James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[2PhiloVoid]

That's exactly what coercion is: accept an offer or suffer consequences. Resisting coercion leads to consequences. So the gospel message by its fundamental nature is coercive.

That's right! What gives an All Might Creator to right to rule over His own Creation and then ... to expect something from it? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's right! What gives an All Might Creator to right to rule over His own Creation and then ... to expect something from it? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Here I am talking about an "is" and you blurt an "ought" out there as though you've not only made a relevant point, but a point that should suffice to counter mine.

It absolutely is coercion.

Rights are bestowed. Nothing can be bestowed to an almighty entity. God, presuming his existence, just does things. There's no sense in talking about his rights.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That's right! What gives an All Might Creator to right to rule over His own Creation and then ... to expect something from it? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Rather than deal with the moral concern about God's character (as evinced by Christian interpretation of the Bible), Christians hand wave it away, as I said earlier.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rather than deal with the moral concern about God's character (as evinced by Christian interpretation of the Bible), Christians hand wave it away, as I said earlier.

I'll hand wave it away UNTIL someone, somewhere can tell me just what the sam toot'n absolute lowdown on human morality is supposed to be, Steve! And thus far, I'm see'n none of you all's coming up with anything approaching any kind of absolute break down on this 'god' character you keep criticizing!

But when I hear the voice of Jesus, I have to admit, it does sound like something very substantive. When I hear you guys: it's non-substantive. When I hear Jesus: it's substantive. I hear you guys: non-substantive. I hear Jesus: substantive. Non-substantive, substantive. Cold, Hot. Down, Up.

Need I go on?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here I am talking about an "is" and you blurt an "ought" out there as though you've not only made a relevant point, but a point that should suffice to counter mine.

It absolutely is coercion.

Rights are bestowed. Nothing can be bestowed to an almighty entity. God, presuming his existence, just does things. There's no sense in talking about his rights.

Rights are bestowed? That sounds kind of artificial to me. Have you been eating those Jeremy Bentham cookies again, NV?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'll hand wave it away UNTIL someone, somewhere can tell me just what the sam toot'n absolute lowdown on human morality is supposed to be, Steve! And thus far, I'm see'n none of you all's coming up with anything approaching any kind of absolute break down on this 'god' character you keep criticizing!

But when I hear the voice of Jesus, I have to admit, it does sound like something very substantive. When I hear you guys: non-substantive. When I hear Jesus: substantive. I hear you guys: non-substantive. I hear Jesus: substantive. Non-substantive, substantive. Cold, Hot. Down, Up.

Need I go on?

You are missing the point. Have you ever thought how your theology (God can do whatever he wants and we have no right to question it) makes God out to be a monster, completely amoral.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are missing the point. Have you ever thought how your theology (God can do whatever he wants and we have no right to question it) makes God out to be a monster, completely amoral.

Of course I do! That's why I study Christian Apologetics on the one hand, and Social Philosophy and the development of Western notions of Freedom/Liberty/Autonomy/Civil Rights/Human Rights on the other hand. As far as I'm concerned, "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and so I'm not overly concerned about how people initially perceive what they 'think' my theology is or about what they think if I choose to critique political assumptions that are presently held on either the Right or the Left.

I mean, there are reasons why the Modern mindset can't handle the Bible any longer.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I mean, there are reasons why the Modern mindset can't handle the Bible any longer.

Yes, because we grew up.

 

[cvanwey]

It? Meaning the Bible? Nowhere that I know of. I was responding to Oncedeceived in post 62 where she made that claim repeatedly in a conversation with someone else. I jumped in because I'm always annoyed by that phrase. Christ's gift isn't free.

The 'choice' to accept the proposition, or not, is compulsory really. If such a scenario is indeed fact (i.e.) heaven or hell; then whether or not one chooses to accept such a 'gift' is not made by 'free will', but instead by a dichotomous choice alone. --- Like whether or not one chooses to pay their taxes....

So to recap, phase one is to believe such an outline is actually real. But unfortunately, belief is not a choice, in and of itself. It is instead imposed upon one's self, based upon one's interpretation of the evidence presented. But assuming the presented evidence appears justified to such an individual, one may then move on to phase two, accepting/not accepting the proposition, by way of coercion, being compulsory, or even an ultimatum.

Quite frankly, IF such a scenario IS true, any moron is going to 'choose' to 'accept' such a 'gift'. Why, because to NOT choose this dichotomous option would be foolish - like choosing to deliberately not pay your taxes.

So now all one really needs to do, is demonstrate evidence that such a scenario is for real, and not instead made up, and we are in business.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, because we grew up.

Being that I do have degrees in both Philosophy and in Social Science Education, and since I've been studying the Bible for about 30 years now, I'm fairly certain there's a lot more to why a transition (or Falling Away) from the biblical world view has taken place than simply that people in the West think they've "grown up," Steve.

With that said, I can still understand how people these days may feel that Christianity is passé.

 

[cvanwey]

Being that I do have degrees in both Philosophy and in Social Science Education, and since I've been studying the Bible for about 30 years now, I'm fairly certain there's a lot more to why a transition (or Falling Away) from the biblical world view has taken place than simply that people in the West think they've "grown up," Steve.

With that said, I can still understand how people these days may feel that Christianity is passé.

If I may chime in...

The Bible becomes 'passe' when human discovery comes to find many of the Bible's assertions are proven unlikely, again and again, with many differing and unrelated fields of study; which all converge to the same unanimous conclusions - (resulting to the antithesis of claims from the Bible). And then rather than attempt to reconcile such conclusions, that the Bible is actually no longer 'truth' and move on, instead listen to many theists shift gears, change tactics, or simply ignore such discovery; to instead favor the Bible's claims. Or even worse, 'rationalize' them in some fashion or another, which I read here over and over again.

 

[Par5]

Being that I do have degrees in both Philosophy and in Social Science Education, and since I've been studying the Bible for about 30 years now, I'm fairly certain there's a lot more to why a transition (or Falling Away) from the biblical world view has taken place than simply that people in the West think they've "grown up," Steve.

With that said, I can still understand how people these days may feel that Christianity is passé.

I don't care if you have more degrees than a thermometer. If all that thirty years of the studying you say you have done has taught you is that some deity has the right to commit whatever monstrous acts it so desires and that you feel obliged to defend those acts, then all I can say is, what a waste of thirty years of your life.

 

[Hammster]

There isn't much difference between escaping a concentration camp and being healed of a serious health issue, so I don't think the passage is being taken out of context. And we should reasonably agree that lots of Christians died in the Holocaust. Certainly a lot of Christian ally soldiers died.

But again, the passage doesn’t say you get everything you ask for.

 

[Hammster]

It? Meaning the Bible? Nowhere that I know of. I was responding to Oncedeceived in post 62 where she made that claim repeatedly in a conversation with someone else. I jumped in because I'm always annoyed by that phrase. Christ's gift isn't free.

It’s not free. It cost Christ His life. But it’s free to us.

 

[Hammster]

That's exactly what coercion is: accept an offer or suffer consequences. Resisting coercion leads to consequences. So the gospel message by its fundamental nature is coercive.

Let me try it this way.

Do you have children? Do you have to force them or threaten them to be your children?

 

[Hammster]

You are missing the point. Have you ever thought how your theology (God can do whatever he wants and we have no right to question it) makes God out to be a monster, completely amoral.

Only if He was an immoral monster.

 

[Hammster]

The 'choice' to accept the proposition, or not, is compulsory really. If such a scenario is indeed fact (i.e.) heaven or hell; then whether or not one chooses to accept such a 'gift' is not made by 'free will', but instead by a dichotomous choice alone. --- Like whether or not one chooses to pay their taxes....

So to recap, phase one is to believe such an outline is actually real. But unfortunately, belief is not a choice, in and of itself. It is instead imposed upon one's self, based upon one's interpretation of the evidence presented. But assuming the presented evidence appears justified to such an individual, one may then move on to phase two, accepting/not accepting the proposition, by way of coercion, being compulsory, or even an ultimatum.

Quite frankly, IF such a scenario IS true, any moron is going to 'choose' to 'accept' such a 'gift'. Why, because to NOT choose this dichotomous option would be foolish - like choosing to deliberately not pay your taxes.

So now all one really needs to do, is demonstrate evidence that such a scenario is for real, and not instead made up, and we are in business.

Belief happens when God changes our heart. And yes, at that point it would be foolish to not “accept”. Because at that point you’d see the truth. You see that you are indeed a sinner in need of a Savior and you’d see the great love God has for you. So you’d freely, with love, surrender to Him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I may chime in...

The Bible becomes 'passe' when human discovery comes to find many of the Bible's assertions are proven unlikely, again and again, with many differing and unrelated fields of study; which all converge to the same unanimous conclusions - (resulting to the antithesis of claims from the Bible). And then rather than attempt to reconcile such conclusions, that the Bible is actually no longer 'truth' and move on, instead listen to many theists shift gears, change tactics, or simply ignore such discovery; to instead favor the Bible's claims. Or even worse, 'rationalize' them in some fashion or another, which I read here over and over again.

With that kind of mindset, we could also throw "science" into the dustbin of things that are also passe.......

...so, do you think that rather than being 'rational' in how we attempt to interpret the Bible as best we can it would be better to be 'irrational' about it? I have to ask because when I hear someone like you make statements like you do and essentially conflate "being rational" with "rationalizing," I get a little concerned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't care if you have more degrees than a thermometer. If all that thirty years of the studying you say you have done has taught you is that some deity has the right to commit whatever monstrous acts it so desires and that you feel obliged to defend those acts, then all I can say is, what a waste of thirty years of your life.

And if all that you Skeptics can do is infiltrate into a Christian Forums board and begin squatting wherever you feel like you want to without having the decency to actually back up your own supposed statements of "TRUTH" when attempting to denigrate Christian thought, then all I can say is..........................................Psalm 2, buddy! Psalm 2!!! Brace yourself!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But again, the passage doesn’t say you get everything you ask for.

Hence, the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous man availeth little.