Too many religions

[1robin]

I don't really want to argue over this as it detracts from the OP.

Then why did you post it? I belive the subject is relevant to this thread.

My premise is simple the vast majority of religions can be condensed to an essential core. I have found that there are some basic tenants within religions that I cannot reconcile basic belief.

So you believe that God hid bits of truth in mountains of garbage and would not give a single pure revelation. Whatever similarity religions have is due to the fact that they cover the same subject. That does not mean all or any are true. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one can see the father but through him", he also said that there is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved. That is pretty exclusive. Islam says we get to heaven by obeying certain arbitrary laws. Hinduism says we get there through self knowledge. If competing systems make contradictory claims to absolute truth it is impossible that more than one can be true. Plurality is indefencable.

My specific objection to Christianity is the fact that God incarnate is thought of as mortal whose sacrifice is the key to salvation. This concept of God becoming a part of and succumbing to the natural affairs of this word and the fact that it is he who needs to sacrifice himself is foreign to me. If they work for you then more power to you.

So because you do not like Christianity then it can't be true. I do not like pain but it still exists. You have quite a system there. If God is similar to humans then he is dismissed by you. If he acts too different from humans than he is dismissed by you. That's a heads you win tails they lose type of argument. He needed to provide the sacrifice because we do not have anything to offer to assuage our guilt. The sacrifice had to be pure and we are not. God became a man and suffered as we do so we may identify with him. He did this voluntarily for our benefit. If you say God can't do this then you are limiting God and he is then not God.

 

[Bismillah]

Then why did you post it? I belive the subject is relevant to this thread.

No, no it is not. I posted a response to the question "Too many religions". The fact that you got caught up in how I feel about your particular religion is in fact a distraction from the original purpose of this thread. If you wish however, I will entertain you for this post only.

So you believe that God hid bits of truth in mountains of garbage and would not give a single pure revelation.

That is ridiculous, I have no idea how you got that from "I have found that there are some basic tenants within religions that I cannot reconcile basic belief." some religions have at their core ideas that place limitations on God and are mere imitations of him. Never did I mention God's revelation but I did and do believe that if God exists and we are to know him the only way possible would be through direct revelation. At that time I believed it might be many things including the Torah, Bible, or the Baghad vita. Now I know it to be the Qur'an.

Whatever similarity religions have is due to the fact that they cover the same subject.

I agree there is often similarity between religions that is due to the fact that many times they originate from the same source, over time that message is lost.

Islam says we get to heaven by obeying certain arbitrary laws.

Islam says you get to heaven by acknowledging God and submitting to him.

Hinduism says we get there through self knowledge.

There is no concept of heaven as far as I know within Hinduism.

If competing systems make contradictory claims to absolute truth it is impossible that more than one can be true. Plurality is indefencable.

You seem to be arguing against perennialism for no particular reason.

So because you do not like Christianity then it can't be true

I do not dislike nor do I like Christianity. When I looked at it I had no specific feelings towards it nor did any such feelings lead me to my conclusion. It was basic canon that did.

If God is similar to humans then he is dismissed by you.

Yes if God is a man. If he has feelings, if he has a father, if he is a child, if he is part of a heavenly family, if he is able to feel pain at the hands of his creation, if he is humiliated by his creation, and if he is killed by his creation. This is not God, this is a mockery of God. This is nothing but an attempt to paint God so that we may understand him even though by the very nature of God we cannot understand him.

If he acts too different from humans than he is dismissed by you.

I have never made that claim nor do I presume to know God so as to dismiss him or know his actions. I dismiss claims asserted by religion not God.

The rest of your post.

No, I do not believe in original sin nor do I think humanity is under a collective guilt because of Adam. That is a unjust system, I am born pure and undefined it is then from that neutral state that I choose to become the person for which I will be judged. There is no reason to assert that God needed to sacrifice himself for my birth. That idea does not hold.

And more specifically, as I have already said, the concept of a heavenly father and his child. This is a perversion to me. A perversion of God and the idea that God undergoes tribulations and says "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." is not the words of a transcendent God. This is the words of a man who knows his precarious position and his helplessness within it.

I see Christianity and do not see God glorified and exalted be he. I found it within Islam.

 

[JustWondering]

If we as you say can opt to love or reject him then we have freewill. When we use that freewill to choose then God gives us exactly what we chose.

Ah, the inevitable freewill argument raises its ugly head. God creates a world in which man has only blind faith to save him from god's ire. If belief in god is soooo very important, why doesn't he make sure we KNOW who he is and exactly what he wants? You claim this god cares about us, yet he leaves most of us in the dark and then throws us away because what? We don't believe in one fantastical religion out of all the fantastical religions available to chose from? Or, gasp, we end up a dirty unbeliever altogether. Is your alleged merciful and loving god that narrow minded, petty, and stubborn? I have no more reason to believe in christianity then bigfoot, zeus, scientology, or the flying spaghetti monster. At least I'm fair. You claim you believe in your religion because of the "evidence", when in reality if you where born in india you'd be a hindu right now, or muslim if born in the middle east. How much of your belief actually comes from unbiased critical thinking and how much comes from what you where raised to believe?

 

[JustWondering]

I have witnessed hundreds of fulfilled prophesies and I have heard of hundreds more.

I think people's problem with the Bible is it seems to say "this is the way it will be" but people don't like that. People want things their way so they have to reject the Bible. I think it doesn't care.

That's nice. What prophesies have you witnessed being fullfilled?

 

[JustWondering]

Well if your God does not grant freewill he is even more malevolent than the Christian God. However God did not make us to rebel. He made us capable of choosing and we chose to rebel and God must reluctantly allow it. He did not create us to fail and meet destruction.

People don't get to choose what environment they are born into. So if they are born into an environment that promotes a different religion than christianity, where is the free will? If the only choices available to you are choice A or choice B, but the correct answer to avoid oblivion is choice E, thats kind of messed up don't you think? I don't see where free will works into this equation.

 

[JustWondering]

I have provided plenty, the fact you arbitrarily dismiss or ignore them without justification has no effect on their truth. Prophecy alone proves God. There is no alternate explenation for them. They exist, period. Until you can actually show biblical prophecy false then your claims above will remain invalid.

What prophecies?! You continue parroting "thousands of prophecies have come true!". What prophecies? Please list some. I'm just dying to see these fulfilled prophecies you keep talking about.

 

[paarsurrey]

What are you talking about? The evidence that he died on the cross and rose again has been said to meet every standard of modern law and the historical method by experts such as Simon Greenleaf who is the greatest expert on evidence in human history. The actuall events that the bible describes as to what happened on the cross exactly match what forensic medical experts say would have happened medically. The apostles who would have known if he didn't die on the cross however they all risked their lives and some lost their lives because they claimed he did die and rise again. Why would someone die for a lie? There is more textual evidence for the historical Jesus than any other figure of ancient history.

I don't think so.

It is all a made-up thing, in my opinion.

It does not meet any standards whatsoever, in my opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't really want to argue over this as it detracts from the OP.

My premise is simple the vast majority of religions can be condensed to an essential core. I have found that there are some basic tenants within religions that I cannot reconcile basic belief.

My specific objection to Christianity is the fact that God incarnate is thought of as mortal whose sacrifice is the key to salvation. This concept of God becoming a part of and succumbing to the natural affairs of this word and the fact that it is he who needs to sacrifice himself is foreign to me. If they work for you then more power to you.

I very much agree with you here.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You said a born again Christian should recognise Baha'a'lluah as the second coming (which is very offensive by the way). I was saying that is impossible and even if true he has provided nothing that would affirm his claim. The fact that 99.9% plus of Christians do not believe this should be an indication that his claims are false.

I believe recognition of Messengers of God requires spiritual awareness and power, which is to have spiritual eye. It has nothing with worldy and learned knowledge as the first requirement.
The Message of Baha'u'llah and His character in my view is perfectly spiritual and fruitful as Jesus said, you know them by their fruits. He never said they have to do miracles for you, they have worldly power, or they would make everyone a believer.
So, essensially, the way you examine the truthfulness of His claim, is not even Biblical.

Some do some don't. If no one can identify the truth then why give it. God makes sure that his truth may be recognised by any one willing.

I would say God would make sure His Truth may be recognized by anyone who is sincere. Why the Pharasees did not recognize Jesus?

If Baha'i was as powerful a truth as the Gospels then it too would have over come every obstical. It unlike the bible happened in a time where the internet, printing press, and televised media exist. I do not think people are stupid is a good excuse for the fact that very very few agree with your views.

Question, How long it took for Christianty to be spread in the world?
It's true that the Baha'i Faith has the advantage of internet now. But Christianity right now also has the advantage of internet. Why then the majority of people are not Christians?
Moreover, Christinity started in an age, when people did not have as much materialism, technologies and other things that are materialistic in nature to take them away from being after the truth. Today, most people are so busy with all other aspects of materialistic life, that they are not really after the Truth.
Every age has its own problems.

Again not to be disrespectful but I have no more reason to value this statement as divine than some one's on the corner in New York city yelling at traffic. I do not trust anyone who claims things that are exclusive are all true and distorts every one elses scriptures in order to force them to say what they do not say, as well as claiming to be God without showing any proof of it. Sincerely what is the difference between that guy and the lunatic in the hospital claiming to be Christ. They both can't demostrate who they are, both distort logic to make their claims plausable, and both conclude it is our fault we can't recognise how right they are. Arabs said the same thing about Muhammad (another false prophet IMO) they told him if he was in contact with the divine to prove it by doing literal miracles like the older biblical prophets did to prove their origin. Of course Muhammad being a false prophet could not do any either. However the Bible is full of literal miracles to prove the origin of their claims. It is no wonder since your prophet doesn't rise to the level of biblical prophets that tearing down biblical prophets is the only tactic left.

No one can ever understand and appreaciate the greateness of the revelation that Baha'u'llah brought for this Age. It will take you years to learn it, and become somewhat familliar with His revelation.

 

[waitasec]

If competing systems make contradictory claims to absolute truth it is impossible that more than one can be true. Plurality is indefencable.

what is the purpose of claiming absolute truth?

 

[Astravalon]

You are confusing freedom with capability. I am free to will anything I wish but that does not mean my will can cause pluto to crash into venus.

Then your will is not free. A will is only as free in any meaningful way as it is capable of carrying itself out. You might be free to imagine all sorts of scenarios, and you may be free to wish the same, but if you cannot follow through with executing what you will, then it's dead on arrival, which is to say decidedly not free.

Also a Christian agrees to allow God to trump his will as needed.

Oh my! You are blatantly making humans out to be more powerful than God, here.

God needs our permission first before He executes His divine will? We need to "allow" God to execute His divine will before it can be carried out? This is in complete contradiction to what your own bible says, not to mention just the basic concept of God being ... well ... God.

And then you go onto explain away God’s obvious power in each verse that says otherwise. Amazing!

ALMOST ALL OF THESE IMPLY THAT WE CAN ACT CONTRARY TO THESE SUGGESTIONS BUT COUNCILS AGAINST THAT AND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT FREE WILL

I'm sure you've heard the saying that typing in all-caps doesn't make something true. Jesus also commanded the sick to get well, yet this doesn't imply that the sick could will their own healing without Him actively causing the healing to happen.

Jesus was an example of perfect surrender. If we can do nothing but perfectly surrender then why aren't we all as perfect as Jesus.

Yeah, why aren’t we, especially with all that “free will” we have on hand. Might the bible's mention of being "slaves to sin" shed any light on that? What part of "slave" sounds "free" to you?

The fact that he asks us and demostrates this surrender of will would only make sence if we could not do so.

And that makes absolutely no sense.

No one would tell the sun to be hot, it has no choice. God says be obediant because we can not be.

One thing I don’t miss about being a Christian is the cognitive dissonance involved... God tells us to be something we can’t be? Really?

How did you look all these up? It must have taken a while. This effort deserves a better cause. I would post all the verses that make freewill a fact but I am exhausted.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had reintroduce Christians to what should be an obvious difference between sovereign Divinity and mere humanity as presented in their own bible. The arguments I get from Christians (on this subject and countless others) come up as predictably as the seasons of the year, so rather than get carpal-tunnel retyping everything from scratch, I hang on to the information I've accumulated over the years and re-apply it as needed.

Explain this: Why would God command Adam to not eat of the tree unless he was capable of disobeying and doing it anyway?

I'm not sure ... why would He issue that command knowing darn well in advance that Adam was going to disobey anyway? All assuming, of course, that the story is even true.

Let’s turn it around: If the capability of disobeying is automatically assumed whenever a divine command is issued to a person, why did Jesus bother to command the sick to be well? Is illness also a matter of human choice?

Why would God make him immortal in the first place if later Adam had no choice but to eat from the tree and become mortal?

According to Genesis, Adam did not start out immortal. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons God chased them out of the Garden after the fall: so that they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live forever in their fallen state.

Genesis 3:22-24:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.​

 

[Astravalon]

People don't get to choose what environment they are born into. So if they are born into an environment that promotes a different religion than christianity, where is the free will? If the only choices available to you are choice A or choice B, but the correct answer to avoid oblivion is choice E, thats kind of messed up don't you think? I don't see where free will works into this equation.

Exactly.

Also, how can God be more concerned about micromanaging such cosmetic things as my gender, hair-/eye-color, skin-tone, and eyebrow-density, and yet leave something as vital as my eternity in my own hands? I mean, really … is He the Savior or just the make-up artist?

 

[1robin]

Then your will is not free. A will is only as free in any meaningful way as it is capable of carrying itself out. You might be free to imagine all sorts of scenarios, and you may be free to wish the same, but if you cannot follow through with executing what you will, then it's dead on arrival, which is to say decidedly not free.

All right this is just weird. A leaf may be free to float in the wind but it will never destroy a star. The definition of free will is a will that is not restricted within it's capacity. The points you are making above seem more consistent to trying to win a word fight by a technicality. I do not think you are doing that I just meant that is what it resembles. The actual issue is can Humans choose. The answer is yes.

Oh my! You are blatantly making humans out to be more powerful than God, here.

These last two statements are not up to your usual standards. I said, the Bible demostrates, God declares, and I stand behind the fact that we are given free will (within it's capacity). The vast majority of the time we can choose as we desire. However the consequences can't be chosen. In very rare instances God superceeds our will for his purposes. As a Christian we are capable of denying, supressing, or waiving any portion of the other 99.9% of the time that we normally exercise free will to allow God to act through us. Many preachers start sermons by praying God would help them and their limitations get out of his way. I have witnessed what happens when God's wil is given reign and it is impressive. Now, what part of this implies we are more powerfull than God?

God needs our permission first before He executes His divine will? We need to "allow" God to execute His divine will before it can be carried out? This is in complete contradiction to what your own bible says, not to mention just the basic concept of God being ... well ... God.

If you will read up on God's permissive will verses his active will then you will better understand what I am talking about. When a Christian surrenders his will to God this allows him to work through that Christian. If this were not the case Christians would all be the same as well as Churches. As it is you have very obedient ones that accomplish great things and dissobedient ones that bear far less fruit. There are times (and IMO you are confusing the two), where God determines to pro-actively carry out an action. In this case no resistance is possible. It shall be done as they say. Many times in the Bible great things are promised and carried out or not based on obedience, other things happen regardless.

And then you go onto explain away God’s obvious power in each verse that says otherwise. Amazing!

I do not think you are getting it. God carries out some things regardless of obedience. Many things are contingent on it. The fact that Abraham obeyed God was contingent on his first believing God. God said he searched for a person who would do this over the whole Earth until he found Abraham.

I'm sure you've heard the saying that typing in all-caps doesn't make something true. Jesus also commanded the sick to get well, yet this doesn't imply that the sick could will their own healing without Him actively causing the healing to happen.

Caps draw attention to things. I did not say they made them true. Jesus also said that faith made their healing possible in most cases. The woman who touched his garment was said to have great faith which allowed the healing. God does not continuously force things on people who resist them normally. Any God that would is not a loving God and makes humans into mindless automotons.

Yeah, why aren’t we, especially with all that “free will” we have on hand. Might the bible's mention of being "slaves to sin" shed any light on that? What part of "slave" sounds "free" to you?

Because man is rebellious in nature and very rarely does surrender his will completely. That fact that some do and some don't, and others do at times and do not at times proves that we have free will. If you were correct then we would all be tha same. As unregenrated (saved) men we all will secumb to sin continuously. As Christians that yoke can be broken to the extent we surrender our will. That is what we use our free will to do. If you were right all non believers would be equally sinful and all believers would be as pure as Jesus. Reality doesn't agree with your contention.

And that makes absolutely no sense.

One thing I don’t miss about being a Christian is the cognitive dissonance involved... God tells us to be something we can’t be? Really?

This post is a dissapointment compared to your previous ones. It makes perfect sence to tell some one to do this and not do that if we actually have a choice. What is the point of the ten commandments? In your world view it makes no sence to tell people to be obedient when they have no choice. I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact why are you even attempting to prove something that you say I have no choice whether to believe or reject? It is the same with objective values, every single person who ever lived acts as if we have freewill and objective value exist, daily. The fact that a few then deny the existance of them is paradoxical. I think the dissonence is not located where you claim.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had reintroduce Christians to what should be an obvious difference between sovereign Divinity and mere humanity as presented in their own bible. The arguments I get from Christians (on this subject and countless others) come up as predictably as the seasons of the year, so rather than get carpal-tunnel retyping everything from scratch, I hang on to the information I've accumulated over the years and re-apply it as needed.

And they are as real and true as the seasons of the year. Cherry picking verses and stripping them of their context has little value especially if the far more numourus verses that clearly indicate that free will exists are ignored.

I'm not sure ... why would He issue that command knowing darn well in advance that Adam was going to disobey anyway? All assuming, of course, that the story is even true.

I do not know whether the story is literal or symbolic.

Let’s turn it around: If the capability of disobeying is automatically assumed whenever a divine command is issued to a person, why did Jesus bother to command the sick to be well? Is illness also a matter of human choice?

You look at things in a very strange way. there are two possabilities here. 1. Jesus commanded a person to be healed independantly from their will. 2. Jesus saw the persons faith and then was able to command that he be healed.
Neither one suggests that 99.9% of the time and 100% of the time for most people that free will doesn't exist. I do not even follow the logic.

I will seperate these posts as they are too long. Please wait for the second post before you respond as I am still working on it.

 

[1robin]

According to Genesis, Adam did not start out immortal. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons God chased them out of the Garden after the fall: so that they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live forever in their fallen state.

This is inaccurate. Adam was allowed to eat of the tree (for the sake of argument let's say this is symbolic) until he sinned then his access to this life sustaining force was removed. In other words his sin meant he was cut off from God and the immortality that that relationship provided.

New International Version(©1984)
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

This verse has an inescapable conclusion. It says that when Adam does a certain thing that his status will change. It will change at that time to one that results in spiritual death. If his status changed then what was his status. A state of non-death. The bible says in other verses that death is the result of sin. Adam until he ate had not sinned and so could not have died. I assume you understand this is spritual death which is also tied to physical death. Adam spiritually died when he ate and that meant that God would no longer sustain him and so he would eventually die physically.

Genesis 3:22-24:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.</B>
​

All of the things in this verse take place after the fall and have nothing to do with his created state.

Lets look at some other verses. The ones you have posted had only an implication concerning our free will. I will post some that have a direct claim about that free will.

New International Version (©1984)
I will sacrifice a freewill offering to you; I will praise your name, O LORD, for it is good. The word used as free will here in Hebrew is:
n&#277;dabah
1) voluntariness, free-will offering
a) voluntariness
b) freewill, voluntary, offering
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
I will provide the original Hebrew or Greek in some cases. The NT was written in Koine Greek. I do not think it an accident that God used one of if not the most descriptive language in human history to communicate his revelations to us.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen! Let them rescue you in your hour of distress!"
Judges 10:14 Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!"

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. The word for willfully in Greek is: hekousi&#333;s and it means:
1) voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord
a) to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

New Living Translation (©2007)
Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly--not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. The Greek is: hekousi&#333;s again and means the same here.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. The word for will here in Greek is: hek&#333;n and it means:
1) unforced, voluntary, willing
2) of one's own will
3) of one's own accord
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1635&t=KJV

I can provide a great many of these direct and specific verses that imply freewill. I can also supply the commentary and context concerning the implications of the indirect verses you supplied however if these verses above will be dismissed then there is a precommitment to an ideology that would dismiss any amount of evidence and so more wouldn't help. Where the dissonance lies is I think, obvious.

 

[1robin]

Exactly.

Also, how can God be more concerned about micromanaging such cosmetic things as my gender, hair-/eye-color, skin-tone, and eyebrow-density, and yet leave something as vital as my eternity in my own hands? I mean, really … is He the Savior or just the make-up artist?

Well there are three choices here. 1. God could have set in place the laws of nature and they determined what eye color and sex you are. 2. God could have decided them specifically. 3. The one I think is the case is that God allowed nature to chose but was aware of everything that was selected and in very rare circumstances might have steered the selection. None of these have anything to do with whether we have free will or not.

God's love dictates that our allegience is determined by our choice. If he forced us to love him then that is not love. It is that love that he values not our eye color. He could never recieve true love if it was a forced decision. Free will concerning allegience is consistent with his purpose, decisions about eye color are not. Our eye color and every other specific ends in the grave any way. Your conclusion is not supported by the premise.

 

[1robin]

No, no it is not. I posted a response to the question "Too many religions". The fact that you got caught up in how I feel about your particular religion is in fact a distraction from the original purpose of this thread. If you wish however, I will entertain you for this post only.

I disagree but will drop it.

That is ridiculous, I have no idea how you got that from "I have found that there are some basic tenants within religions that I cannot reconcile basic belief." some religions have at their core ideas that place limitations on God and are mere imitations of him. Never did I mention God's revelation but I did and do believe that if God exists and we are to know him the only way possible would be through direct revelation. At that time I believed it might be many things including the Torah, Bible, or the Baghad vita. Now I know it to be the Qur'an. I agree there is often similarity between religions that is due to the fact that many times they originate from the same source, over time that message is lost. Islam says you get to heaven by acknowledging God and submitting to him.There is no concept of heaven as far as I know within Hinduism. You seem to be arguing against perennialism for no particular reason.I do not dislike nor do I like Christianity. When I looked at it I had no specific feelings towards it nor did any such feelings lead me to my conclusion. It was basic canon that did.Yes if God is a man. If he has feelings, if he has a father, if he is a child, if he is part of a heavenly family, if he is able to feel pain at the hands of his creation, if he is humiliated by his creation, and if he is killed by his creation. This is not God, this is a mockery of God. This is nothing but an attempt to paint God so that we may understand him even though by the very nature of God we cannot understand him.I have never made that claim nor do I presume to know God so as to dismiss him or know his actions. I dismiss claims asserted by religion not God.

The rest of your post.

No, I do not believe in original sin nor do I think humanity is under a collective guilt because of Adam. That is a unjust system, I am born pure and undefined it is then from that neutral state that I choose to become the person for which I will be judged. There is no reason to assert that God needed to sacrifice himself for my birth. That idea does not hold.

And more specifically, as I have already said, the concept of a heavenly father and his child. This is a perversion to me. A perversion of God and the idea that God undergoes tribulations and says "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." is not the words of a transcendent God. This is the words of a man who knows his precarious position and his helplessness within it.

I see Christianity and do not see God glorified and exalted be he. I found it within Islam.

I think I missunderstood the contention in your post. I thought you were saying you find all religions have parts of God's revelation buried in them. So my comments were inaccurate. Your statement was a little tough to follow. If you would like to discuss Islam would you go to a thread called:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/one-one-debates/134457-f0uad-1robin-koran-bible.html

The Muslim I was debating there has dissapeared and I wanted an answer to the last contention I made from a competent Muslim. As for this, I apologize for missunderstanding what you said.

 

[Astravalon]

All right this is just weird. A leaf may be free to float in the wind but it will never destroy a star. The definition of free will is a will that is not restricted within it's capacity. The points you are making above seem more consistent to trying to win a word fight by a technicality. I do not think you are doing that I just meant that is what it resembles. The actual issue is can Humans choose. The answer is yes.

You say humans can choose -- and I don’t disagree, we can make all sorts of choices. But whether we get what we choose is a different story (and I think you also mentioned this as well). This is where I see the limitation in our freedom to choose. The sky’s the limit in our imaginations, but in actual execution of what we imagine or will, what freedom there may be is quite limited.

If you will read up on God's permissive will verses his active will then you will better understand what I am talking about.

I’m aware of the concept of God’s permissive/active will. I also believe that even the act of submitting to Him is a work He does in the individual, not something He must wait for the individual to do before He can work through them. I’m thinking of Paul on the road to Damascus -- he was nowhere near wanting to submit before he literally got knocked off his high horse. While we don’t actually see that happening all the time at the physical level, I think the dynamic is still there even in the invisible realms of a person’s heart.

Again, though, this gets into synergism vs monergism, especially as it pertains to soteriology, and the distinctions are something you might want to read up on if you haven’t already done so.

God carries out some things regardless of obedience. Many things are contingent on it. The fact that Abraham obeyed God was contingent on his first believing God. God said he searched for a person who would do this over the whole Earth until he found Abraham.

I think that even belief is something God does in a person. It’s not that He waits for them to believe; He’s the one who quickens that belief to begin with, imo. As the bible says, the work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent. Same with repentance -- it’s something the bible says God grants to a person.

Jesus also said that faith made their healing possible in most cases. The woman who touched his garment was said to have great faith which allowed the healing. God does not continuously force things on people who resist them normally. Any God that would is not a loving God and makes humans into mindless automotons.

Like belief and repentance, faith is a gift of God, something He works in a person, imo. I don’t believe becoming more Godlike/Christlike is tantamount to becoming more Robotlike -- unless God/Jesus Himself is a robot?

Because man is rebellious in nature and very rarely does surrender his will completely. That fact that some do and some don't, and others do at times and do not at times proves that we have free will. If you were correct then we would all be tha same.

Like I’ve already indicated, I don’t believe God is at the mercy of our inclination to surrender. I also don’t think the lack of a clone-effect is any indicator that God isn’t working in each individual according to His purposes.

In your world view it makes no sence to tell people to be obedient when they have no choice. I have no idea what you are talking about.

In your previous post (#333), you had said “God says be obediant because we can not be.” That made no sense to me. Why would He tell someone to do something that He knows in advance they cannot or will not do? If He enables them to do it, that’s a different story, and He knows He will and that they will do it. But I took your statement to mean that God tells us to be/do something He knows won’t happen.

You look at things in a very strange way.

Thank you!

there are two possabilities here. 1. Jesus commanded a person to be healed independantly from their will.

This is what I believe to be the case, yes.

2. Jesus saw the persons faith and then was able to command that he be healed.

So it’s not really Jesus that does the healing, but the person’s faith. Similar to the case that is seemingly made about salvation.

If faith in something were all that was needed, why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn’t God have provided something less barbaric than crucifixion for us to put our faith in and spare Jesus the torture, since it seems to be more the faith -- rather than that in which it’s placed -- that does the healing/saving?

 

[Astravalon]

This is inaccurate. Adam was allowed to eat of the tree (for the sake of argument let's say this is symbolic) until he sinned then his access to this life sustaining force was removed.In other words his sin meant he was cut off from God and the immortality that that relationship provided.

New International Version(©1984)
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

I know Genesis 2:9 mentions that there were already other trees for food, etc. But where does it indicate that he ate from the tree of life specifically prior to the fall?

Also, if he started out immortal, the threat that he would surely die would be meaningless. Immortality, by definition, doesn’t see death.

I can provide a great many of these direct and specific verses that imply freewill. I can also supply the commentary and context concerning the implications of the indirect verses you supplied however if these verses above will be dismissed then there is a precommitment to an ideology that would dismiss any amount of evidence and so more wouldn't help. Where the dissonance lies is I think, obvious.

I’m aware of those verses.

This just supports my belief that the bible, like any religious text, will contain its fair share of contradictions. This in no way means that it doesn’t contain a good chunk of wisdom, however.

I'm pretty sure there's not a single person who isn’t operating under a precommitment to an ideology, so I’m in very good company there. There's little point to having a belief if one isn't at least somewhat committed to it.

Fortunately, as I believe God is leading us all into His truth, the ideology to which one is committed tends to evolve over time. This is one of the things that makes spiritual growth such an adventure!

Well there are three choices here. 1. God could have set in place the laws of nature and they determined what eye color and sex you are. 2. God could have decided them specifically. 3. The one I think is the case is that God allowed nature to chose but was aware of everything that was selected and in very rare circumstances might have steered the selection. None of these have anything to do with whether we have free will or not.

However, it does show what, by God's design, will respond to our wills and what will not respond to our wills. And it would seem to show that the cosmetic front is more important for Him to set in stone than the salvation front, assuming human free-will has an impact on salvation.

God's love dictates that our allegience is determined by our choice. If he forced us to love him then that is not love. It is that love that he values not our eye color. He could never recieve true love if it was a forced decision. Free will concerning allegience is consistent with his purpose, decisions about eye color are not. Our eye color and every other specific ends in the grave any way. Your conclusion is not supported by the premise.

I don’t think He’ll necessarily have to “force” people to love Him. I think it’ll pretty much be a no-brainer for each individual as their time comes. They’ll feel no more forced to love Him than they felt forced to love anyone else in their lives.

As it is, we are commanded to love one another, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Christian complain that they were being “forced” to love others. So, why should they think “force” comes into the equation in the case of loving God? Especially if one is convinced that He’s the most radiant, beautiful, gorgeous, loving entity one has ever laid their eyes on. He’s not called the “Beatific Vision” for nothing.

No, I don’t think people will be forced to love Him. When they see Him, they’ll probably wonder why they didn’t fall in love sooner and wonder why He didn’t “force” them to.

All imo, of course.

 

[1robin]

You say humans can choose -- and I don’t disagree, we can make all sorts of choices. But whether we get what we choose is a different story (and I think you also mentioned this as well). This is where I see the limitation in our freedom to choose. The sky’s the limit in our imaginations, but in actual execution of what we imagine or will, what freedom there may be is quite limited.

I can agree to this for the most part. However what our wills can and cannot accomplish is not a restriction on will but on consequences. I do not know about you but I thank God that our wills do not produce unlimited or unrestrained consequences. Some one would have willed humans out of existance within a few years of the fall.

I’m aware of the concept of God’s permissive/active will. I also believe that even the act of submitting to Him is a work He does in the individual, not something He must wait for the individual to do before He can work through them. I’m thinking of Paul on the road to Damascus -- he was nowhere near wanting to submit before he literally got knocked off his high horse. While we don’t actually see that happening all the time at the physical level, I think the dynamic is still there even in the invisible realms of a person’s heart.

This is mostly agreeable with me. God acts in cooperation with our will to accomplish a vast number of the total but he actually superceeds our wills in very extreme circumstances.

Again, though, this gets into synergism vs monergism, especially as it pertains to soteriology, and the distinctions are something you might want to read up on if you haven’t already done so.

My needs are not sophisticated or complicated enough as to require full knowledge of topics with these $100 labels. I do not think Abraham or Isaac would have been able to give a dissertation on them.

I think that even belief is something God does in a person. It’s not that He waits for them to believe; He’s the one who quickens that belief to begin with, imo. As the bible says, the work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent. Same with repentance -- it’s something the bible says God grants to a person.

Well I mostly agree. In my case I sought God and he responded with what I would call an invitation. I responded in the affirmative and I was granted a supernatural experience that produced a level of faith I did not have before the event. Jesus says for us to knock and he will open. For us to diligently seek and he will be found. All of these are consistent with two things. We are free to choose to persue him or not but the salvation event that produces what Christian's call saving faith is not produced by effort.

Like belief and repentance, faith is a gift of God, something He works in a person, imo. I don’t believe becoming more Godlike/Christlike is tantamount to becoming more Robotlike -- unless God/Jesus Himself is a robot?

Faith is the gift OF God. However it can be denied or accepted by our exercising free will.

Like I’ve already indicated, I don’t believe God is at the mercy of our inclination to surrender. I also don’t think the lack of a clone-effect is any indicator that God isn’t working in each individual according to His purposes.

This would have to be clarified before it bacame meaningfull in each specific claim. God grants free will the majority of the time however he may be working to reveal himself etc.... in that persons life but he does not normally do so by force.

In your previous post (#333), you had said “God says be obediant because we can not be.” That made no sense to me. Why would He tell someone to do something that He knows in advance they cannot or will not do? If He enables them to do it, that’s a different story, and He knows He will and that they will do it. But I took your statement to mean that God tells us to be/do something He knows won’t happen.

If I said go to the store when it was inevitable that you would go to the store anyway it would make no sence. God said to be something because the fact that we could refuse exists. One of the most profound verses in the bible is:
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
I just realised you were trying to clarify a missunderstanding but I will leave the above as it is good stuff any way but I got your point.

This is what I believe to be the case, yes.

That is by far the least likely of the two choices and seems counter to the pupose of the healing. In most instances of healing and healing teachings in general faith is said to be necessary. There may be an example where it was not but the vast majority of which this is an example tie faith and healing together.
New International Version(©1984)
When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" "Yes, Lord," they replied.
Bible Search: do you believe that

In no other concept is faith so important than Christianity. It is the gas to the car so to speak. No faith no Christianity. Healing without faith besides being irrational is also at cross perpuses with God and Christ's claims and desires. The whole sorted tale from Genesis to Rev is about faith.

So it’s not really Jesus that does the healing, but the person’s faith. Similar to the case that is seemingly made about salvation.

This is inaccurate with my view. The saving and healing are all God or Christ's work. It is sort of like the fact that a meachanic can fix your car but you have to believe he can to the point that you will allow him to do so. I know that's crude but you get the point.

If faith in something were all that was needed, why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn’t God have provided something less barbaric than crucifixion for us to put our faith in and spare Jesus the torture, since it seems to be more the faith -- rather than that in which it’s placed -- that does the healing/saving?

Once again a person telling God what he should have done is the equivalent of a mouse telling Tiger Woods how to putt. We just do not have a fraction of the information needed to make that decision. You are leaving out all kinds of things in your characterisation of the event.1. It is the greatest example of self less compassion in human history. 2. God's absolute justice demands a payment for our killing, raping, injustice, etc.... We do not have anything to offer. The offering must be perfect. That is why the animals in the OT testiments that signified Christ had to be perfect. 3. Only God could supply the payment necessary. 4. Jesus was to be an example to us which means he had to be obedient and he had to suffer as we suffer. 5. THere is also a bunch of others concers like a curse on the blood line of David, prophecies etc... The crucifixion answered or addressed about a million concerns. No lesser act could have accomplished a fraction.

 

[1robin]

I know Genesis 2:9 mentions that there were already other trees for food, etc. But where does it indicate that he ate from the tree of life specifically prior to the fall?

I am not sure that is stated specifically however the fact that his status was changed to reflect that he would die means his previous status was that he would not die. The fact that he was at a certain point denied access to the tree of life means that prior to that time had access. I would look it up but I do not think it is necessary given these two contentions. Also I will throw in that many Christians believe days in genesis are long periods of time and the fact that he existed for a very long period of time if this is true means that he was immortal as well as the other points I made. Sin is what causes death and sin didn't exist until much later than the creation.

Also, if he started out immortal, the threat that he would surely die would be meaningless. Immortality, by definition, doesn’t see death.

I am sure this would be solved by looking up the Hebrew words involved. I understand your point but many conditions, promises, and predictions are condition based and Adam failed the conditions of obedience. This is more of a semantical argument and the original words would have to be identified and defined.

I’m aware of those verses.

This just supports my belief that the bible, like any religious text, will contain its fair share of contradictions. This in no way means that it doesn’t contain a good chunk of wisdom, however.

Once again to assert contradiction without an example that can be scrutinised doesn't help a position. I find all assumed contradictions are easily cleared up. Pick one and I will demonstrate.

I'm pretty sure there's not a single person who isn’t operating under a precommitment to an ideology, so I’m in very good company there. There's little point to having a belief if one isn't at least somewhat committed to it.

That is only a problem if the pre commitment determines what is true and not the other way around. I agree most people do this and all people including me are affected by it. I however allow for it as much as possible. Sherlock said, never decide on a theory before all the evidence is examined because the theory is used to determine what the evidence means instead of the other way around.

Fortunately, as I believe God is leading us all into His truth, the ideology to which one is committed tends to evolve over time. This is one of the things that makes spiritual growth such an adventure!

Then why does a large part of the population care less about God. The bible records that believers are always a remnant. It also says that few will enter by the narrow door but wide is the path to destruction. I believe pluralism is about as wide as it gets.

However, it does show what, by God's design, will respond to our wills and what will not respond to our wills. And it would seem to show that the cosmetic front is more important for Him to set in stone than the salvation front, assuming human free-will has an impact on salvation.

No, it indicates that cosmetics are so unimportant that he simply set a system up to choose them arbitrarily but salvation being more important and requireing free will to meet his pupose that he gave it to us and came and died to prove his claim of deserving our love. Your method of looking at this doesn't seem to fit the subject. It would be more appropriate to industial engineering maybe. You are asserting that our role in salvation means it is less important without any way to justify that claim. If I was teaching a child I did not care about a lesson I did not care about I would just force it. If I cared about the child and the lesson I would explain it so the child could freely understand and choose it himself. Our ability to deny the offer is what makes our accepting it so meaningfull to God and us.

I don’t think He’ll necessarily have to “force” people to love Him. I think it’ll pretty much be a no-brainer for each individual as their time comes. They’ll feel no more forced to love Him than they felt forced to love anyone else in their lives.

Any decision where the undesired conclusion is rendered incapable of being made is not a decision it is forced compliance no matter how it is dressed up. That condition of affairs is not consistent with God's purpose. Is this what you believe your God is like?

As it is, we are commanded to love one another, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Christian complain that they were being “forced” to love others. So, why should they think “force” comes into the equation in the case of loving God? Especially if one is convinced that He’s the most radiant, beautiful, gorgeous, loving entity one has ever laid their eyes on. He’s not called the “Beatific Vision” for nothing.

Being told to do something has nothing to do with being forced to do anything. It is not even the same as being capable of always doing it. That is why Christ had to die because no one could perfectly obey, most don't want to, and some don't care. We are told what should be done and then we can choose to obey or not. Christians have an altered sence of morality that is far more inline with God than before we are born again. I have heard multitudes of non Christians speak bitterly about even being put in a position where love was expected. I am one of them or was. In fact I would try to love any others I am around but would rather be spared the condition of being expected to give love to someone I found un loveable. I would have to choose his will over mine but could choose the opposite.

No, I don’t think people will be forced to love Him. When they see Him, they’ll probably wonder why they didn’t fall in love sooner and wonder why He didn’t “force” them to.

The problem with that according to the bible is that will indeed take place but only after it is too late to choose. The bible says that every knee will bow and every mouth will confess that Jesus is Lord, only it will not help people who are doing so after they have died and the truth will no longer help.

All imo, of course.

I think that is understood by now and applies to just about everything any one says about anything including me. It is the evidence that backs up our claims that makes them meaningfull or not.