Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That only undermines your position further, since human beings would still have the option to reject him.Zippy and I view humans differently than you do.
We view humans as people who can love. As people who can reject love. As people who can love God and reject Him.
Based on the results.Why suppose God's approach is suboptimal?
What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?This all relates to the central idea that, "If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part." The person possessing free will is to blame. (They were not created with a disposition that forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator.)
Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.God can't force someone to have a relationship with him any more than you can force a woman to love or marry you. Relationships are bidirectional by nature.
Based on the results.
What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?
Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.
Based on the results.
What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?
Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.
Hang on - you are rashing things.Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.
To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.
You would have to personally change who you are. You would have to become a totally different person. A person conformed into the image of the fancy of this person who hates you as your currently are.
God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.
As such, some will find Him not worth the time.
The fact that they do is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.
The collective human speculations of the Bible are about the God who is the source of mans personality. Morality is enate to personality. There is no such thing as secular morality, rather the common morality of societies comes from the collective of moral personalities that come from God.Which is why secular morality is better than the morality of the god described by men in the bible.
Actually, the facts would: most people adopt the religion of their parents. As you yourself observed, there is less personal cost associated with adopting Christianity in a culture dominated by it.People in non-Christian cultures who are confessing Christ as Lord by the millions are trusting in Christ as Lord and Saviour, many are doing this at great personal cost.
China, India, the Middle East, Russia, all are seeing people abandon the culturally prevalent views in their countries for Christianity.
So I don't really agree that people who are born in a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity can't exercise free will in becoming followers of Jesus. The facts would not support this.
But they would at least believe that I exist, and still have the option of rejecting me. That's the point. You are pretending that God's existence and desire for a relationship is obvious, and that it is merely a matter of reciprocating or rejecting his love. It's not.Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.
To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.
My efforts would at least establish my character and my desire for a relationship. They would still have the option to reject me thereafter. Again, that's the point.The fact that they have this disposition is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.
Why would one need to invoke a god to make moral claims?The collective human speculations of the Bible are about the God who is the source of mans personality. Morality is enate to personality. There is no such thing as secular morality, rather the common morality of societies comes from the collective of moral personalities that come from God.
So called secular morality that denies God is a plagerized morality.
Your sub optimal hypothesis does not take into account that some people want nothing to do with God. This is a fact.
To say that God's method of communicating with humanity is sub optimal when many want nothing to do with God would be like me saying your method of communicating with a person you love who thinks you utterly disgusting is sub optimal. You could speak to this person in the most poetic terms and wax eloquent with your proclamations of love. You could buy this person gifts, and shower them with rose petals until you were blue in the face. If the person has something against you personally and hates you and what you are and what you stand for, then the mere proclamation of your love for them is not going to change this.
You would have to personally change who you are. You would have to become a totally different person. A person conformed into the image of the fancy of this person who hates you as you currently are.
God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.
As such, some will find Him not worth the time.
The fact that they have this disposition is no indictment against God's methods of communicating anymore than the person's rejection of your attempts at communicating would be an indictment against your efforts.
Why would one need to invoke a god to make moral claims?
He seems to want to discuss anything but the issue at hand. The moment anyone else addresses an issue that's relevant, although inconvenient to him (e.g., "morally sufficient reasons"), he'll say "red herring. Off-topic."Efficiency of god's message to mankind has nothing to do with whether or not they convert. It has everything to do with what god "meant" in his message. It's the lack of clarity in what god meant in his message that leads to multiple interpretations and denominations.
So for the 8th time, the flaw in god's creation (message to mankind) is a lack of clarity (inefficiency flaw) that has led to multiple interpretations and denominations (evidence of the flaw).
Indeed. I see no need to posit deities as the source of values though.You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.
The one that utilised material from Chopra's Twitter feed?Lol do you still have that link regarding bull spit? The study on it?
You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.
Merry Christmas
The one that utilised material from Chopra's Twitter feed?
Hang on - you are rashing things.
At this point we are discussing communicating in a way that makes your existence unquestionably known and making your stances clearly known. We are not talking about communicating in a way that makes everybody love you immediately.
What is it that you are fond of saying? "Red herring. Off-topic."Yes I know.
The issue is more complex than some want to admit.
At this time, I want to use this topic as sort of a segue into another argument some use against the existence of God, namely, the argument in J. L. Schellenberg's work. The argument is an argument against God from divine hiddenness.
Given that your views are entirely derivative of his, that's unsurprising.I think Dr. Craig sums up my view succinctly.
You say "surely." What evidence do you have in support of this?God can surely bring all men to a place in their lives where they can reasonably conclude God exists, and He will see to it that all are brought to such a place before they die so as to make unbelief in Him inexcusable.
It is a non-sequitur to conclude that people have no free will because they adopt the religion of their parents. Who is to say that these people that adopt the religion of their parents don't do so as a result of exercising their free will to do so?Actually, the facts would: most people adopt the religion of their parents. As you yourself observed, there is less personal cost associated with adopting Christianity in a culture dominated by it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?