Where have you ever heard you can prove the Holy Scriptures? I don't think that is possible. You guys keep looking for a rational proof, even though the posts in this thread have said over and over you are not going to find it. It is interesting how you can constantly discount "faith" and "revelation" so easily while still looking for some sort of scientific proof; it is almost like you are looking at a red wall and thinking if you peer at it long enough it will become green.
Here is what the Bible says on the subject of "wisdom of the wise". I'm not telling you have to believe it, that is up to you and God. I would say, however, that when you keep asking the same questions over and over and seemingly expect a different answer to somehow pop up seems pretty weird. Read this passage and really think about it. What if it really is true? Does that make you so incredibly uncomfortable that you just refuse either consciously or unconsciously to consider it might be the truth?
1 Corinthians
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”?
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”?
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 1:10 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”?) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church; also verses 11, 26
1 Corinthians 1:21 Or the folly of preaching
1 Corinthians 1:26 Greek according to the flesh
1 Corinthians 1:29 Greek no flesh
1 Corinthians 1:30 Greek And from him
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles
... Mountaineeer
Figuring Out Religion
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I agree with you M, and this never bothered me as a believer, at all. If it was provable then there would be no need for faith, which is the limtmus test for a Christian. So if it was provable it would be completely pointless. I could expound but there's no need here.Mountaineer wrote: Where have you ever heard you can prove the Holy Scriptures? I don't think that is possible.
Arguing that it's unproven is not an argument against it's correctness or existance. That is a totally false argument. Until someone sailed around the Earth people could argue that the Earth was flat based on the fact it hadn't been "proven" a sphere. The examples are endless.
To me the problem is the internal contradictions. God cannot exist as described in the Bible. He is guilty of what he accuses us of. He also created us as supposedly imperfect beings, which proves that he can't be perfect, and so many more that demonstrate it cannot be true.
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This bit of history on the subject of "Biblical Inerrancy" might be of interest. I'd say the controversy still is at the forefront of religious thought, and likely is at the root of much of our differences of opinion in this thread. So, once again, it comes down to who is going to be God? God or man?
... Mountaineer
Why Biblical Inerrancy is Important — and Always Will Be
Forty years ago, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) was in an uproar. Its Saint Louis seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended in the January 20, 1974 meeting of the seminary’s Board of Control. On January 21st the majority of the seminary students declared a “moratorium”? on classes and the majority of the faculty went on strike. This resulted in the well-known “walk-out”? of most of the faculty and students on February 19th, viewed on broadcast television throughout the United States. Subsequently the majority of students and faculty formed the “Seminex”? seminary, graduating its first class on May 24, 1974. Two years later, in December 1976, the “Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches”? (AELC) was formed with 250 former LCMS congregations and with “Seminex”? as its partner seminary and guiding light.
What was the issue in this intense church struggle? The doctrinal issue was expressed at the 1973 LCMS convention when it adopted Resolution 3-01, which included a resolved to accept “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles”? (hereafter “1973 Statement”?) as the expression of “the Synod’s position on current doctrinal issues.”? What was the result of this struggle within the LCMS? The standard reference work by E.T. & M.B. Bachmann, Lutheran Churches in the World: A Handbook (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) states that by means of the departure of the Seminex faculty and the AELC, as well as the severing of fellowship with the ALC, the LCMS ’reclaimed its historic confessional stance on the doctrine of the authority of Scripture’ and reaffirmed its ban on the ordination of women to the pastoral office.(ibid., p. 607).
“Biblical inerrancy”? was the most contested idea and term in this struggle. Biblical inerrancy was affirmed absolutely, with plenary range and without qualification, in the 1973 Statement, which declared: We therefore believe, teach, and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth. We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures. We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text. (see This We Believe: Selected Topics of Faith and Practice in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod[St Louis: The LCMS, n.d., p. 78]; also see online ).
Conservative Protestants in the United States recognized that the struggle within the LCMS was similar to their own struggles. In 1978, four years after the “walk-out,”? the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy adopted the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”? (see Normal L. Geisler, Inerrancy [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979], 493-502; also see online ). The 1978 Chicago Statement has become a reference point for the definition of “biblical inerrancy”? among conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. But then I have recently noticed—due to a number of books by Evangelical publishers, articles by Evangelical journals, and indications in Evangelical institutions–that the Chicago Statement and “biblical inerrancy”? is being ignored, considered passé, even attacked. What does this mean? I cannot answer what this means for conservative Protestants and Evangelicals in America, since I do not participate in their conferences, conventions, or societies. But I can answer the question of what a rejection of “biblical inerrancy”? means. It means that the Christian who attacks “biblical inerrancy”? has uncritically accepted the arguments of Liberal Protestants; or maybe in some cases, has actually apostasized from the faith. I recognize that there are many laypeople in mainline and Evangelical churches who don’t affirm “biblical inerrancy”? because they have never been taught it, or they don’t understand its significance. They affirm and believe in the saving faith as expressed in the three Christian creeds, and so for that reason are bona fide Christians.
My concern is with all people who reject or attack “biblical inerrancy”? when its meaning has been properly explained, e.g., in the 1973 Statement or the 1978 Chicago Statement. Such people are not bona fide Christians, but Liberals. I don’t mean “liberal”? in the way it is commonly used as an adjective. I mean “Liberal”? in the sense of a comprehensive philosophy of life that may include religious components. This is the definition of “Liberal”? employed by Dr. Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary—New York and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. In his magisterial three-volume history of American Liberal Theology, Dorrien carefully defines the term “Liberal”? in this way: Fundamentally [liberal theology] is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority (my emphases; see Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], xxiii).
Notice that Liberal theology is a third worldview, which Dorrien calls a “third way”? between atheism and traditional Christianity (ibid., xxi). Liberal theology rejects external religious authority, i.e., it rejects the authority of the Pope, of Patriarchs, of creeds and confessions, of church councils, of church fathers, and especially of the Bible. In this respect, the 1973 Statement was absolutely brilliant when it declared: “We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures.”? The norm or criterion of truth for Liberal theology is the internal authority of the religious-person’s own mind, informed by the preaching of the Liberal preacher and scholarship of the Liberal professor. So according to the Liberal perspective, whatever the religious-person finds offensive, or disagreeable, or contradictory, or problematic in the Bible must be an error and rejected by definition. The idea of “Biblical inerrancy”? is thus not just an affirmation of the quality of the Bible, but is really a rejection of the fundamental principle of the Liberal worldview.
Because of this historic-and-contemporary conflict in worldviews, i.e., between a Christian faith based on the external authority of Scriptures and the Liberal faith based on an internal authority, “Biblical inerrancy”? has become the homoousion of the 20th and 21st centuries. It will never cease to be a dividing line, until the one worldview or the other collapses. Those Protestant churches which affirm the external authority of Scripture cannot abandon “Biblical inerrancy,”? as explained either by the 1973 Statement (for Lutherans) or the 1978 Chicago Statement (for Evangelicals), without thereby actually adopting the Liberal religious worldview in whole or in part. And such a worldview is not Christian.
... Mountaineer
Why Biblical Inerrancy is Important — and Always Will Be
Forty years ago, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) was in an uproar. Its Saint Louis seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended in the January 20, 1974 meeting of the seminary’s Board of Control. On January 21st the majority of the seminary students declared a “moratorium”? on classes and the majority of the faculty went on strike. This resulted in the well-known “walk-out”? of most of the faculty and students on February 19th, viewed on broadcast television throughout the United States. Subsequently the majority of students and faculty formed the “Seminex”? seminary, graduating its first class on May 24, 1974. Two years later, in December 1976, the “Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches”? (AELC) was formed with 250 former LCMS congregations and with “Seminex”? as its partner seminary and guiding light.
What was the issue in this intense church struggle? The doctrinal issue was expressed at the 1973 LCMS convention when it adopted Resolution 3-01, which included a resolved to accept “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles”? (hereafter “1973 Statement”?) as the expression of “the Synod’s position on current doctrinal issues.”? What was the result of this struggle within the LCMS? The standard reference work by E.T. & M.B. Bachmann, Lutheran Churches in the World: A Handbook (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) states that by means of the departure of the Seminex faculty and the AELC, as well as the severing of fellowship with the ALC, the LCMS ’reclaimed its historic confessional stance on the doctrine of the authority of Scripture’ and reaffirmed its ban on the ordination of women to the pastoral office.(ibid., p. 607).
“Biblical inerrancy”? was the most contested idea and term in this struggle. Biblical inerrancy was affirmed absolutely, with plenary range and without qualification, in the 1973 Statement, which declared: We therefore believe, teach, and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth. We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures. We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text. (see This We Believe: Selected Topics of Faith and Practice in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod[St Louis: The LCMS, n.d., p. 78]; also see online ).
Conservative Protestants in the United States recognized that the struggle within the LCMS was similar to their own struggles. In 1978, four years after the “walk-out,”? the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy adopted the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”? (see Normal L. Geisler, Inerrancy [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979], 493-502; also see online ). The 1978 Chicago Statement has become a reference point for the definition of “biblical inerrancy”? among conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. But then I have recently noticed—due to a number of books by Evangelical publishers, articles by Evangelical journals, and indications in Evangelical institutions–that the Chicago Statement and “biblical inerrancy”? is being ignored, considered passé, even attacked. What does this mean? I cannot answer what this means for conservative Protestants and Evangelicals in America, since I do not participate in their conferences, conventions, or societies. But I can answer the question of what a rejection of “biblical inerrancy”? means. It means that the Christian who attacks “biblical inerrancy”? has uncritically accepted the arguments of Liberal Protestants; or maybe in some cases, has actually apostasized from the faith. I recognize that there are many laypeople in mainline and Evangelical churches who don’t affirm “biblical inerrancy”? because they have never been taught it, or they don’t understand its significance. They affirm and believe in the saving faith as expressed in the three Christian creeds, and so for that reason are bona fide Christians.
My concern is with all people who reject or attack “biblical inerrancy”? when its meaning has been properly explained, e.g., in the 1973 Statement or the 1978 Chicago Statement. Such people are not bona fide Christians, but Liberals. I don’t mean “liberal”? in the way it is commonly used as an adjective. I mean “Liberal”? in the sense of a comprehensive philosophy of life that may include religious components. This is the definition of “Liberal”? employed by Dr. Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary—New York and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. In his magisterial three-volume history of American Liberal Theology, Dorrien carefully defines the term “Liberal”? in this way: Fundamentally [liberal theology] is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority (my emphases; see Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], xxiii).
Notice that Liberal theology is a third worldview, which Dorrien calls a “third way”? between atheism and traditional Christianity (ibid., xxi). Liberal theology rejects external religious authority, i.e., it rejects the authority of the Pope, of Patriarchs, of creeds and confessions, of church councils, of church fathers, and especially of the Bible. In this respect, the 1973 Statement was absolutely brilliant when it declared: “We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures.”? The norm or criterion of truth for Liberal theology is the internal authority of the religious-person’s own mind, informed by the preaching of the Liberal preacher and scholarship of the Liberal professor. So according to the Liberal perspective, whatever the religious-person finds offensive, or disagreeable, or contradictory, or problematic in the Bible must be an error and rejected by definition. The idea of “Biblical inerrancy”? is thus not just an affirmation of the quality of the Bible, but is really a rejection of the fundamental principle of the Liberal worldview.
Because of this historic-and-contemporary conflict in worldviews, i.e., between a Christian faith based on the external authority of Scriptures and the Liberal faith based on an internal authority, “Biblical inerrancy”? has become the homoousion of the 20th and 21st centuries. It will never cease to be a dividing line, until the one worldview or the other collapses. Those Protestant churches which affirm the external authority of Scripture cannot abandon “Biblical inerrancy,”? as explained either by the 1973 Statement (for Lutherans) or the 1978 Chicago Statement (for Evangelicals), without thereby actually adopting the Liberal religious worldview in whole or in part. And such a worldview is not Christian.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Mountaineer wrote: Where have you ever heard you can prove the Holy Scriptures? I don't think that is possible. You guys keep looking for a rational proof, even though the posts in this thread have said over and over you are not going to find it. It is interesting how you can constantly discount "faith" and "revelation" so easily while still looking for some sort of scientific proof; it is almost like you are looking at a red wall and thinking if you peer at it long enough it will become green.
Here is what the Bible says on the subject of "wisdom of the wise". I'm not telling you have to believe it, that is up to you and God. I would say, however, that when you keep asking the same questions over and over and seemingly expect a different answer to somehow pop up seems pretty weird. Read this passage and really think about it. What if it really is true? Does that make you so incredibly uncomfortable that you just refuse either consciously or unconsciously to consider it might be the truth?
1 Corinthians
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”?
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”?
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 1:10 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”?) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church; also verses 11, 26
1 Corinthians 1:21 Or the folly of preaching
1 Corinthians 1:26 Greek according to the flesh
1 Corinthians 1:29 Greek no flesh
1 Corinthians 1:30 Greek And from him
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles
... Mountaineeer
I swear I saw someone post that the evidence of this stuff would "hold up as proof in court."
Maybe in the letters. IDK.. can't find it.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
moda0306 wrote:Mountaineer wrote: Where have you ever heard you can prove the Holy Scriptures? I don't think that is possible. You guys keep looking for a rational proof, even though the posts in this thread have said over and over you are not going to find it. It is interesting how you can constantly discount "faith" and "revelation" so easily while still looking for some sort of scientific proof; it is almost like you are looking at a red wall and thinking if you peer at it long enough it will become green.
Here is what the Bible says on the subject of "wisdom of the wise". I'm not telling you have to believe it, that is up to you and God. I would say, however, that when you keep asking the same questions over and over and seemingly expect a different answer to somehow pop up seems pretty weird. Read this passage and really think about it. What if it really is true? Does that make you so incredibly uncomfortable that you just refuse either consciously or unconsciously to consider it might be the truth?
1 Corinthians
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”?
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”?
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 1:10 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”?) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church; also verses 11, 26
1 Corinthians 1:21 Or the folly of preaching
1 Corinthians 1:26 Greek according to the flesh
1 Corinthians 1:29 Greek no flesh
1 Corinthians 1:30 Greek And from him
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles
... Mountaineeer
I swear I saw someone post that the evidence of this stuff would "hold up as proof in court."
Maybe in the letters. IDK.. can't find it.
Actually, I think I said something like that about it is "court evidence", not a proof when I was talking about the book What They Need to Hear. But, remember I'm an engineer and to me the word "proof" means rigerously provable by the Scientific Method, not the stuff that is provable in a court which can be based on circumstantial evidence.
My fault as in my head I was totally clear on what proof meant, but upon reflection, I can see how someone else, perhaps a lawyer, would have a different definition. Sorry!
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Mtnr,
No big deal, man. Just getting around semantics.
Regarding your other posts... the other more liberal interpretations of Scripture could be wrong, as well. But we don't know this. Personally, I find the annual re-liberalization of religion to be a bit annoying myself. But I think it ties into a fundamental fact that people WANT to be spiritual and moral, and enjoy the positive message of church environments, but see a lot of the Catholic & other conservative interpretations of the Bible and religion in general to be simply ridiculous.
Hence K and my scoffing at the idea that Buddhist children being sent to hell for eternity.
So the more liberal folks might be wrong, too. I think most of them don't really have a concrete believe in God, but want to know life has meaning, be moral, and connect with other people. This is hardly the pinnacle of consistency, but it's hardly an argument that the more conservative churches have it correct. It's just pointing out some inconsistency out there.
No big deal, man. Just getting around semantics.
Regarding your other posts... the other more liberal interpretations of Scripture could be wrong, as well. But we don't know this. Personally, I find the annual re-liberalization of religion to be a bit annoying myself. But I think it ties into a fundamental fact that people WANT to be spiritual and moral, and enjoy the positive message of church environments, but see a lot of the Catholic & other conservative interpretations of the Bible and religion in general to be simply ridiculous.
Hence K and my scoffing at the idea that Buddhist children being sent to hell for eternity.
So the more liberal folks might be wrong, too. I think most of them don't really have a concrete believe in God, but want to know life has meaning, be moral, and connect with other people. This is hardly the pinnacle of consistency, but it's hardly an argument that the more conservative churches have it correct. It's just pointing out some inconsistency out there.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
In my humble opinion, the only answer that I could give re. the Buddhist childrens' fate and why is "I don't know". "Why does God allow evil" is a question that deals with the hidden side of God and one that He does not answer in his revealed knowledge to us. Unfortunately, "I don't know" is an answer that we don't like to hear, especially in our American "We can figure anything out" culture. The question of "why does God allow evil" is a theodicy that has no real answer other than "I don't know". Anytime one tries to answer, the answer typically runs into more problems than it solves. Calvin's answer to theodicy, was "double predestination". Jacob Arminius' answer dealt with the "free will of man" to choose evil. Both have issues. Once man has any of the tiniest part in what God does, or cooperating with God somehow, the idea of "grace alone" goes out the window. Thus, the only real truthful answer is "I don't know". Lutheran's say: If a person is saved, it is entirely the work of God. If a person is not saved, it is entirely the fault of the person. But someone will protest: “That doesn’t make sense!”? To which we respond, “That’s right, it doesn’t make sense—at least not to us. But then, it doesn’t have to make sense to us to be true”?.moda0306 wrote:
Regarding your other posts... the other more liberal interpretations of Scripture could be wrong, as well. But we don't know this. Personally, I find the annual re-liberalization of religion to be a bit annoying myself. But I think it ties into a fundamental fact that people WANT to be spiritual and moral, and enjoy the positive message of church environments, but see a lot of the Catholic & other conservative interpretations of the Bible and religion in general to be simply ridiculous.
Hence K and my scoffing at the idea that Buddhist children being sent to hell for eternity.
This is probably more than you wanted to know on the issue, but what the heck, it is interesting even if unknowable and not determinable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
http://www.stpaulslutheranchurch.net/cr ... gorum.html
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Suggestion: If you have not read the previous Letters, posted earlier in this thread, I suggest you do so prior to reading subsequent Letters. Each Letter tends to build on prior material. They begin in my August 6 post.
Here are links to the next two letters from "What They Need to Hear".
Letter 6 - The Meaning of the Virgin Birth
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hwk7wj6di6gr ... 0Birth.pdf
Letter 7 - Verifiability and Falsifiability
https://www.dropbox.com/s/adz3yhffpk811 ... bility.pdf
... Mountaineer
Here are links to the next two letters from "What They Need to Hear".
Letter 6 - The Meaning of the Virgin Birth
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hwk7wj6di6gr ... 0Birth.pdf
Letter 7 - Verifiability and Falsifiability
https://www.dropbox.com/s/adz3yhffpk811 ... bility.pdf
... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Im curious how the possible discovery of life on mars will change religious views. There is a very good chance that we will discover that there was life on mars. Some form of energy and water are all that is necessary for life on Earth so it stands to reason that since Mars apoears to have had rivers at one time, some form of life once existed. What would be the reason for a creator creating life on a planet and then changing the climate and letting it die? And, if simple forms of life evolved on Mars that resemble the forms of early life on Earth its a pretty good argument against creationism.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Mountaineer,Mountaineer wrote:In my humble opinion, the only answer that I could give re. the Buddhist childrens' fate and why is "I don't know". "Why does God allow evil" is a question that deals with the hidden side of God and one that He does not answer in his revealed knowledge to us. Unfortunately, "I don't know" is an answer that we don't like to hear, especially in our American "We can figure anything out" culture. The question of "why does God allow evil" is a theodicy that has no real answer other than "I don't know". Anytime one tries to answer, the answer typically runs into more problems than it solves. Calvin's answer to theodicy, was "double predestination". Jacob Arminius' answer dealt with the "free will of man" to choose evil. Both have issues. Once man has any of the tiniest part in what God does, or cooperating with God somehow, the idea of "grace alone" goes out the window. Thus, the only real truthful answer is "I don't know". Lutheran's say: If a person is saved, it is entirely the work of God. If a person is not saved, it is entirely the fault of the person. But someone will protest: “That doesn’t make sense!”? To which we respond, “That’s right, it doesn’t make sense—at least not to us. But then, it doesn’t have to make sense to us to be true”?.moda0306 wrote:
Regarding your other posts... the other more liberal interpretations of Scripture could be wrong, as well. But we don't know this. Personally, I find the annual re-liberalization of religion to be a bit annoying myself. But I think it ties into a fundamental fact that people WANT to be spiritual and moral, and enjoy the positive message of church environments, but see a lot of the Catholic & other conservative interpretations of the Bible and religion in general to be simply ridiculous.
Hence K and my scoffing at the idea that Buddhist children being sent to hell for eternity.
This is probably more than you wanted to know on the issue, but what the heck, it is interesting even if unknowable and not determinable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
http://www.stpaulslutheranchurch.net/cr ... gorum.html
... Mountaineer
By condemning children (and other seemingly undeserving folks) to hell (if that is what he does), he isn't just "allowing" evil. He built it by design. Hell is not a "natural" aspect to our world. It is super natural. Or as the author of those letters would call, a miracle
. Im taking some liberties with his definition, to be sure. EVERYTHING is God's creation. He doesn't just allow it. He created it. If He is all-knowing, He knew how everything would shake out for folks. And let's be clear here. There is something infinitely, materially different between a little Buddhist kid dying from a stabbing from an "evil" member of society with his own ability to choose, and that same kid spending an eternity in pain/discomfort. And hell is in the supernatural realm. That's God's turf. God has decided to intervene in the natural world in the past, though, as well. You know... To test Abraham's faith by telling him to kill his son!? But an eternity in hell is not just something He "allows." It's something He knowingly created. He made the rules, as He is God.
It just doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with who Jesus was as a human being (or as a healer/messiah).
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
moda,
Did you read the theodicy link? That is about all I can say on the subject. I may not understand God in every instance, but I'm certainly not going to put myself above God and say He does not know what He is doing, and since God only works for good .... who am I to say He is wrong? Do I want to be God or am I willing to let God be God? I can't even fathom how to make a pinky finger, let alone the universe and all that is in it. Sorry, but I'm not going to play the game of trying to outguess God.
... Mountaineer
Did you read the theodicy link? That is about all I can say on the subject. I may not understand God in every instance, but I'm certainly not going to put myself above God and say He does not know what He is doing, and since God only works for good .... who am I to say He is wrong? Do I want to be God or am I willing to let God be God? I can't even fathom how to make a pinky finger, let alone the universe and all that is in it. Sorry, but I'm not going to play the game of trying to outguess God.
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
It takes a lot more than energy and water for life to form. Scientists have discovered dozens of parameters that must be fine-tuned for any possibility of life on a planet -- over 150 as of 10 years ago:doodle wrote: Im curious how the possible discovery of life on mars will change religious views. There is a very good chance that we will discover that there was life on mars. Some form of energy and water are all that is necessary for life on Earth so it stands to reason that since Mars apoears to have had rivers at one time, some form of life once existed. What would be the reason for a creator creating life on a planet and then changing the climate and letting it die? And, if simple forms of life evolved on Mars that resemble the forms of early life on Earth its a pretty good argument against creationism.
http://tinyurl.com/kjyond6
The odds of life originating anywhere in the universe at any time are effectively zero, and multiple origins of life is even more unlikely.
http://tinyurl.com/mu84sxe
Evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci: "We really don't have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means."
Purely natural processes of chance and/or necessity have failed to explain the origin of the information in life, while design is a much better explanation.
http://tinyurl.com/q67l5va
Cosmologist Fred Hoyle: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
If the remnants of life are ever discovered on Mars, it most likely originated on Earth.
http://tinyurl.com/otl3r9p
As the evidence accumulates, it's naturalism that is becoming more and more untenable as an explanation for the origin of life.
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Kka,
They have found life on earth in the depths of the oceans where no sunlight reaches and the only source of heat and energy is the scalding hot magma that pours out of the cracks in the sea floor.
I don't know what sources you read but there are strong arguments that the building blocks of life came via comets.
Looking out at the vastness of the universe it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are not alone.
They have found life on earth in the depths of the oceans where no sunlight reaches and the only source of heat and energy is the scalding hot magma that pours out of the cracks in the sea floor.
I don't know what sources you read but there are strong arguments that the building blocks of life came via comets.
Looking out at the vastness of the universe it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are not alone.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Just like it is almost a mathematical certainty that we do not exist due to some random compilation of molecules doing their thing - if you wish to proclaim mathematics as the debate resolver tool instead of other much more likely solutions.doodle wrote: Kka,
They have found life on earth in the depths of the oceans where no sunlight reaches and the only source of heat and energy is the scalding hot magma that pours out of the cracks in the sea floor.
I don't know what sources you read but there are strong arguments that the building blocks of life came via comets.
Looking out at the vastness of the universe it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are not alone.
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
And maybe one more way to put it is this (I think I posted this before): All faiths are not created equal. We should place our faith in something reasonable, not something for which no evidence exists. I believe it can be shown that Christianity is a reasonable belief. From there, faith is required to go further. But please don't think that all Christians are just delusional, and want to believe something, so they grab onto Christianity because it's there. It took me 25 years of wandering around (both geographically and mentally) to figure out that the Christian story was true. I certainly didn't want it to be true. I didn't like Christians, churches, or self-righteous people telling me that I better turn or I was gonna burn. I tried to convince myself that religion was an extremely negative force in the world. I read Nietzsche, Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others. Hitchens and Harris are still my favorite atheists to this day (though Hitchens has passed away now, sadly). But in the end I couldn't do it, and was driven back to the one place I never thought I'd end up ... in a darn church!
Its funny, one never can predict where they will end up. I have stayed in touch with some of my high school class through facebook and some of the biggest rebels in school have gone on to become quite fuddy duddy...and vice versa....
I havent spent a lifetime investigating religion but from the few that I have been exposed to Buddhism appealed to me the most and resonated with me. To each his own I guess......really, I dont have too many problems with the New Testament form of Christianity with the exception of the eternal lake of fire for non Christians.... I would really like to see more proof of where this idea of hell for nonbelievers comes from.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I like a lot if what Chris White does...other stuff, not so much.
Anyways i watched this video and think the historical evidence for Jesus sufficient.....the resurrection though....and other miracles....you can walk into a Pentecostal church today and find people who claim to have been miraculously healed .
http://youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ
Anyways i watched this video and think the historical evidence for Jesus sufficient.....the resurrection though....and other miracles....you can walk into a Pentecostal church today and find people who claim to have been miraculously healed .
http://youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Suggestion: If you have not read the previous Letters, posted earlier in this thread, I suggest you do so prior to reading subsequent Letters. Each Letter tends to build on prior material. They begin in my August 6 post.
Here are links to the next two letters from "What They Need to Hear".
Letter 8 - Satisfying the Skeptics
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tcuhu1b4v83v ... eptics.pdf
Letter 9 - The Challenge of the Virgin Birth
https://www.dropbox.com/s/er2k2prz614e3 ... 0Birth.pdf
... Mountaineer
Here are links to the next two letters from "What They Need to Hear".
Letter 8 - Satisfying the Skeptics
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tcuhu1b4v83v ... eptics.pdf
Letter 9 - The Challenge of the Virgin Birth
https://www.dropbox.com/s/er2k2prz614e3 ... 0Birth.pdf
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
So the definition of miracle is anything that science doesnt understand yet?
Here is a modern day faith healer who I am sure has plenty of people willing to testify as to his powers...the truth is, science doesnt have all the answers. But, just cause religion offers one doesnt mean its correct.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_de_Deus_(medium)
Here is a modern day faith healer who I am sure has plenty of people willing to testify as to his powers...the truth is, science doesnt have all the answers. But, just cause religion offers one doesnt mean its correct.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_de_Deus_(medium)
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Here's my basic problem regarding the particular interpretation of Hell that we're discussing.
Postulate 1: God condemns to Hell those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Postulate 2: God has defined no exceptions to this rule.
Postulate 3: God deliberately created everything, including this system.
Postulate 4: God is perfect.
Logical conclusion 1: Since God deliberately and intentionally designs these systems, it is God's will that every single human being who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior will to go Hell.
Logical conclusion 2: Since God is perfect, God's actions are perfect; so this system must be perfect as well.
Further postulate 5: Not all human beings get the chance to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior during their lives, due to being stillborn, or raised in a place where there is no knowledge of Christianity, for example.
Logical conclusion 2: Because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, and because there are no exceptions to this requirement to escape condemnation to Hell, these people are all going to Hell.
Logical conclusion 3: Since God has deliberately set the system up this way, and since God is perfect, this state of affairs is also perfect.
Further postulate 6: God is a loving God (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 4: Since God is a loving God, everything God does is an act of that love (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 5: Since God, in his perfection, has designed a system one of whose necessary consequences is that many people are guaranteed to go to Hell due to the circumstances of their birth in this world that He has created, and because God is also loving, then sending these people to hell must be a loving act.
This is where it breaks down to me, because according to my own interpretation of morality, I do not believe that it is a loving act to condemn to an eternity of torture people who were never allowed the opportunity to do the only thing that could save them from this fate. Since God is omnipotent and perfect, He must have set the system up this way, knowing that this would happen, and this must be perfect.
Question: can anyone explain to me either where my logic falls short, or else how it is a loving act to inflict an eternity of torture on people who were deliberately never given a chance to save themselves from that fate?
Postulate 1: God condemns to Hell those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Postulate 2: God has defined no exceptions to this rule.
Postulate 3: God deliberately created everything, including this system.
Postulate 4: God is perfect.
Logical conclusion 1: Since God deliberately and intentionally designs these systems, it is God's will that every single human being who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior will to go Hell.
Logical conclusion 2: Since God is perfect, God's actions are perfect; so this system must be perfect as well.
Further postulate 5: Not all human beings get the chance to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior during their lives, due to being stillborn, or raised in a place where there is no knowledge of Christianity, for example.
Logical conclusion 2: Because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, and because there are no exceptions to this requirement to escape condemnation to Hell, these people are all going to Hell.
Logical conclusion 3: Since God has deliberately set the system up this way, and since God is perfect, this state of affairs is also perfect.
Further postulate 6: God is a loving God (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 4: Since God is a loving God, everything God does is an act of that love (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 5: Since God, in his perfection, has designed a system one of whose necessary consequences is that many people are guaranteed to go to Hell due to the circumstances of their birth in this world that He has created, and because God is also loving, then sending these people to hell must be a loving act.
This is where it breaks down to me, because according to my own interpretation of morality, I do not believe that it is a loving act to condemn to an eternity of torture people who were never allowed the opportunity to do the only thing that could save them from this fate. Since God is omnipotent and perfect, He must have set the system up this way, knowing that this would happen, and this must be perfect.
Question: can anyone explain to me either where my logic falls short, or else how it is a loving act to inflict an eternity of torture on people who were deliberately never given a chance to save themselves from that fate?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
See the change I made in postulate 1 (my restatement seems to be the best Scriptural interpretation based upon my studies and discussion with 3 LCMS pastors on the subject). Think about how that changes the rest of your conclusions and additional postulates. What do you think?Pointedstick wrote: Here's my basic problem regarding the particular interpretation of Hell that we're discussing.
Postulate 1: God condemns People have condemned themselves to Hell those who have not accepted rejected Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Postulate 2: God has defined no exceptions to this rule.
Postulate 3: God deliberately created everything, including this system.
Postulate 4: God is perfect.
Logical conclusion 1: Since God deliberately and intentionally designs these systems, it is God's will that every single human being who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior will to go Hell.
Logical conclusion 2: Since God is perfect, God's actions are perfect; so this system must be perfect as well.
Further postulate 5: Not all human beings get the chance to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior during their lives, due to being stillborn, or raised in a place where there is no knowledge of Christianity, for example.
Logical conclusion 2: Because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, and because there are no exceptions to this requirement to escape condemnation to Hell, these people are all going to Hell.
Logical conclusion 3: Since God has deliberately set the system up this way, and since God is perfect, this state of affairs is also perfect.
Further postulate 6: God is a loving God (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 4: Since God is a loving God, everything God does is an act of that love (do I have this right?).
Logical conclusion 5: Since God, in his perfection, has designed a system one of whose necessary consequences is that many people are guaranteed to go to Hell due to the circumstances of their birth in this world that He has created, and because God is also loving, then sending these people to hell must be a loving act.
This is where it breaks down to me, because according to my own interpretation of morality, I do not believe that it is a loving act to condemn to an eternity of torture people who were never allowed the opportunity to do the only thing that could save them from this fate. Since God is omnipotent and perfect, He must have set the system up this way, knowing that this would happen, and this must be perfect.
Question: can anyone explain to me either where my logic falls short, or else how it is a loving act to inflict an eternity of torture on people who were deliberately never given a chance to save themselves from that fate?
... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
If people condemn themselves to Hell by rejecting Jesus Christ (through failing to accept Him), it is because God created the system whereby their action or inaction results in that outcome. You can't get around the fact that God, in his omnipotence and perfection, created the whole system. And we know that the system must be necessarily perfect and it outcomes must necessarily be loving.
So it still seems to me that God has deliberately created a system where many people will de facto reject Jesus Christ due to their never having the opportunity to accept Him. Think of the example of the stillborn child. When was this baby supposed to accept Jesus? In the womb? Are all these babies in Hell? Logically, it seems that they must be, and this must be both perfect and loving.
So I don't believe that your proposed edit changes my point.
So it still seems to me that God has deliberately created a system where many people will de facto reject Jesus Christ due to their never having the opportunity to accept Him. Think of the example of the stillborn child. When was this baby supposed to accept Jesus? In the womb? Are all these babies in Hell? Logically, it seems that they must be, and this must be both perfect and loving.
So I don't believe that your proposed edit changes my point.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Does the stillborn child have the opportunity to reject Jesus as his Savior? Your presupposition seems to indicate yes. I would say from my man's logic, no, but on the other hand, God can do anything so I'd ultimately say He can do whatever He wants.Pointedstick wrote: If people condemn themselves to Hell by rejecting Jesus Christ (through failing to accept Him), it is because God created the system whereby their action or inaction results in that outcome. You can't get around the fact that God, in his omnipotence and perfection, created the whole system. And we know that the system must be necessarily perfect and it outcomes must necessarily be loving.
So it still seems to me that God has deliberately created a system where many people will de facto reject Jesus Christ due to their never having the opportunity to accept Him. Think of the example of the stillborn child. When was this baby supposed to accept Jesus? In the womb? Are all these babies in Hell? Logically, it seems that they must be, and this must be both perfect and loving.
So I don't believe that your proposed edit changes my point.
But the more important point is, what will YOU do since you HAVE heard about Christ and His promises? It is entertaining to speculate about all those random, albeit important, cases, but the Bible really just tells us how to achieve Salvation, it does not deal with a lot of what ifs. And, I am certainly not trying to minimize the importance or validity of your question as theologians have been debating this for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Bottom line, faith comes from hearing the Word proclaimed ... not by logic.
This is what our LCMS Teaching on the subject says:
Q: I recently attended a Bible study in which we discussed the fate of those who never had the chance to hear about God. What happens to such people?
A: In his book What's the Answer? (Concordia Publishing House, 1960), LCMS theologian Otto Sohn raises the question, "What stand does our church take regarding the heathen who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what is the individual's responsibility toward these people?" His answer follows:
Christ, the Savior of the world, answered the first question in this way: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). The apostle Peter put it another way: "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The same truth is expressed in John 3:16 and 18:36; Rom. 2:12; Eph. 2:11-13.
Though such people have not heard the Gospel, they are without excuse (Rom. 1:19-23 and 2:12). God has not left Himself without witness (Acts 14:17), but He has revealed His existence by the works of nature and wants men to seek Him, if "haply they might feel after Him and find Him" (Acts 17:27). The Bible also reveals that people who knowingly and willfully reject the Gospel of Jesus will be more severely punished than those who never heard it (Luke 12:47, 48).
Because of the horrible doom awaiting all those who do not believe in Jesus, we should seek to reach as many as possible with our own fearless witness and ardently support the missionary endeavors of our church on behalf of those whom we cannot reach with our own voice. Nor must we forget our responsibility toward fellow Christians who are on the verge of erring from the truth, whether by word or deed (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19, 20). And lest we should preach to others, but ourselves become castaways, we should be earnestly concerned about our own salvation (Matt. 26:41; 1 Cor. 10:12; Phil. 2:12).
... Mountaineer
Edited to add: PS, I used to think that saying "I accept Jesus" was for all practical purposes the same as saying "I do not reject Jesus". I have come to realize there is a HUGE difference. Jesus offers us the gifts of faith, belief, salvation, forgiveness; the gifts are there whether we reject them or not - just like a birthday gift given from a loving parent; if the child refuses the gift, he goes without and suffers the consequences. It is to me, for all practical purposes a very passive act on the part of the child if he does not reject the gift. It becomes much more active if the child rejects the gift. So, if the child does not end up with the gift, it is on him, not his parents.
Hearing the word proclaimed is a very passive activity on the part of the hearer. We receive from outside ourselves. We do not have to chew on logic (an active act that forces us to turn inward to ourselves for understanding) to "just try harder" to receive the gifts of Jesus.
Last edited by Mountaineer on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I hope you can see how that seems like a cop-out to me. Perhaps the question I need answered is this:Mountaineer wrote: Does the stillborn child have the opportunity to reject Jesus as his Savior? Your presupposition seems to indicate yes. I would say from my man's logic, no, but on the other hand, God can do anything so I'd ultimately say He can do whatever He wants.
But the more important point is, what will YOU do since you HAVE heard about Christ and His promises? [...]
What does it take to accept Jesus as your lord and savior? Do you specifically have to do something, or is simply the absence of rejecting Him enough? If so, what does rejecting Him look like?
I really want to dig into the stillborn baby example. How does the stillborn baby either accept or reject Jesus? If he can do nothing, has he accepted or rejected Jesus?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5078
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Pointedstick,
Oh boy, here we go. I'll do my best but forgive me in advance because I really, sincerely, do not think anything I say from my personal thoughts will matter. The only thing I can say to you personally that has a chance of mattering is this. And, you are going to have to trust me on this one, but please read the following out loud:
Pointedstick (insert your real name), You are a sinner. No matter how "good" a person you think you are because of your good deeds, you are a disgusting, worthy of God's wrath, sinner. You can't help it. You can't do anything about it. It is because of what Adam and Eve did in the garden and it has carried on through out history to every single human except Jesus. You also commit actual sins such as lying, slandering, lusting, coveting, or not keeping God number one in your life, and you do these sins pretty much continuously. You likely are really pissed that I'm teling you this. But, that is OK. You are a child of God. He loves you personally. He knows your thoughts better than you do yourself. And, for the sake of His son, Jesus Christ, forgives you of ALL that sin. If you believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, lived, died, and was raised from the dead, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, you will live with Jesus for the rest of eternity in a very joyful existence and be reunited in perfect love in a perfect world with all those you have or ever will love.
OK, I'm now going to shift gears to the things I would say, this is not God's Word to you, it is just my opinion so take it in that spirit. I will insert a couple of comments below in your original questions.
You have just heard God's Law condemn you, and then you just heard the Gospel, God's Word of Good News, proclaimed to you. You are forgiven. Now, as a response to that Good News, give thanks to God for the promises of Jesus and pray for God's mercy and ask Him to help you with any doubts you have that remain. Start going to hear the Word proclaimed routinely (a passive act for you), it will be the most important thing you ever do. It is that easy.
... Mountaineer
Oh boy, here we go. I'll do my best but forgive me in advance because I really, sincerely, do not think anything I say from my personal thoughts will matter. The only thing I can say to you personally that has a chance of mattering is this. And, you are going to have to trust me on this one, but please read the following out loud:
Pointedstick (insert your real name), You are a sinner. No matter how "good" a person you think you are because of your good deeds, you are a disgusting, worthy of God's wrath, sinner. You can't help it. You can't do anything about it. It is because of what Adam and Eve did in the garden and it has carried on through out history to every single human except Jesus. You also commit actual sins such as lying, slandering, lusting, coveting, or not keeping God number one in your life, and you do these sins pretty much continuously. You likely are really pissed that I'm teling you this. But, that is OK. You are a child of God. He loves you personally. He knows your thoughts better than you do yourself. And, for the sake of His son, Jesus Christ, forgives you of ALL that sin. If you believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, lived, died, and was raised from the dead, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, you will live with Jesus for the rest of eternity in a very joyful existence and be reunited in perfect love in a perfect world with all those you have or ever will love.
OK, I'm now going to shift gears to the things I would say, this is not God's Word to you, it is just my opinion so take it in that spirit. I will insert a couple of comments below in your original questions.
You have just heard God's Law condemn you, and then you just heard the Gospel, God's Word of Good News, proclaimed to you. You are forgiven. Now, as a response to that Good News, give thanks to God for the promises of Jesus and pray for God's mercy and ask Him to help you with any doubts you have that remain. Start going to hear the Word proclaimed routinely (a passive act for you), it will be the most important thing you ever do. It is that easy.
... Mountaineer
Pointedstick wrote:I hope you can see how that seems like a cop-out to me. Perhaps the question I need answered is this:Mountaineer wrote: Does the stillborn child have the opportunity to reject Jesus as his Savior? Your presupposition seems to indicate yes. I would say from my man's logic, no, but on the other hand, God can do anything so I'd ultimately say He can do whatever He wants.
But the more important point is, what will YOU do since you HAVE heard about Christ and His promises? [...]
What does it take to accept Jesus as your lord and savior? Do you specifically have to do something, or is simply the absence of rejecting Him enough? [see above in my proclaiming the Gospel to you] If so, what does rejecting Him look like? [don't worry about that, if you believe in the promises of Jesus you will never have to worry about this again - you are good to go. You are forgiven. Seriously.]
I really want to dig into the stillborn baby example. How does the stillborn baby either accept or reject Jesus? If he can do nothing, has he accepted or rejected Jesus? [My opinion is that a stillborn baby does not have the capability of rejecting - however, this is not completely 100% provable in my opinion. Personally, I think that baby will be in heaven with Jesus as a perfect person (body and soul) the way God intended before death and sin entered creation.]
Last edited by Mountaineer on Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I'm not offended at all. I understand that that is simply what you believe, and that you are trying to do a nice thing by helping me to understand and believe what I need to understand and believe to avoid condemning myself to eternal damnation.
Be that as it may, I believe that my central point still stands, and is in fact reinforced by your preaching of the Gospel. As you say, the only thing that we need to do is to accept that Jesus Christ died to forgive us our numerous, unavoidable sins. Fair enough. But this leaves several big groups of people who all but certain to go to hell, many of them never even having had the opportunity to avoid it:
1. People who hear and are rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, but who reject it anyway (people like me, and all members of all other world religions who have heard of Christianity).
2. People who are not rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, and so cannot accept it (stillborn children, infants who die of malnutrition, the mentally ill, etc).
3. People who have never been exposed to the Gospel (everybody before Jesus was alive; everybody who was never exposed to Christian missionaries, etc).
These are not small groups of people here. Included in these groups are probably the vast majority of all human beings!
Group #1 encompasses every member of every other religion in all of recorded human history, including many who actually consider themselves Christians!
Group #2 encompasses every aborted baby, every stillborn baby, and every infant who dies within the first couple of years who is not really capable of understanding the Gospel.
Group #3 encompasses everybody who died before Jesus was resurrected and everybody who died never having heard of Jesus, which would be basically everybody outside of Europe until a few hundred years ago.
It may seem pedantic to you, but the reason why I am focusing on the number of people who go to hell is because the number seems very large to me. And because we have established that God is as a perfect and omnipotent being, this state of affairs must be deliberate. Thus, He has set up a system in which the vast majority of humans--who he loves--will suffer an eternity of torture, many of them through no fault of their own because they were simply never exposed to Christianity during their lifetimes! They might have accepted it if they had, or they had grown up into a person with the mental faculties to learn about and comprehend the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice. But because they didn't, they went to hell.
In other words, God has effectively set up most humans, living or dead, to fail, and then He has communicated to us through the Gospel that it was their own fault for failing in this matter, and then He has furthermore set the consequence for failure to be eternal torture. This does not seem like loving behavior to me. God, as an omnipotent being, could change this at any time. He could say that even though we are all sinners, we are all forgiven anyway, with no preconditions. He could personally visit all of us and explain it to us in order to make it really hard to reject it. Lots of other things.
I am not trying to "make myself God" by asking these questions or posing these hypotheticals. I am simply pointing out that God is not simply an innocent victim of this system as he watches sadly when people turn away and go to Hell; He created it this way! I don't understand why Christians seem to shy away from the logical consequences of this system. I almost never hear anyone thoughtful like you or Desert just come out and admit "yes, hell is populated by all of the people who died before Jesus was resurrected, and all of the stillborn and aborted children, and all of the Jews, and all of the Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists and Shintos and spirit worshippers and Atheists and Agnostics, and even a large proportion of all the Christians too, and this is necessarily an act of love, even if we don't understand it!"
This seems to be the unavoidable logical consequence of the belief that escaping hell is only possible through acceptance of the Gospel and I wish somebody had the balls to just come out and say it!
Be that as it may, I believe that my central point still stands, and is in fact reinforced by your preaching of the Gospel. As you say, the only thing that we need to do is to accept that Jesus Christ died to forgive us our numerous, unavoidable sins. Fair enough. But this leaves several big groups of people who all but certain to go to hell, many of them never even having had the opportunity to avoid it:
1. People who hear and are rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, but who reject it anyway (people like me, and all members of all other world religions who have heard of Christianity).
2. People who are not rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, and so cannot accept it (stillborn children, infants who die of malnutrition, the mentally ill, etc).
3. People who have never been exposed to the Gospel (everybody before Jesus was alive; everybody who was never exposed to Christian missionaries, etc).
These are not small groups of people here. Included in these groups are probably the vast majority of all human beings!
Group #1 encompasses every member of every other religion in all of recorded human history, including many who actually consider themselves Christians!
Group #2 encompasses every aborted baby, every stillborn baby, and every infant who dies within the first couple of years who is not really capable of understanding the Gospel.
Group #3 encompasses everybody who died before Jesus was resurrected and everybody who died never having heard of Jesus, which would be basically everybody outside of Europe until a few hundred years ago.
It may seem pedantic to you, but the reason why I am focusing on the number of people who go to hell is because the number seems very large to me. And because we have established that God is as a perfect and omnipotent being, this state of affairs must be deliberate. Thus, He has set up a system in which the vast majority of humans--who he loves--will suffer an eternity of torture, many of them through no fault of their own because they were simply never exposed to Christianity during their lifetimes! They might have accepted it if they had, or they had grown up into a person with the mental faculties to learn about and comprehend the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice. But because they didn't, they went to hell.
In other words, God has effectively set up most humans, living or dead, to fail, and then He has communicated to us through the Gospel that it was their own fault for failing in this matter, and then He has furthermore set the consequence for failure to be eternal torture. This does not seem like loving behavior to me. God, as an omnipotent being, could change this at any time. He could say that even though we are all sinners, we are all forgiven anyway, with no preconditions. He could personally visit all of us and explain it to us in order to make it really hard to reject it. Lots of other things.
I am not trying to "make myself God" by asking these questions or posing these hypotheticals. I am simply pointing out that God is not simply an innocent victim of this system as he watches sadly when people turn away and go to Hell; He created it this way! I don't understand why Christians seem to shy away from the logical consequences of this system. I almost never hear anyone thoughtful like you or Desert just come out and admit "yes, hell is populated by all of the people who died before Jesus was resurrected, and all of the stillborn and aborted children, and all of the Jews, and all of the Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists and Shintos and spirit worshippers and Atheists and Agnostics, and even a large proportion of all the Christians too, and this is necessarily an act of love, even if we don't understand it!"
This seems to be the unavoidable logical consequence of the belief that escaping hell is only possible through acceptance of the Gospel and I wish somebody had the balls to just come out and say it!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan