us the freedom to reject the knowledge of Him.
74. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
tckrulak doesn't John 1:13 talk about people becoming children of God and that it is not by the will?
75. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Christi,
regarding free will, the following is one reason why I'm leaning towards election more and more everyday:
Romans 8
"28: We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the
first-born among many brethren.
30: And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also
glorified."
76. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
jenerator see <NSG NUM=67>
77. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
yes I am stupid
78. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
Incog,
I wasn't sure, but the more I think about it, the more I read, and the more I talk with trusted friends, I am leaning towards Calvinism.
79. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT
Well, Jenerator, if the only people in this discussion are Christians who believe in an inerrant Bible, I suppose that cite of the Bible is a clincher of an argument.
From that viewpoint/belief system - do you then believe that people do not have free will?
80. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
If we have no free will, if we are not "free moral agents" then what basis other than sadism would God have for torturing those not selected for salvation? This God just gets more monstrous with each iteration.
81. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT
I'm not able to verbalize as well as people like John Calvin, but I am really leaning towards election rather than free will. To me, it means that God chose to elect certain people (why, I don't know) and because of Him choosing them, they are not able to unchoose Him, and those who are not called are not able to choose Him either. Incog, we could use some of your wisdom here!
82. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
vonK,
Why do you immediately jump to negative conclusions when you can't understand the motivations of God? Clearly, you are quite willing to see only what you deam to be bad, and I have never seen you focus on the good qualities of God.
83. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
Incog:
"12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
I am not sure that I see a contradiction in my position and these verses.
84. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Jenerator -
Oh, I hope you are wrong, because that sounds like the behavior of a cruel sadist to me. I would hate to think the Creator of All there Is, is a petty, nasty, vile, cruel, sadist.
85. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:36 PM PT
Christi,
How is choosing people an act of sadism?
86. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
Jen - Because I can't get around the idea that in the end most of humanity is being tortured forever. There are many excellent admonitions about how we should live and treat each other in this world, but the image of God you hold treats at least most of us like a sadistic tyrant.
87. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT
Jen - To use a contemporary image of sadism:
The Serb Arakan chooses several Albanians from a group of refugees, gives them food, water, transports them to the border. The elect are saved, but the rest are butchered and buried in a mass grave.
Jehovah chooses several humans, gives the the holy spirit and after death transports them to Heaven. The rest of humanity is tortured forever.
88. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
Von,
Do you think that everyone should go to heaven? Would it be more "just" IYO for people to have multiple chances until we all get it right?
89. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
In the second paragraph, the first 'the' should be 'them'
90. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
For sentient beings to be tortured is unacceptable to me.
91. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT
Von,
If God makes the rules, who are we to say we know better? Are you suggesting that your sense of justice is better than Almighty God's? Are you implying that you know more about truth and eternal life than God?
92. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT
Jen - what vonKreedon said.
To elaborate, it is not the choosing that is sadistic - it is the not choosing. To create beings and then condemn them to an eternity of suffering with no chance to avoid it is cruel and sadistic.
If there is no free will and *I* canNOT choose God unless He/She has chosen me and NOTHING *I* do or not do in my life make one iota of differnce - Then you are painting a picture of a God who is creating a huge number of people and then only choosing some and condemning the rest to agony for no good reason.
I could almost understand if God creates people, gives them the free will to choose or not choose to accept/follow Him/Her and those who choose to reject Him/Her are condemned, but what you are saying - NO.
If I have misunderstood you, please clarify.
93. tckrulak - May 11, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Jen:
It seems that the image of God that you present is not very consistent. I think you would agree that we all have free will in our lives from the smallest details (what to wear today) to some of the largest (whom to wed, career choices, etc.). So why, in the single-most important area of life, one's relationship with his Creator, would God not allow for free will?
94. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Christi,
You say that God choosing some while not choosing others is for "no good reason". What makes you think that God's reasons are not good? Is your sense of fairness more fair than his, or could you be at least willing to remember that God's wisdom transcends our own? I have faith that God knows more about justice and fairness than any of us do. Also, since he made this universe and created man himself, I am more willing to respect His ways and wisdom over my own!
95. pellenilsson - May 11, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Jenerator
Message #81
"To me, it means that God chose to elect certain people (why, I don't know) and because of Him choosing them, they are not able to unchoose Him, and those who are not called are not able to choose Him either"
On one level this is classical heresy such as that practiced by the Cathars in France in the 14th century and for which many died on the stake.
On another level it harks back to Augustinus and his assertion that faith is a gift of God. But to whom does God give the gift and why them and not others?
96. Jenerator - May 11, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
Does anybody else own Willing to Believe, by R.C. Sproul?
97. ChristiPeters - May 11, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
Jenerator -
Would you feel the same way if one of those who God does not choose is your mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son?
How would you feel about a loved one who lives a good, honest, caring life, but is condemned to an eternity of suffering because God does not choose him/her?
98. vonKreedon - May 11, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
Jen says, "I have faith that God knows more about justice and fairness than any of us do." What do you base this on?
99. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
tckrulak the John 1:13 verse wasn't meant to go against what you said, but to support a possibility I mentioned that you seemed to not like, that God does the choosing. In that verse it seems at least that a person becomes a child of God NOT by the "will of the flesh or the will of man." Do you see now why I mentioned that verse?
100. incognito - May 11, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT
"On one level this is classical heresy such as that practiced by the Cathars in France in the 14th century and for which many died on the stake."
pelle could you explain more fully?