| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2010 11:34:57 PM · #1326 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't particularly believe in Original Sin in the manner you describe. Certainly the "capital offense of being human" is fulfilled in each and every one of us at some point through our own actions even by our own individual standards (so perhaps we can leave out the babies as innocents after all). |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I didn't say anything about babies actually... I believe (as do most Christians that I know) that babies fall into the same category as all the people that never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Yes, creation testifies to the wonders of God, but for most people that's not enough to come to faith. But those who don't really get an honest chance will not be automatically damned. If God condemned babies that would defeat the entire purpose of free will. |
Uh, oh... as soon as babies come into the picture, you backpedal. You've both declared as a given (repeatedly) that humans are ALL sinners requiring salvation. If innocent babies are born damned, then the benevolent, loving model of God doesn't work. If babies do not qualify, then your declarations are false. If you claim that they all grow up to be sinners, then that would also be false since infant mortality and mental illness preclude even that possibility. If babies fall into the same category as those who never heard of Jesus, then ignorance of Christianity is a better position than assumed damnation. The claim that we are all sinners requiring salvation (and all that follows from that) simply cannot be true. As illustrated above, you can't even accept it yourselves!
I've noticed many times in these threads that a given religion is assumed to be basically consistent and offering clear guidance by its adherents until a precept is actually extended to a logical conclusion, and then all of a sudden it doesn't apply. The more fervent the believer, the more likely those with moderate positions will back off when an "obvious," but extreme conclusion is reached. That point is different for different people— maybe when dinosaurs are claimed to have been on the Ark, or it used to be OK for God to encourage rape and murder, or maybe when innocent children are assumed to require forgiveness for mortal sins— but it's readily apparent in these threads. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 11:42:05 PM · #1327 |
Not so fast. I am prepared to accept babies as being under sin, but I am also prepared to accept their exception (say that three times fast). I do not question God. The clay does not question the potter, "why do you make me so?" Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. My answer is essentially, "I don't know what happens to babies", which you have stated is a reasonable answer if we don't have all the facts. Of course, neither of us are babies and so in the context of our own conversation, the point is moot.
Message edited by author 2010-02-18 23:43:20. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 11:44:05 PM · #1328 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't particularly believe in Original Sin in the manner you describe. Certainly the "capital offense of being human" is fulfilled in each and every one of us at some point through our own actions even by our own individual standards (so perhaps we can leave out the babies as innocents after all). |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I didn't say anything about babies actually... I believe (as do most Christians that I know) that babies fall into the same category as all the people that never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Yes, creation testifies to the wonders of God, but for most people that's not enough to come to faith. But those who don't really get an honest chance will not be automatically damned. If God condemned babies that would defeat the entire purpose of free will. |
Uh, oh... as soon as babies come into the picture, you backpedal. You've both declared as a given (repeatedly) that humans are ALL sinners requiring salvation. If innocent babies are born damned, then the benevolent, loving model of God doesn't work. If babies do not qualify, then your declarations are false. If you claim that they all grow up to be sinners, then that would also be false since infant mortality and mental illness preclude even that possibility. If babies fall into the same category as those who never heard of Jesus, then ignorance of Christianity is a better position than assumed damnation. The claim that we are all sinners requiring salvation (and all that follows from that) simply cannot be true. As illustrated above, you can't even accept it yourselves!
I've noticed many times in these threads that a given religion is assumed to be basically consistent and offering clear guidance by its adherents until a precept is actually extended to a logical conclusion, and then all of a sudden it doesn't apply. The more fervent the believer, the more likely those with moderate positions will back off when an "obvious," but extreme conclusion is reached. That point is different for different people— maybe when dinosaurs are claimed to have been on the Ark, or it used to be OK for God to encourage rape and murder, or maybe when innocent children are assumed to require forgiveness for mortal sins— but it's readily apparent in these threads. |
I don't really see how this is backpedaling. Babies aren't subject to the same judgment because they don't have a developed intellectual free will. I've always believed that Babies are exempt from judgment because they obviously aren't capable of making the decision to believe in him. Either way, I honestly have no idea who gets saved and who doesn't, only God knows. I don't even like to take a guess as to who believes and who doesn't, but I do know who is NOT even capable of making that choice, and that would be babies. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 11:45:03 PM · #1329 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not so fast. I am prepared to accept babies as being under sin, but I am also prepared to accept their exception (say that three times fast). I do not question God. The clay does not question the potter, "why do you make me so?" Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. My answer is essentially, "I don't know what happens to babies", which you have stated is a reasonable answer if we don't have all the facts. Of course, neither of us are babies and so in the context of our own conversation, the point is moot. |
Did I hear an echo??? Oh, that's just DrAchoo saying almost the same thing I did! |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 11:50:48 PM · #1330 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not so fast. I am prepared to accept babies as being under sin, but I am also prepared to accept their exception (say that three times fast). I do not question God. The clay does not question the potter, "why do you make me so?" Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. My answer is essentially, "I don't know what happens to babies", which you have stated is a reasonable answer if we don't have all the facts. Of course, neither of us are babies and so in the context of our own conversation, the point is moot. |
Did I hear an echo??? Oh, that's just DrAchoo saying almost the same thing I did! |
Good thing we talked to each other and cross-referenced our posts! ;) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:03:47 AM · #1331 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Either way, I honestly have no idea who gets saved and who doesn't, only God knows. |
Seems to me you've made several quite definitive statements on this matter in the past. Doesn't the fact that you have "no idea" kind of blow the whole premise of your system -- that you and only you (and those similarly indoctrinated) "know" the revealed Word of God? |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:10:31 AM · #1332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. |
Then what would we need saving FROM? The idea that everyone is a sinner doesn't resolve the problem, either. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:13:07 AM · #1333 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Did I hear an echo??? Oh, that's just DrAchoo saying almost the same thing I did! |
Jason agrees that babies don't have free will? I seem to recall him arguing against that point in the past. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:24:37 AM · #1334 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Again, condemnation and final judgment is really just a matter of God giving people what they want. If you want to be in a relationship with God then you go to heaven. If you don't want to have anything to do with God, or you straight-up reject him, then you've already set yourself on a collision course with hell. God doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself, and since we have free will God doesn't forcefully stop us, he lets us choose. |
I guess I am doomed to an eternity in Hell then... sorry I don't buy this scenario. Having traveled extensively and having had the good fortune to meet all kinds of people of different religious persuasions, including meetings with tribal spiritual leader, I seriously doubt yours is the only way to salvation. If indeed your God is that narrow minded then I guess I won't be on that boat to Valhalla... oh wait... that isn't you guys.
Originally posted by Melethia:
So if you are unlucky enough to live where there isn't internet in your language or a missionary in your village, or you lived in a time before the internet and no one ever told you the story of Jesus Christ, you are doomed to a life in hell, even though you never knew about it? |
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20. Creation itself testifies to God's glory, and everyone has seen creation. If you reject this then you've already rejected God, even if you've never heard his name. God is merciful and he will judge you based on what you know and and what has been given to you |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Oh I am quite certain that many have heard of creation... the issue is whether or not they heard of or believe in Christ. In the beginning Christ was not around but you would have those poor souls go directly to Hell notwithstanding ... can you not see the problem in that analogy.
|
Lastly, do you not see the problem with the bolded portion of this last comment you made...it seems to run counter to all that precedes it.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 00:33:06. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:28:14 AM · #1335 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Did I hear an echo??? Oh, that's just DrAchoo saying almost the same thing I did! |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good thing we talked to each other and cross-referenced our posts! ;) |
It's only a matter of time before someone here "proves" that we actually did correspond with each other...
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Lastly, do you not see the problem with the bolded portion of this last comment you made...it seems to run counter to all that precedes it.
Ray |
I don't really know what's going on to be honest with you. Some of you're quotes are goofy. I'm not really sure I know what you're asking anyways. Could you rephrase your question for me? |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:31:38 AM · #1336 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. |
Then what would we need saving FROM? The idea that everyone is a sinner doesn't resolve the problem, either. |
I'm happy to go down this rabbit hole with you if you want, but I'll need to know where you are coming from. You have to give me some background. I'm not going to have this conversation blind. It makes no sense to argue within the Christian framework with someone who is outside it. But if you were within the framework at some point, I could use that as the context for the conversation. You just need to fill me in on some details. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:33:49 AM · #1337 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't really know what's going on to be honest with you. Some of you're quotes are goofy. I'm not really sure I know what you're asking anyways. Could you rephrase your question for me? |
My guess is your bolded statement sounds much more "all paths lead to enlightenment" than other things you've said.
Frankly, if that's the point, I always find it ironic that nobody who ever has that conversation qualifies as someone who may or may not be judged only on what has been given to them. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 06:43:40 AM · #1338 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
So if you are unlucky enough to live where there isn't internet in your language or a missionary in your village, or you lived in a time before the internet and no one ever told you the story of Jesus Christ, you are doomed to a life in hell, even though you never knew about it? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Creation itself testifies to God's glory, and everyone has seen creation. If you reject this then you've already rejected God, even if you've never heard his name. God is merciful and he will judge you based on what you know and and what has been given to you. |
Perhaps you can explain how it is someone can reject something they know nothing of....
Your answer in its context is absurd.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 06:45:33 AM · #1339 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't really know what's going on to be honest with you. Some of you're quotes are goofy. I'm not really sure I know what you're asking anyways. Could you rephrase your question for me? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess is your bolded statement sounds much more "all paths lead to enlightenment" than other things you've said. |
Nah! Can't go there, that's one of them Buddha things.....more heathens.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 06:50:14 AM · #1340 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not so fast. (say that three times fast). I do not question God. The clay does not question the potter, "why do you make me so?" Your logical argument depends on your idea of Original Sin and I am prepared for the possibility that the Catholic Church got that wrong. My answer is essentially, "I don't know what happens to babies", which you have stated is a reasonable answer if we don't have all the facts. Of course, neither of us are babies and so in the context of our own conversation, the point is moot. |
Ya know......all this goes back to one salient point. How is it that anyone outside Christianity is supposed to hold an intelligent question and answer discussion since your "facts" vary by necessity. Where's the "correct" bible, with its provenance? I'm so tired of things like "We are all of sin, and condemned" and then you turn around and say, "I am prepared to accept babies as being under sin, but I am also prepared to accept their exception.". You're never consistent, you change your stories as it suits you, and basically, you hold this supposed moral high road that enables you to dismiss rationality by saying, "You don't understand Christian theology.".
Pretty convenient, and really exasperating.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 10:13:31 AM · #1341 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It makes no sense to argue within the Christian framework with someone who is outside it. |
That's a wonderful thing to say, and thank you for doing so. It allows for the consideration that such conversations are dreary stuff for "outsiders", and it admits that Christianity, as with all religions, is a closed system, impenetrable, unassailable, and unintelligible outside of indoctrination. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 11:32:02 AM · #1342 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=johnnyphoto]
I don't really know what's going on to be honest with you. Some of you're quotes are goofy. I'm not really sure I know what you're asking anyways. Could you rephrase your question for me? |
Okie... this is what you said:
" God is merciful and he will judge you based on what you know and and what has been given to you" and
"If you reject this then you've already rejected God, even if you've never heard his name"
My question to you is as follows: Just how exactly does this work?
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 11:53:51 AM · #1343 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Babies aren't subject to the same judgment because they don't have a developed intellectual free will. I've always believed that Babies are exempt from judgment because they obviously aren't capable of making the decision to believe in him. Either way, I honestly have no idea who gets saved and who doesn't, only God knows. I don't even like to take a guess as to who believes and who doesn't, but I do know who is NOT even capable of making that choice, and that would be babies. |
Out of interest, at what point does a child become subject to hell and damnation for not converting?
If a child is brought up by a Hindu family and brainwashed with the correctness of that religion, what is the deadline for rejecting his or her teaching (after which, if they have failed to convert, they will face eternal damnation)?
Should that child when old enough to understand comparative religion, but young enough to be totally dependent on his/her parents, reject the family belief system (and risk being thrown out of the house etc) or take the risk of delaying their conversion to Christianity and dying early (and risk facing eternal damnation)?
If I have been exposed to many environmental factors that predispose me to disbelieve Christianity, what is the difference between me not believing and a child or lost tribe not believing? I have never been given the proper chance in the same way as the child or lost tribe has not been given the proper chance.
Is any of this written down, or is all of this mere supposition over what you would like God to be (in relation to a God whose motives and ways are often said to be mysterious and unknowable)?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:19:08 PM · #1344 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll need to know where you are coming from... It makes no sense to argue within the Christian framework with someone who is outside it. |
Everyone is outside the Christian framework until indoctrinated, and it doesn't even make consistent sense to those within it! We've seen in these threads:
We all require salvation... except babies. The answers are all there... if interpreted correctly. The Bible is accurate and reliable... but I prefer this version. God doesn't lie... unless people already disbelieve. Every part of the Bible is true... although some parts no longer apply (we can't tell you which ones). God doesn't change his mind... but prayer can affect the course of events. The Gospels agree on all basic points... after we discard the ones that don't. Morality is not possible without God... kindly ignore Sweden and clerical abuses. Anything you ask in faith will be given... as long as it was already going to be given. Deeds don't matter... yet we're all condemned for deeds. You must have faith to save your eternal soul... but resurrected bodies have no soul. It's a fallacy to reject something because it's too complicated... but the universe/life must have a creator because it's so complicated. God cannot be measured or proven because He doesn't interact with the physical world... but prayer can protect people from a tornado. And the pièce de résistance: this all makes sense... as long as you already believe it makes sense.
For all the consistency and obviousness the faithful profess, each claim requires more tap dancing than a Broadway musical.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 12:21:03. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:37:18 PM · #1345 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
For all the consistency and obviousness the faithful profess, each claim requires more tap dancing than a Broadway musical. |
Don't forget the jazz hands . . . Fosse! |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:39:25 PM · #1346 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God didn't reject humans by default. Humans rejected God by misusing free will. |
Babies reject God at birth using free will. Riiiiiight! |
I'm still waiting for the rationalization of free will and predestination.
I really do not see how both can be in play. They are, by their definitions, mutually exclusive. |
Man, I had a great Rant free day. It's sunny outside and I wanna take some pictures. But I've contemplated this one quite a bit because it's a good question. Here's the best I've come up with.
They are different sides of the same coin. One is qualitative; the other is quantitative.
People concerned with Free Will ask this: Do I bring something to the deal of salvation? And the answer is, of course, yes; yourself. You choose to participate in the transaction.
People concerned with predestination ask this: Compared to God, what do I bring to the deal of salvation? And the answer is, of course, nothing. God chose your parents, your place of birth, the era you were born in, your genetic potential, all of which is completely out of your control and plays a very large role in who you become. God also brings the ability to save along with the grievance against you. In effect, God seems to hold all the cards.
The first is qualitative (yes or no), the second is quantitative (how much).
That's the conclusion I've come to anyway. Your mileage may vary. |
Not sure I can connect all those dots as it relates to free will and predestination, but I'll consider it.
Here's my take, and I am not near the philosophy student of you, Johnny, Shannon, Louis, et al.
You can't have it both ways with Free Will and Predestination. It simply doesn't work.
Either God is all knowing (Predestination) or he isn't (Free Will). These are absolutes. You can't have a little free will or an all knowing God can't know almost everything. It's like being a little pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. There is no in between.
If God knows all, meaning he has a plan that is laid out and knows the what, when, where, who and how of all things. Then surely he knows who and who will not be saved. But God in the old testament and Jesus in the new testament have at times expressed anger, sometimes extreme anger. Anger is born out of frustration, and frustration is born out of misread expectations, meaning God expected one result but experienced another. Did God know or did he not know that Adam and Eve would take the forbidden fruit? Did God know or not know that man would become so evil that we have to destroy all but a few with the great flood? Did Jesus know or not know there would be merchants and money lenders at the temple?
If they knew these things (all knowing, predestination) then why were they so angry? Surely an expected outcome cannot bring about that level of frustration.
If they did not know these things (free will) then obviously God is not all knowing.
You simply cannot have both.
Now, as a father of a 9-year-old, I can tell you with a certain degree of accuracy what my son will decided given a choice. But, he does surprise me sometimes. If it the same way with God, and we are the 9-year-olds, then I would imagine that he can predict what will happen most of the time even if we have free will. But if he can't be 100% accurate, then Predestination is off the table. If he can, then Free Will is a goner.
Does this make sense? I look forward to yours and anyone elses take on this. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:55:22 PM · #1347 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It makes no sense to argue within the Christian framework with someone who is outside it. |
That's a wonderful thing to say, and thank you for doing so. It allows for the consideration that such conversations are dreary stuff for "outsiders", and it admits that Christianity, as with all religions, is a closed system, impenetrable, unassailable, and unintelligible outside of indoctrination. |
This wasn't the reason I said that. I may be really slow, but at times I am more aware of the mental masturbation these threads represent. I'm not sure it's productive to have a conversation within the Christian framework with someone who rejects it on much more fundamental grounds. If there is no God, then who cares about whether babies go to heaven or not? There is no heaven. I am starting to see the benefit of not wasting my time. If Shannon will not take the time or effort to reveal the background for his knowledge of scripture, then why should I take the time to explain my take on it?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:59:47 PM · #1348 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Shannon will not take the time or effort to reveal the background for his knowledge of scripture . . . |
Why is his background relevant? If he gets scriptural references or interpretations incorrect - in your view - then you can certainly challenge him directly on those points. I really don't get your obsession with this point.
(And I am beginning to suspect that Shannon continues to keep it a secret at least in part because he knows it drives you so crazy that he does.) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:06:07 PM · #1349 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This wasn't the reason I said that. I may be really slow, but at times I am more aware of the mental masturbation these threads represent. I'm not sure it's productive to have a conversation within the Christian framework with someone who rejects it on much more fundamental grounds. If there is no God, then who cares about whether babies go to heaven or not? There is no heaven. I am starting to see the benefit of not wasting my time. If Shannon will not take the time or effort to reveal the background for his knowledge of scripture, then why should I take the time to explain my take on it? |
So now we have to qualify to be allowed to have this explained? You don't want to waste your time with us infidels? And you wonder why we get snarky for you believing you're better than others?
How about if you just explain why a child born into this world is condemned? Or why any of us are because of something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.
Did you watch that YouTube link Louis posted? What did you think of that? I know you didn't like it, if you watched it, but can you really say it was off base?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:08:02 PM · #1350 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Either God is all knowing (Predestination) or he isn't (Free Will). These are absolutes. You can't have a little free will or an all knowing God can't know almost everything. It's like being a little pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. There is no in between. |
I'd disagree with some of this. There are limits to your free will. We cannot will ourselves to be someone else. We cannot will a change in our genetics. We cannot will where we were born (although we could change where we live after). My explanation takes this into consideration.
I realize it seems paradoxical, but that does not necessarily make it illogical. Can an electron be in two places at once? When you approach it a certain way, the answer is "yes" which is quite paradoxical. Perhaps there is a way to understand the phenomenon without saying the electron is truly in two places at once, but it is complicated and requires a lot of background understanding. I think this is similar.
Sorry guys, I won't be able to post more today. I'm the only doc in the office and it's busy busy busy.
|
|
