Yes, but what if we are not wrong?

[RDKirk]

This is an interesting description of Paul's keen mind in addressing the Greeks RDKirk, and their unknown god. Paul used this example of their polytheism ( they were so keen not to miss worshipping god that they tried to cover all bases by adding an unknown god. Sorta like Job sacrificing just in case his kids sinned. ). They remind me of Donald Rumsfeld's unknown knows, known unknowns and .....

Paul wasn't hinting that their unknown god was in fact the One True God, but was subtly pointing out that he knew who the One true God was, and then he declared Him to them.

That might be the case except that he's specifically addressing those particular people--the ones who worship the unknown god--and he's able to quote one of the proponents of that specific doctrine (Epimenides).

 

[ananda]

The non personal God, is not well defined in regards to these traits, so it is unknowable.

I consider Buddhism's Nirvana to be the non-personal God, but is expected to be knowable

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Stoics didn't believe in a person god but that the Universe itself was god, I think, but I might be wrong.

As I understand it, the Stoics believed that God was a living rational entity that helped to order the universe in a rational way. (This concept was part of a kind of presuppositionalism that explained how human reason could work.) God wasn't the universe itself, but existed more like a rarefied gas or fire that filled the universe. God was something like the "soul" of the universe that animated it as a human soul might animate a body.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[agua]

As I understand it, the Stoics believed that God was a living rational entity that helped to order the universe in a rational way. (This concept was part of a kind of presuppositionalism that explained how human reason could work.) God wasn't the universe itself, but existed more like a rarefied gas or fire that filled the universe. God was something like the "soul" of the universe that animated it as a human soul might animate a body.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ah ok. Did this god have being ie. was it a thinking, reasoning, cognizant entity ?

I don't follow the usual idea of soul btw ( Christian idea). I suggest a soul is a living being, not part of it.

 

[agua]

That might be the case except that he's specifically addressing those particular people--the ones who worship the unknown god--and he's able to quote one of the proponents of that specific doctrine (Epimenides).

Yes fair enough; but this still doesn't necessarily imply that Paul is suggesting that their unknown god is Yahweh.

ETA Sorry RD can you walk me through your reasoning that because Paul quoted Greek poets or scholars that this means that he was implying that their unknown god was Yahweh. I just can't see it being necessary or even likely.

 

[agua]

Does a Hindu believe Jesus was God?
Does a Jew believe Jesus was God?
Does a Muslim believe Jesus was God?
Does a non believer believe Jesus was God?

Specific enough?

Anyone who believes Jesus was God, is a Christian are they not?

Are you going to keep on with the tap dance?

Ok good this is better.

A Jew may believe Jesus is God yes. A Jew doesn't stop being a Jew once they join the Body of Christ as Paul explained in Romans 11. The Jews are a race of people that mostly follow Judaism, but a Jew may become a Christian, or even a Muslim for that matter ( although I suggest this is highly unlikely.

Rom 11:1 KJV I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


A Muslim however is from a religion called Islam, and so a Muslim won't believe in Yahweh, and consequently that Jesus is God through investigation if possible, unless they leave their belief system.

The same applies to the Athiest being a belief system ( or lack thereof some will say ). The athieist will not believe in Yahweh, or find that Jesus is God, until they leave their belief system and enter the search for the One true God.

Do you have any other specific exapmles ?

Oh I forgot to answer your question " everyone who believes Jesus is God is Christian are they not ?".

No this isn't correct, as Jesus said many people will call Him Lord ( know that he is God ) but not follow Him. There're many examples of this in the Bible.

ETA. Sorry Bhsmte I recalled to add an aditional piece about the Jew because I assumed your reaction on this subject. To be clear the Jew will need to leave their belief system, Judaism, to enter the Body of Christ ( they prefer Body of Messiah ). They will still be a Jew though, or more acurately a Jewish Christian.

 

[agua]

I see where Graham addresses the heart and turning to "light". I don't see where Graham addresses whether or not they changed beliefs or belief systems. If you want to say called out implies leaving a current situation AND entering a new one, that's not necessarily true....

It may not be necessarily true in your eyes; but it is regarding Biblical Christaianity, and Billy's intention.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ah ok. Did this god have being ie. was it a thinking, reasoning, cognizant entity ?

God is said by the Stoics to have plans and intentions, so I think that the answer is roughly yes. It's difficult to say for sure because I don't know how the Stoics understand the psychology of God. I don't know if they think that God has anything like a human personality, though God is certainly reasoning.

I don't follow the usual idea of soul btw ( Christian idea). I suggest a soul is a living being, not part of it.

Okay, then you don't think as the Stoics do on that issue. For more information, you may consult the following link:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By searching for the One True God, and finding and submitting to Yahweh. This search can begin anywhere, even in Atheism.

agua, I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind your assignment of P=1.0 to Yahweh's existence. Given that P=1.0 equates to absolute certainty, what reason do you have to be absolutely certain of this claim's truth?

 

[Wryetui]

Searching for the One True God eventually leads you to YHWH, so the Christian God, there are no other worthy gods to serve but Him, you can't compare Him with the other gods, invention of man.

 

[RDKirk]

I see where Graham addresses the heart and turning to "light". I don't see where Graham addresses whether or not they changed beliefs or belief systems. If you want to say called out implies leaving a current situation AND entering a new one, that's not necessarily true.

You're suggesting that there is a new situation for them to enter. Say you have a man born into repressive nation who somehow feels a yearning to be free. But all the information he has at hand tells him that there is no where to be free, what he has is the best there is. He may feel discomfited in his current situation, but he doesn't really know why and he doesn't know where he can go or what he can do about it.

...unless there is a nation of freedom that has a consulate in that repressive nation, and somehow from that consulate there is information of a place where freedom exists, and he can see that freedom through the windows of the consulate, and see through the gates people living in that freedom. And the consulate offers asylum.

That's the purpose of the Body of Christ--to provide that asylum. But if there is no such consulate and no asylum, you can't expect that man to be anything but discomfited.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes fair enough; but this still doesn't necessarily imply that Paul is suggesting that their unknown god is Yahweh.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

You have to squint really hard not to see that as a "suggestion."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Searching for the One True God eventually leads you to YHWH, so the Christian God, there are no other worthy gods to serve but Him, you can't compare Him with the other gods, invention of man.

What about those who have searched for the One True God and claim to have found him in another religion? Maybe they would say the same thing to you?

 

[RDKirk]

Any real God would need to have characteristics.

Not so sure they need a name, unless they called themselves Fred or something.

Whether a being could be discovered, would depend on the ability to confirm the God's existence.

You see, the Christian God has traits that most Christians apply to him, so I can make a call on that God existing or not, looking at the realities of the world.

The non personal God, is not well defined in regards to these traits, so it is unknowable.

When my daughter was small, we had a lab/border collie mix named Jack. One day my young daughter asked, "Papa, does Jack think he's a human?" I responded, "No, Pun'kin, he thinks we're dogs."

It's pretty darned hard for dogs or humans to contemplate the character of a being other than ourselves by characteristics other than our own. Anthropomorphizing is unavoidable.

 

[bhsmte]

When my daughter was small, we had a lab/border collie mix named Jack. One day my young daughter asked, "Papa, does Jack think he's a human?" I responded, "No, Pun'kin, he thinks we're dogs."

It's pretty darned hard for dogs or humans to contemplate the character of a being other than ourselves by characteristics other than our own. Anthropomorphizing is unavoidable.

Completely agree.

Would you agree, that if a God exists, he likely has characteristics?

Would you also agree, that basic Christian theology, applies characteristics to this God?

And since you stated what you did above, it appears you feel, any characteristics applied to a God, is speculation?

 

[bhsmte]

A Jew may believe Jesus is God yes. A Jew doesn't stop being a Jew once they join the Body of Christ as Paul explained in Romans 11. The Jews are a race of people that mostly follow Judaism, but a Jew may become a Christian, or even a Muslim for that matter ( although I suggest this is highly unlikely.

I am not referring to ethnicity and assumed you knew that. So you are saying, a person that follows the Jewish faith who believes Jesus is God is still following the Jewish faith?

Oh I forgot to answer your question " everyone who believes Jesus is God is Christian are they not ?".

No this isn't correct, as Jesus said many people will call Him Lord ( know that he is God ) but not follow Him. There're many examples of this in the Bible.

Well, I have met a lot of Christians, who do not appear to be following God, but that is another matter.

So tell me, do you have examples of people of a non Christian religion or non believers, who believe Jesus was God? If so, how can they reconcile being of another religion, or a non believer, if they believe Jesus was God?

ETA. Sorry Bhsmte I recalled to add an aditional piece about the Jew because I assumed your reaction on this subject. To be clear the Jew will need to leave their belief system, Judaism, to enter the Body of Christ ( they prefer Body of Messiah ). They will still be a Jew though, or more acurately a Jewish Christian

.

That was my point, I was not referring to ethnicity, I was referring to their religious faith.

So, back to my original question:

In your opinion, can a person who does not believe Jesus was God, have the opportunity to be saved by God? Yes, or no?

 

[TillICollapse]

You're suggesting that there is a new situation for them to enter. Say you have a man born into repressive nation who somehow feels a yearning to be free. But all the information he has at hand tells him that there is no where to be free, what he has is the best there is. He may feel discomfited in his current situation, but he doesn't really know why and he doesn't know where he can go or what he can do about it.

...unless there is a nation of freedom that has a consulate in that repressive nation, and somehow from that consulate there is information of a place where freedom exists, and he can see that freedom through the windows of the consulate, and see through the gates people living in that freedom. And the consulate offers asylum.

That's the purpose of the Body of Christ--to provide that asylum. But if there is no such consulate and no asylum, you can't expect that man to be anything but discomfited.

Hmm.

Okay I may be looking at this from a "spiritual materialist" POV (I just made up that term for the sake of this conversation. I suppose it's more equivalent to "immanence").

The scriptures, for example, are replete with one example after another of individuals having physical encounters of the "supernatural" variety (I'm not a fan of that term in the way most people use it, because I believe when they use it that it they are using it in the sense that an events that takes place in the physical/material reality (i.e. the universe as we know it) is ONLY transcendent, which makes the term near useless imo. Another topic). That is to say, they are consistently seeing things, interacting with things, etc ... that are not just within their minds (according to the accounts) only. Thus, the scriptures for example, though there may be cherry-picked examples of "no one has seen God", etc and so forth ... such examples are rather vague when taken into context of those who DO apparently see Yahweh, Elohim, "God", various types of "angelic" beings, etc. It's not just burning bushes and healed blind men. It's beings that others recognizes as being "other", so on and so forth.

Now regardless of the validity of any of the scriptures or not ... whether we're talking about purely made up fiction, the real deal and we haven't explained it, drug induced hallucinations from gas coming out of caves, borrowed and morphed mythology ... I see these themes continuing on into the NT. People still interacted with and saw "angelic beings", and even the Holy Spirit accounts sometimes involve physical manifestations, etc.

Having said all of that, it's my partial understanding that one of the ramifications of the Jesus narrative (and one of the points of Jesus' purposes in the first place) is the opportunity for human beings to become something "new" ... spiritually speaking. A "son of God", or child of God, etc. This new spiritual nature was the result of one receiving the Holy Spirit, for example ... and one of the reasons a believer may be asked if they had received the Holy Spirit, so on and so forth.

It's my understanding to some degree, that the "Spirit" is a *thing*. That is to say, it isn't just treated as a concept. It was by the Spirit that "miracles" were performed, people became something "new" spiritually, so on and so forth. In other words, it reflected in reality, material/physical reality. It was an "entity". When one received it, they too experienced a change and became something new.

This is contrasted to one who "just believes", as I read it. A believer "believes". But that doesn't necessarily mean they have received this new nature and *change*. Belief involves a perspective on the veracity of a concept or thing in which one is using their mind/brain lol. Nothing necessarily "spiritual" about that. Anyone can have a belief, or lack a belief. Depending on new information or change in input, perhaps one's beliefs will change as well. If you experience brain injury, disease, etc lol ... your beliefs may change radically obviously lol, as your ability to even perceive reality has become impaired. IOW, I'm trying to point out it's basically "just biology". It is the "Spirit" component that is unique in regards to actually changing a person into something "new" and having this reflect in ways that may distinguish them from "people who have beliefs" only in such a context.

I believe perhaps that the average "Christian believer" equates belief and the mind with "Spirit", and is essentially why the average believer has to consistently appeal to arguments, their own mental constructs, pointing to the accounts of others, appealing to emotion/etc in order to try and discern a "change" ... or they attempt to discern who is or isn't a "true believer" by observing changes in moral behavior, which often involves various forms of mental discipline and mental gymnastics, sometimes denial ... because there is nothing "Spiritual" they can point to. The majority of what they are pointing to and using as a reference is within their own mind/feelings/etc, or the claims of someone else. IOW, they are appealing to JUST their own belief and assuming that belief is the same as something "supernatural". Thus, feelings become supernatural, thoughts become supernatural, and changes in behavior become "supernatural". When it's all "in their mind", or I suppose I could say, "in their body" lol. It's a false identification. I think this is one reason why, oddly enough, the claims of the believer often are contradicted by the very scriptures they continually point to. Those scriptures are rife with examples of material/physical events taking place, even on into the NT. Even Paul asked other believers if they had received the Spirit yet for example, etc. Yet the average believer often claims transcendence, I think, in order to align with their own reference point ... their lack of anything to point to apart from their own mental constructs.

So having said all of that ... circling back around to Graham ... entering a "new situation" as it regards belief, I don't see where that's necessarily the case of what he's saying, where a person is now entering a new system of belief or leaving their old one behind, etc. Because one could arguably have a "spiritual change", which renders their "belief system" irrelevant. Taken with the above understanding in mind ... when Graham is talking about the "light", if one were to equate that with "Spirit" for example ... a potentially material "thing" to some (pseudoscience at this point) ... then Graham is actually talking about a change within the nature of the person. Not an emotional change, or mental status change, but a "spiritual" change. Thus the beliefs of the mind ... become irrelevant at that point in some capacity. Whether they keep believing "whatever" or not, that "spiritual change" has taken place. That is the new situation, and it didn't involve coming out of a belief system or not.

I'm not saying that is what Graham was definitively saying or not ... I tried not to add to what he said or claim to know what he meant definitively. I'm putting it out there to show that, depending on one's interpretation (hundreds of thousands of them within "Christianity" ) ... one could hear what Graham was saying and presume he was meaning something other than addressing "belief".

ETA: To circle it back around to your own analogy ... that person who is oppressed in that nation, wanting to be part of the "free nation" they see and understand through the consulate ... from the above perspective, once the "change" occurs, they go from being a citizen of an oppressed country, to a citizen of the free nation automatically. Even though their position hasn't changed, their citizenship status has now changed. They may still be discomforted in their environment, but they are now a citizen of another place, regardless of where they are standing.

 

[TillICollapse]

It may not be necessarily true in your eyes; but it is regarding Biblical Christaianity, and Billy's intention.

Asserting that you know Graham's intentions doesn't mean that you do. I still don't get why you are content to assert something you haven't clarified as though it were fact. And "Biblical Christianity" is again vague and subject to interpretation.

 

[RDKirk]

Completely agree.

Would you agree, that if a God exists, he likely has characteristics?

Would you also agree, that basic Christian theology, applies characteristics to this God?

And since you stated what you did above, it appears you feel, any characteristics applied to a God, is speculation?

I would say God has characteristics.

And while I would not call human characteristics applied to God necessarily "speculation," I'd have to acknowledge that we don't really know exactly what they mean...except for Jesus. More on that in a second.

If we are confined to defining the characteristics of the invisible God the Father, we can't really say what "love" or "anger" or "benevolence" really means from His standpoint or how "love" from a being of His nature (which we can't comprehend) would translate to activity that we can see.

For example, have you ever watched dog handler Cesar Milan's "The Dog Whisperer?" In nearly every case of rehabilitating unmanageable pet dogs, the major problem is that their owners "love" their dogs...as though the dogs were humans. Milan has to teach them that if they do "love" their dogs, they must relate to them as dogs--and specifically as the alpha dog of the pack--in order for the dog to understand how it fits into the "pack" and thus be happy with its life.

But the behavior that is appropriate, comprehendible, and ultimately comforting to the dog is not what humans would regard as "love."

So we read in the OT that God loves us, but there appears to be a huge delta between the behavior we see from God in the OT and what we think "love" ought to look like.

I think to some degree there is also a delta between what Bronze Age Middle Eastern man thought "love" meant and what we mean.

And, of course, even we have a multitude of understandings, both lexiconical and psychological, of what love means. There are some strange concepts of "love" floating around.

To be frank in my mind, the OT is the history of what a group of Bronze Age men experienced with God...told from their Bronze Age point of view. There is truth to be gleaned, but reading the plain text is kind of like asking a five-year-old who has just seen the movie "Flatland" to explain what he's seen.

But in the NT, we have Jesus who it tells us is "the image of the invisible God." So in effect, God has literally anthropomorphized Himself. So sometimes when we compare the "angry God" of the OT with the "kind God" of the NT, we may have to conclude that at least on occasion Bronze Age man might not have gotten his anthropomorphizing of God quite accurate.

That doesn't mean we toss out the OT as Marcion proposed in 140 AD, but as the Church responded to Marcion, we keep it as a historical reference.

BTW, if you have not read the book Flatland or seen the animation, I highly recommend it as good exercise in how difficult it is to comprehend a different universe from our own. The book was written in the late 1800s--I first tried to read it when I was a kid and hurt myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyuNrm4VK2w

 

[Wryetui]

What about those who have searched for the One True God and claim to have found him in another religion? Maybe they would say the same thing to you?

You can't make any statements for them. The first error atheists do is that the "God" feeling in one's heart may be filled with every God or with every divine being. That's untrue, ask a hindu or a buddhist what he feels and then ask an eastern orthodox in Church, you will see that God matters.

Also, could you tell me any reasons why would you prefer to believe in any other God than the Biblical one? I find Him to be the more reliable One. I think almost all the atheists have a strong bias against the Bible and God.