What if you seek and don't find?

[AV1611VET]

Once was just explaining to me, in this thread, how in her theology serial killers and child rapists can go to heaven, while those that believe in other gods, or are simply not convinced of the existence of gods, will burn forever for reasons beyond their control.

Does that sum up your theology?

Yes ... with one exception:

It's not "reasons beyond their control."

No one is going to Hell that doesn't deserve to go.

Is that good news to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

On what happened prior to what is explained by the big bang model I can only speculate.

We aren't talking about what came before the big bang, it is in the first seconds that space, matter, energy and time come into existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The subject is belief, and if we should be held accountable for them.

Yes.

Then why all of your posts on morality and justice, if your theology is not based on morality or justice?

What? They are based on morality, justice and mercy.

...except for those "bad enough" to not believe, or believe in other gods, etc.

Serial killing is one thing, but disbelief...

Everyone whether they don't believe, they don't feel they are bad enough or those who feel they are good enough all are not sinless. Period. If you are sinful you have to be covered by Christ to go to heaven. Period.

Obviously our beliefs can change, but again you evade my point. I am talking about changing our beliefs by conscious choice.

Are we unconscious if we make a decision based on evidence or what? I don't know why you think that conscious choice is different than a reasoned choice.

You

demonstrated that you could not do it, with the green apple example. How can you expect me to do the same for gods?

You are claiming to make a conscious choice we have to leave reason behind?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But I didn't become a Christian based on the evidence from the observation of the world. I became Christian because I was swept up in it from a relational perspective. When I actually considered the evidence, including the universe, I realized that I didn't actually believe that there was a God as described in the Bible.

I didn't become a Christian based on evidence from the observation of the world. I really believed that Christian's were rather self-righteous. So this is what I am trying to get you to explain. What evidence in the universe did you discover that you felt falsified Christianity?

No I don't think so. I would agree that it was a conscious choice to look deeply at the evidence rather than simply accepting what the Christian's around me and the pastors were saying. However, once again, the evidence either convinces you or it does not, for me it did not.

What evidence didn't convince you?

The challenge I had with loosing faith was that I had had these experiences that I called relational, when I prayed I felt like I was talking to God, the Bible spoke into my life as I read it daily, I experienced peace and joy when meditating in Jesus, I felt prompted through the day by the spirit, leading me to do better and be that city on a hill. Looking back every single part of those experiences is absolutely explainable without a God existing and once I realized that, I was free to follow the rest of the observable evidence where it led.

What did you attribute this things to after you left Christianity?

They see structures that are well suited to thier tasks, complex etc. I'm sure you know all this, and since we are answering questions with questions, why do you think that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields do not see the natural world as designed?

There are various reasons for them not to conclude that the appearance of design is actual design. Many think that even if it is design, it adds nothing to science and so it is not included in their work. Many believe that it supports design but it can't be scientifically tested so again in science it is not included. Then there are some that base this opinion on their own personal biases.

If this were a formal debate, you would be the affirmative but since it is just a conversation I am happy to continue to answer your questions and to try to make my case.
Again though this does not seem to address the many questions I asked of you in that post, although to be for you are keeping multiple discussions going at once

Thank you for understanding that point. Not many people take that into account. By all means, if I miss a question point it out to me. IN formal debates I might have the affirmative position but you have the burden of rebuttal. You can't just claim I am wrong and have nothing to replace it with. You haven't provided any alternative that you can provide evidence for to discount my position. Yet, we are not in a formal debate and in a conversation or discussion it seems rather lopsided if you are not willing to place your own view up to scrutiny.

I actually don't claim complete certainty, I admit that it is possible that I am mistaken. But my confidence that I am not, is quite high. Moreover, my level of certainty does not have any bearing on the truth of reality. If I were 100 percent certain that aliens have visited our planet in secret, it would not make it true.

I would agree.

I think it is hard to reconcile that defence with a God who loves his creation and has all possible power and knowledge. By deploying this defence it seems to me that you make God very powerless. If what we observe is the absolute best he could do, then he really isn't much of a God or as I have said before he really doesn't care about us, but rather he values his glory and pleasure.

Do you have all the information you would need to determine that any other world that allows free will or free choice would or could be different?

You are asking me to believe that the God who created this universe, who as you have said has such a sophisticated control that he can even use all our sinful choices, all Satan's manipulation to achieve his perfect plan, is also helpless to save most of humanity even though he wants to. Is helpless to stop natural disasters, famines, illness, even though he wants to. That somehow he is just stuck with things as we see them. Can you see why this is not very compelling? Sure it is a possibility, but so is the possibility that God is evil and is just toying with us and I think a more likely explaination is that there is no all powerful being in control, working all things for the good of those who love him and for his own glory.

Of course I am not asking you to believe something that I don't even believe. Also, I don't think that you were asking me to convince you about God's motivations or morality but how I being a Christian can view it. I think I have reasonable and cohesive answers for how I view the situation.

I feel like a lot of questions I asked got overlooked in your response there so if you have a chance to go back and address them that would be appreciated
Have a great night!

I will do that, because I don't remember skipping anything.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Atheos canadensis]

First let me say that I had responded to this post and for some reason it must not have loaded. Grrrrr. I keep thinking you hadn't responded to me and when you said you wanted to keep the posts to you in the same place I thought you meant you would respond to both when you answered mine. Sorry.

I thought that post might have been somewhat confusing, sorry.

If God knows what it takes to bring you to Him, He will do it. That being said, if He knows that whatever He does in any situation you will deny it is Him, and you would do this in every possible world, you may be one of those that there is no way to allow you your free will and to save you. God says that all know He exists but they suppress that knowledge. I understand that these are not rhetorical questions and believe me I take it very seriously. I also get from your posts that you feel that you believe that God is immoral and not worthy of worship. He will allow you to make that assessment.

You seem to be saying that either God actually will eventually give me the major hint I need or he isn't bothering to give me a sign because I would refuse him no matter what. I think we can agree that the former option is of course completely unverifiable, but theoretically possible. But let's pretend that I'm minutes from death and I've still not gotten the obvious sing I need. In this case your only other option is that I actually would not have been convinced by the personal introduction-blindness-miracle thing. Speaking on my own behalf, I would say this is dead wrong, but again I suppose it's theoretically possible.

But even if I am wrong in thinking such an experience would convince me, I don't see how this fits with your claim that free will is important to God. If it is so important to him that I either choose him or deny him of my own free will, why would he never give me the sign I think I need so I can make my free will choice? Just because he knows I will still turn away? Isn't it violating my free will to deny me the chance to actually make the decision? If not, please explain.

I am going to concede this point because I am not sure if when taken on their own if they show progression.


One thing in studying the early Hebrew language and the way words were used and the difficulty in translation of the "intent" of the wording is not so cut and dried. Just like in times we have figures of speech that we recognize as not meant to be literal. Let's hit the road, doesn't mean that we are really literally going to go out and hit the road with our fists. If I say don't bite my head off if someone is angry with me, I don't literally mean that this person is going to literally bite my head off. We see this type of figures of speech in the Bible as well. In the case of David setting it up Uriah to be killed in battle. Nathan accusing David says: 2 Smauel 12:9 "You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword". We know that David did not literally do the killing. He actually sent a letter telling his general to put Uriah into the most vulnerable place in the battle. Both are accurate but we know that David didn't actually take a sword and kill Uriah. I think this is something of the same we see in the verses of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh. He didn't literally harden Pharaoh's heart but set up the circumstances that permitted Pharaoh to have to make a decision. He used His plagues and Moses to set up the circumstances that presented Pharaoh a way to reject God.

I assume from the argument that it is a figure of speech that you are not aware of any translations that suggest "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" means the same thing as "Pharaoh hardened his heart". Is that correct?

I'm aware that figures of speech are used, but I don't think you've made a strong case for God hardening Pharaoh's heart being a figure of speech. It still seems to me that the fact that the author several times said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart indicates that something different was meant, i.e. that it was God, not Pharaoh, doing the heart hardening in this instance. What do you think about this distinction?

Now several time in this scenario we find that Pharaoh said that he would set the people free if the plague would be lifted and when the plague was lifted he would go back on his word and not let them go. So we already know that he lied about it before why do you think he wasn't lying when he said he'd let them go again?

I think you realize that I don't think that. I think that God gave plagues that could be replicated by the magicians so that Pharaoh could believe that God was not any more powerful than they were. I think that He could have forced the issue if He had sent horrendous plagues that lasted and lasted and forced Pharaoh into doing God's will but He chose to allow Pharaoh to reason against God if that is what he chose to do. Each time he said he'd let the people go and when he didn't and God didn't completely annihilate him as he would if it were him. He probably thought that God was able to read his mind when he lied and said he'd let the people go, so he thought he could deceive God. He thought God wasn't as powerful or as smart as he was. So in these circumstances, his heart was hardened but by the circumstances and his own will.

I agree that it is possible that he was lying in this instance, but again I come back to wondering why the biblical author would repeatedly make the distinction if he really meant the same thing each time.

So you think that having the freedom to do evil, including killing their own young and killing other weak and young in other nations (which is what they would have done) is more moral than allowing them to die and go directly to heaven? How is that moral and good?

I'm not making any statements about what is more moral. I am asking you two questions:

1. Is it good an moral in this instance to kill babies? Your answer seems to be yes, but I would appreciate an explicit answer.

2. Does it violate free will to kill those babies before they get the chance to exert their free will and choose evil?

You are setting up an impossible scenario, as Jesus would not command me to kill babies. So the hypothetical scenario is not in alignment with the age we live in. The two times we are discussing where God either brought the flood or commanded the killing are in direct purpose with Christ being born. If God had allowed the evil to continue they would have killed off all of the Jews which would have eliminated the path for Christ to be born.

I'm asking this question so I can understand how your morality works. I know you don't believe Jesus would ever ask such a thing but that is not the point. I would appreciate a direct answer. I'm not trying to trick you into saying Jesus is immoral or something. I just want to know what you would do. So again, knowing in your heart without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus (not an impostor) had really commanded you to kill babies, would you do it? Would that be a moral act?

Also I think you missed this question: Do you do not consider God and Jesus to be different versions of the same being? Do you not subscribe to the Trinity?

Ok. I have some questions about what you just presented.
1. Have you ever been aware of the time line of any appearance of some sort of life being moved back in time millions of years?
2. Do you know of any other Creation Narrative that has a detailed list of the sequence of life appearing on earth?
3. What evidence do you feel compels you to believe that the sequence in the Bible can't possibly be accurate?

1. I am aware that this occurs. However I am not aware of any such occurrences on the scale required for the order of creation in the bible to be salvaged. In any case I don't think the suggestion that the angiosperm fossil record might someday be moved back before the advent of life in the sea is really a convincing argument to defend the order of creation in Genesis. Saying that the fossil record might produce new data that aligns with Genesis does not constitute support for the Gensis account actually being accurate to the best of our knowledge.

2. Not off the top of my head. But the non-existence of similar creation myths wouldn't serve as any support whatsoever for the accuracy of the biblical account. If you disagree please explain why.

3. I included some of it in the post you responded to. The order of creation in Genesis simply doesn't match the order in which organisms appear in the fossil record. You've made the argument that Genesis is just giving an overview of what was created and is not meant to give the order in which things were created. If that is the case, why is creation broken up into distinct days? Why do this if not to give a chronological order to the events described? If the genesis account doesn't give any information about the order of events, how can you justify the claim that the passage you've cited about the creation of aquatic life demonstrates that the bible says life arose in the sea? If there's no chronology in the account, it might as well be saying (which it does seem to, by the way), that fruit trees arose before life in the seas.

 

[Davian]

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

What's with the random Bible quotes?

 

[Davian]

Yes ... with one exception:

It's not "reasons beyond their control."

No one is going to Hell that doesn't deserve to go.

Is that good news to you?

I dunno. What I believe - or disbelieve - is not within my control. Is disbelief suddenly okay in your theology??

 

[Davian]

We aren't talking about what came before the big bang, it is in the first seconds that space, matter, energy and time come into existence.

I can only speculate.

 

[Davian]

Yes.

What? They are based on morality, justice and mercy.

I still have not seen this "morality" or "justice" of which you speak. I have only seen your "serial killers go to heaven" pitch. Hardly an argument for morality.

Everyone whether they don't believe, they don't feel they are bad enough or those who feel they are good enough all are not sinless. Period. If you are sinful you have to be covered by Christ to go to heaven. Period.

Are we unconscious if we make a decision based on evidence or what? I don't know why you think that conscious choice is different than a reasoned choice.

I am not speaking of reasoned choices. I am talking about how we form beliefs.

You are claiming to make a conscious choice we have to leave reason behind?

No. I am takling about what you demonstrated with the green apple example. You could not believe that I have shown you a green apple until I show you a green apple. I cannot believe there are "gods" until you show me a "god".

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're close.

You left out two words: "to self."

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Curl up to self and die?

Is that what you meant?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's with the random Bible quotes?

They are the Bible's way of answering YES to your question.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I believe - or disbelieve - is not within my control.

Sounds like someone's under the influence of the Lazlo Spectrum.

 

[Davian]

They are the Bible's way of answering YES to your question.

Perhaps you should have just answered the question directly. It has been my experience here that there is no position, however contrary to another, that someone cannot find support for in the Bible.

Once demonstrated that belief was not under her control, with the green apple example. That would correlate with the findings of modern cognitive science and philosophy of mind.

Sounds like someone's under the influence of the Lazlo Spectrum.

How about you? Can you consciously choose to believe that I have shown you an apple?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should have just answered the question directly.

If you didn't see YES in that reply, then perhaps you're on that horse backwards?

(Assuming you're on one, that is.)

 

[Davian]

If you didn't see YES in that reply, then perhaps you're on that horse backwards?

(Assuming you're on one, that is.)

I didn't even look at them.

The Bible is wrong then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can only speculate.

It is a scientific finding, are you claiming it is not accurate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I still have not seen this "morality" or "justice" of which you speak. I have only seen your "serial killers go to heaven" pitch. Hardly an argument for morality.

This is you and your actions confirming how one picks and chooses what one wishes to believe. You ignore the issue of Justice while looking only at the act of mercy in the case of the serial killer but would God be loving to all of us if He only allowed those that were moral and loving to receive heaven?

I am not speaking of reasoned choices. I am talking about how we form beliefs.

So am I.

No. I am takling about what you demonstrated with the green apple example. You could not believe that I have shown you a green apple until I show you a green apple. I cannot believe there are "gods" until you show me a "god".

You don't seem to have a problem with having a belief in atoms and you don't "see" them either. You don't have a problem having a belief in oxygen but you don't "see" that. All of these you believe to exist even though you don't see them and have never seen them.

 

[Davian]

It is a scientific finding, are you claiming it is not accurate?

What scientific finding are you alluding to?

 

[Davian]

This is you and your actions confirming how one picks and chooses what one wishes to believe.

As in the green apple example, like you, I cannot "pick and choose what I wish to believe".

You ignore the issue of Justice while looking only at the act of mercy in the case of the serial killer but would God be loving to all of us if He only allowed those that were moral and loving to receive heaven?

In what way is it loving to hold one accountable for things beyond one's control?

So am I.

You don't seem to have a problem with having a belief in atoms and you don't "see" them either. You don't have a problem having a belief in oxygen but you don't "see" that. All of these you believe to exist even though you don't see them and have never seen them.

I can see them defined in a testable, falsifiable manner, and observe, and even conduct, experiments to explore their nature.

Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner. Then show me one.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

AV1611VET said: ↑
Yes ... with one exception:

It's not "reasons beyond their control."

No one is going to Hell that doesn't deserve to go.

Is that good news to you?

Davian said: ↑
What I believe - or disbelieve - is not within my control.

Sounds like someone's under the influence of the Lazlo Spectrum.

You saw that movie also? Great movie!


...................................

.........

............

.......................................

.