God doesn't like me

[Davis]

He desires that, but cannot force it.

Amen sister.
He wants relationship not forced robot love.

 

[Reformationist]

Whose standard of right and wrong? Well, I would generally go with Railton's conception of meta-ethics myself, so they would understand the standard of right and wrong as best they could, but would be limited by their own rationality and the amount of information available to them.

Not sure who Railton is but it seems as if your condoning the position that "right" and "wrong" are entirely relative concepts. Is that an accurate statement?

If you are trying to suggest that only God confirms the standards of right and wrong, then you should check out Socrates' "Euthyphro problem". When Socrates was talking to a man named Euthyphro he asked whether 'good' was good because the gods willed it, or whether the gods willed it because it was good.
- The issue here is that if it is 'good because God wills it', then ANYTHING could be good. The whole process would become arbitrary. Killing a man could become right so long as it is done between 2 and 3 a.m. or other such nonsensical moral rules, simply on the grounds that 'God says so'.
- The natural answer to that last point is that God would not command anything like that because he would only command something good. But if something is 'willed by God because it is good' then that suggests that good is not something dictated by God, but is a part of creation which we can assess without recourse to revelation.

You deny the legitimacy of something being good on the basis of God willing it due to the claim that that would make the process of determining good arbitrary. The problem with this misinformed claim is that it fails to take into account the inherently, immutably, perfect nature of God. Additionally, it makes the concepts of good and bad (evil) contingent upon a relative medium, i.e., whomsoever perceives the action. Using that logic, we quickly run into the obstacle that what you say is good may, in my opinion, be evil. Not to mention the fact that, as is natural for those who deny the presence and power of an almighty Creator, you make everything about the creation. That seems a legitimate notion to you but the idea that "good" and "evil" are absolutes that are established by a righteous God is, in your opinion, invalid? And non-believers call Christians one sided.

Put it this way: salt would not be soluble unless God had created it that way, but no one would say "how can you assess the solubility of salt without looking at God's standards of solubility?" since that would be to pull scientific concepts completely out of context. Salt might have been created soluble, but the study of solubility does not require that any thought be given to the the creator.

And you feel that because the scientific method of determining the solubility of salt does not require that we assess God's purpose in creating salt as a soluble that we can use the same approach when discussing the relative nature of morality?

A system of ethics does work for us very well and to ask what ethics accomplishes seems rather odd to me. What would this world be like without moral action? *shudders*

It accomplishes what, civilized cultures? Safety? I'm simply trying to determine if non-believers see any lasting, worthwhile purpose in ethical behavior if life ends at death. Why not just get all that you can in this life, using whatever means is available?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

He desires that, but cannot force it.

I'm curious. Do you believe that God purposes what He desires?

God bless

 

[fatpie42]

I think its obvious that you have not come here to seek God. Come back to me when your ready to open up your heart.

It seems obvious to me that you were not trying to convince me with rational discussion, but to gloat at your superiority over me.

I have simply explained why I disagree with you. If your instant reaction to this is to doubt my open-mindedness then I find that quite hypocritical.

All I was saying was that I dislike the presumption that anyone who decides to be an atheist has performed a 'denial'. They have done no such thing. They have expressed disbelief, as is natural when greeted with the incredible.

 

[fatpie42]

You have decided that you know better than the one who made you.

I don't understand this. How can someone, by deciding not to believe that have been made, be deciding they know better than their maker? I cannot decide I am better than my maker if I do even believe that I HAVE a maker, can I?

If I disagree with the opinion of a psysicist or an expert in any other field, then I am surely welcome to that opinion, even if it is unjustified, so long as I do not claim to be an expert myself. Also, in such cases where an expert tells me I am wrong, I have the benefit of knowing for certain that the expert is real and I have ways of checking his credentials.

I think my questions raised initially are still just as relevant now as when I posted them:

I love the way every reply to this post makes the presumption that Christianity is true. I think you are forgetting that there are many people who find Christianity almost anachronistic and so they are not starting from the perspective of 'Christianity is true, so how can I make sense of it?', but instead in terms of 'There are many different religions with various claims, so how is Christianity a better option than the others?'

Many people come away from this consideration thinking that Christianity has some seriously bad consequences if it is true. Why should someone who picked the wrong religion be doomed to eternal hell? In fact, why should someone who refused to make a choice and just decided to live life in a moral way be doomed to eternal hell?

Shouting out Bible passages assumes the truth of Christianity over any other religion and often it even forgets that at least three religions take the Old Testament as part of their scripture.

Why would a Christian God condemn those who don't believe in Christ's incarnation and death leading to their atonement? Is 'because that is a just action' really a sensible answer? Seriously?

 

[fatpie42]

Not sure who Railton is but it seems as if your condoning the position that "right" and "wrong" are entirely relative concepts. Is that an accurate statement?

Not in the least!

Railton claims that moral good is linked very much with non-moral good. If I am dehydrated and am given the option of either milk or water, I should choose the water because milk will not rehydrate me. I may decide the milk instead of the water, but if I were fully informed and fully rational I would choose the water.

Railton considers moral good to be a combination of everybody's non-moral goods.

You deny the legitimacy of something being good on the basis of God willing it due to the claim that that would make the process of determining good arbitrary. The problem with this misinformed claim is that it fails to take into account the inherently, immutably, perfect nature of God.

No, you misunderstand. What makes God's nature perfect/good? Does God make himself good? No! What makes God good is the standards of goodness which are not created but exist even as God does. (We're presuming God's existence here. Don't think I've produced a new form of the ontological argument.)

Additionally, it makes the concepts of good and bad (evil) contingent upon a relative medium, i.e., whomsoever perceives the action. Using that logic, we quickly run into the obstacle that what you say is good may, in my opinion, be evil. Not to mention the fact that, as is natural for those who deny the presence and power of an almighty Creator, you make everything about the creation. That seems a legitimate notion to you but the idea that "good" and "evil" are absolutes that are established by a righteous God is, in your opinion, invalid? And non-believers call Christians one sided.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here.

Just to clarify: I have never once claimed morality to be relavistic. I have simply claimed that it is illogical to describe morality as defined by a God or to suggest that without God there would be no morality.

And you feel that because the scientific method of determining the solubility of salt does not require that we assess God's purpose in creating salt as a soluble that we can use the same approach when discussing the relative nature of morality?

Are you saying that when you discuss the immorality of murder you think to yourself "why would God have decided to make murder immoral?"? Surely you say that immorality is another property of murder, just as solubility is another property of salt? The issue of who created salt and what properties salt has do not seem to be connected.

It accomplishes what, civilized cultures? Safety? I'm simply trying to determine if non-believers see any lasting, worthwhile purpose in ethical behavior if life ends at death. Why not just get all that you can in this life, using whatever means is available?

Isn't that what Christians wish to do anyway? They suggest the need to convert as many people as possible because they want to have lots of people living with them in heaven when they die. They are especially keen to convert their friends because they especially want them to be there. They have a doctrine of hell which they are keen to protect because they want to believe that mass murderers will not be in heaven, or at least not if they haven't been sincerely rehabilitated (converted) first.

I am not going to suggest that this accurately describes you. If it doesn't describe you then I have been extremely over-emotive. But using the same idea we could say that part of the psychology of evangelism works in the same way as morality. We want the best for society so we are desperate to make sure as many people as possible live comfortably. As a result we try to make sure as many people as are able to reach a state of comfort in heaven, and in turn we ensure they do not suffer in hell.

The thing is that atheists aren't egoistic any more than religious people are. They care about the people around them. What reason do they have to NOT be egoistic? Personal inclination. And if one did not have the inclination to care for others it is unlikely that they should ever decide to become a sincere Christian, is it?

The thing is that Christianity does not only insist that people become inclined to care for others. It also expects them to believe in a very strange ontology where the world is transcended by a supernatural being who will assess people according to their belief propositions (I am simplifying here, but this is often the picture that non-believers feel they are being presented with). This strikes many people as very odd indeed, and you need to recognise this.

 

[Davis]

It seems obvious to me that you were not trying to convince me with rational discussion, but to gloat at your superiority over me.

I have simply explained why I disagree with you. If your instant reaction to this is to doubt my open-mindedness then I find that quite hypocritical.

All I was saying was that I dislike the presumption that anyone who decides to be an atheist has performed a 'denial'. They have done no such thing. They have expressed disbelief, as is natural when greeted with the incredible.

There is nothing hypocritical of me believing in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

I do not think I am higher than you. Its just that a lot of people come on here trying to prove christianity wrong instead of looking into it.

 

[Davis]

This is not a place to debate either. Your asking questions and were giving you are opinons on the matter. If you want to argue then go to the general apolgetics forum. Because you are not truley seeking by the looks of it. You are trying to debunk our faith. We give you answers and you do not like them. There is nothing else we can do besides pray for you.

 

[Davis]

For anyone that doesnt believe I have some questions to ask you. This is without bringing God into the equation yet. Just answer them honestly.

1) Have you ever lyed before?
2) Have you ever said Gods Name in vain?
3) Have you every looked upon a woman with lust?
4) Have you ever stolen anything?
5) Have you ever disrespected your parents?

 

[fatpie42]

This is not a place to debate either. Your asking questions and were giving you are opinons on the matter. If you want to argue then go to the general apolgetics forum. Because you are not truley seeking by the looks of it. You are trying to debunk our faith. We give you answers and you do not like them. There is nothing else we can do besides pray for you.

I am not debunking Christianity. I am proposing problems within Christianity which, if they were solved for me, might make me more likely to return to that faith.

You, on the other hand, do not appear to have any interest in answering any queries, but simply to oppress people with dogma.

For anyone that doesnt believe I have some questions to ask you. This is without bringing God into the equation yet. Just answer them honestly.

1) Have you ever lyed before?
2) Have you ever said Gods Name in vain?
3) Have you every looked upon a woman with lust?
4) Have you ever stolen anything?
5) Have you ever disrespected your parents?

The natural answer for anyone, Christian or non-Christian (presuming they are not being arrogant) is yes to most, if not all, of those questions. (One example for the stealing issue I've been told, for instance, is that when coming back from a train journey where the ticket machine was broken on the initial trip, you should buy a return ticket to get home. Naturally most people would be tempted not to bother.)

So you are using the ten commandments to show that all people break the rules, but no doubt your next move will be to insist that all people are in need of redemption and propose Christ as the solution. The only issue is that just because people do bad things does not instantly mean that they require 'redemption' and, in any case, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why the death of God incarnate should provide such a thing.

So it is HOW the death of Christ provides atonement and why anyone should see themselves as 'in need of atonement' in the first place, that needs to be addressed. No one is in the bizarre position of believing they are perfectly moral all the time.

 

[Davis]

I am not debunking Christianity. I am proposing problems within Christianity which, if they were solved for me, might make me more likely to return to that faith.

You, on the other hand, do not appear to have any interest in answering any queries, but simply to oppress people with dogma.



The natural answer for anyone, Christian or non-Christian (presuming they are not being arrogant) is yes to most, if not all, of those questions. (One example for the stealing issue I've been told, for instance, is that when coming back from a train journey where the ticket machine was broken on the initial trip, you should buy a return ticket to get home. Naturally most people would be tempted not to bother.)

So you are using the ten commandments to show that all people break the rules, but no doubt your next move will be to insist that all people are in need of redemption and propose Christ as the solution. The only issue is that just because people do bad things does not instantly mean that they require 'redemption' and, in any case, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why the death of God incarnate should provide such a thing.

So it is HOW the death of Christ provides atonement and why anyone should see themselves as 'in need of atonement' in the first place, that needs to be addressed. No one is in the bizarre position of believing they are perfectly moral all the time.

No one is moral. Everyone is bad. Everyone breaks the law.

Okay since you have answered that those questions how are you going to pay for breaking the law? Who is going to pay your "fine"? Your right Jesus Christ.

If you break a law of our world you are punished correct? Well what if someone payed your fine and took your punishment. You would be cleared to go free correct? Jesus Christ did that for us friend. He died for us to pay the price. He took upon himself all our sins. All our blemishs and wrongs. He took them all on himself on that cross. That my friend is paying your price. He took your sins with Him on that cross. He payed your price so that when you die you can be clean in front of God.


There is nothing wrong with Christianity. It is through Christ that we are set free from our sins. That we find the true meaning of life.

 

[Davis]

So it is HOW the death of Christ provides atonement and why anyone should see themselves as 'in need of atonement' in the first place, that needs to be addressed. No one is in the bizarre position of believing they are perfectly moral all the time.

How? Because Christ carried our sins on his body. The worlds sins. If someone did that for you, you wouldnt be gratefull that you have found forgiveness through a person doing that? Through grace and mercy?

There are no perfect men. We are just that.......men.

 

[fatpie42]

How? Because Christ carried our sins on his body. The worlds sins. If someone did that for you, you wouldnt be gratefull that you have found forgiveness through a person doing that? Through grace and mercy?

There are no perfect men. We are just that.......men.

....and women.

How exactly does God carry sins on his body? It sounds like sin is meant to be some kind of bacteria the way you describe it there. That is the problem isn't it? Whenever the atonement is described it always seems to involve pulling words hideously out of context. Can you describe the atonement in a way that makes sense without using dodgy analogies? It seems to me that the only way to accept the atonement is to accept that it is too much of a mystery for the human mind to understand, but many people are not happy with so vague an explanation (perhaps that's why we have these strange legalistic analogies at all?).

 

[Davis]

So let me get this straight so I'm not confusing you or myself. The hang up with you is you don't understand why Christ died for our sins. If I can show you that Christ carried our sins would that be satisfactory for you? Because I can do that.

 

[fatpie42]

So let me get this straight so I'm not confusing you or myself. The hang up with you is you don't understand why Christ died for our sins. If I can show you that Christ carried our sins would that be satisfactory for you? Because I can do that.

You make it sound so easy............

But please feel free to attempt it.

 

[Davis]

You make it sound so easy............

But please feel free to attempt it.

It is easy.........

This is the apostle Paul talking for this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:21

God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And now this is Peter, Jesus disciple talking in this verse:

1 Peter 2:24

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed.

Jesus was the Lamb of God my friend. When they sacrificed lambs and goats the priest would put his hand on the animals head and the sin would go into the animal. Same with goats. They would place there hands on the goats and put the sin on them than the goats would run into the wilderness with there sins.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. He took all the sins on himself and died for us.

 

[Davis]

Do you understand now why we need Christ? Because he is our Savior.
Do you know how painful it must have been for Him to carry the worlds sins in His body. He who never sinned before? God than left Him on that cross and Jesus cried out to Him asking God why he forsaked him.

 

[Reformationist]

Not in the least!

Railton claims that moral good is linked very much with non-moral good. If I am dehydrated and am given the option of either milk or water, I should choose the water because milk will not rehydrate me. I may decide the milk instead of the water, but if I were fully informed and fully rational I would choose the water.

Railton considers moral good to be a combination of everybody's non-moral goods.

Sorry but this is either over my head (very likely possibility) or nonsensical. Could you dumb it down for me?

No, you misunderstand. What makes God's nature perfect/good?

The problem with such a question in the context of this discussion is that "good" no longer holds any meaning apart from that which we apply to it. For instance, assuming God is real, is it "good" that a baby die? That would depend, of course, on whose perspective you answer from. That baby's parents may very well see that event as a tragedy and, in a certain sense, it is a tragedy. But, in the scheme of God's eternal plan, is it a "good" thing?

Does God make himself good? No! What makes God good is the standards of goodness which are not created but exist even as God does.

There is no such thing as a "standard of goodness" that exists independently of establishment. Such a claim is an obvious flaw in your logic and is a last ditch effort to stave off the problems inherent to such a view. That which is "good" must be defined. The question we must ask is, who/what sets that standard. I accept that God has established those standards while you seem to want to appeal to Railton (again, not sure who that is).

Just to clarify: I have never once claimed morality to be relavistic. I have simply claimed that it is illogical to describe morality as defined by a God or to suggest that without God there would be no morality.

I never claimed that you said morality is contingent upon the existance of God. However, such a discussion is, in my opinion, a moot issue, for there is a God and that God establishes the standards of morality by which we shall all be judged.

You deny claiming that morality is relativistic so that would mean that you submit that there is a standard of morality against which all of our personal opinions of "good" and "bad" must be judged. Tell me, who is it then, if not God, that sets that standard?

Are you saying that when you discuss the immorality of murder you think to yourself "why would God have decided to make murder immoral?"?

Not at all. Man was created upright (I speak of his nature, not his posture). It is only after sin was introduced into the core of his being that he began his rapid decline into spiritual bankruptcy. Murder was committed very early on in the history of man. It is this separation from God through which sin gains a foothold in the nature of man. It is the standards which God has set which distinguish between killing and murder.

Surely you say that immorality is another property of murder, just as solubility is another property of salt? The issue of who created salt and what properties salt has do not seem to be connected.

I assure you that I wouldn't speak of the immorality of an action as if immorality were an attribute of the action but, rather, as a defining characteristic. Murder is an immoral action because it is the unwarranted taking of life which God has given.

We want the best for society so we are desperate to make sure as many people as possible live comfortably.

Here again, who is it that establishes what is "best" for society if not God?

The thing is that atheists aren't egoistic any more than religious people are. They care about the people around them. What reason do they have to NOT be egoistic? Personal inclination.

So now were down to basing mankind's concern for society upon his "personal inclination?" Tell me, why does man have such an inclination and why is this inclination more pronounced in some than in others?

And if one did not have the inclination to care for others it is unlikely that they should ever decide to become a sincere Christian, is it?

Well, this is another discussion but I do not subscribe to the faulty mainstream idea that a person becomes a believer because they want to become a believer. Faith in God is, itself, a gift from God. Therefore, if someone believes in God unto salvation then it is because God invincibly drew that person through a process called regeneration. None of this is the byproduct of a person's inherent inclination to care for others.

The thing is that Christianity does not only insist that people become inclined to care for others. It also expects them to believe in a very strange ontology where the world is transcended by a supernatural being who will assess people according to their belief propositions (I am simplifying here, but this is often the picture that non-believers feel they are being presented with). This strikes many people as very odd indeed, and you need to recognise this.

Well, unless I misunderstand, your description is not indicative of orthodox Christianity.

God bless

 

[linssue55]

Sorry I thought you had to have knowledge of something in order to affirm its existence.

If people who have no knowledge of Christ can still fail to deny Christ, how can atheists who deny God's existence (because they have no knowledge of it) be said to be denying God?

"Blessed are those that have not seen yet believe"..........

 

[linssue55]

Please understand I do not say this with ill-intentions but just stressing the truth. You, like all non-believers who have heard and have denied, have directly or indirectly made yourself your own god. You have decided that you know better than the one who made you. Would you say to a physicist that you know more about quantum physics? Would you say to a doctor that you know more about physiology? Would you say to a judge that you know more than he of the law? So why would you say to God that you know more than He when He knows exponentially more than we? God has spoken these individuals saying why should the clay question the potter...were you there when I fashioned the heavens and the earth...when I made you in your mothers womb?? Understand that only by your limited knowledge do you consider that His righteousness is unfair. We, as Christians don't have all of the answers...but we have enough to know that He is King and we walk by faith.

There are many ways to come to know God without hearing his word, Psalm 19 explains the heavens and earth declare His glory. I would point you to John Polkinghorne, a physicist that describes the intricacies our very being. Also, there are people that have never heard his word have had dreams which led them to God. God is not bottled and does not need us to declare His majesty. For answers to many questions I point you to a pretty good apologist, Ravi Zacharias. rzim.org. He has many free audio downloads of open question/answer sessions. I encourage you to keep reading and pray that one day you will receive God's grace.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved'........The word "Believe" must FIRST come from you. I do hope you have a change of mind.