|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: 641 |
 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Why would you say He can't sin? (Positing, for a moment, that He exists) He can, but chooses not to. Similarly, he could control a person's every action, but He has imposed on Himself a restriction that he gives us free will, so he doesn't. |
"Can't sin" is the traditional interpretation of "holy", although I must admit I'm having a hard time thinking of a Bible verse that would distinguish between "unable to sin" and "could sin, but never does".
| Zag wrote: |
| The more interesting question is how mankind can possibly have free will in the face of a truly omniscient deity. If he is omniscient, then he knows before any of us is born everything that person will do. |
Let's say I asked you right now, "Would you like to get on your knees right now and pray to become a Christian?" I'm 99.99% certain that if I asked you that, your answer would be "No". (Actually, I'm sure your response would be quite a bit more than just the word "No".  ) I can be 99.99% certain of that because I know you. Or at least, I know you well enough to make that determination. Does the fact that I'm 99.99% certain of your reply mean that you have no free will? Of course not.
And I'm just a human being, with limited knowledge. Now let's say we're talking about an omniscient God, who has perfect knowledge of you. Then his certainty about what you will do would be 100%, but still not infringing on your free will, IMO. (I put "IMO" in bold, because I'm 99.99% certain you will disagree with me. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject: 642 |
|
|
| Trojan Horse wrote: |
| Actually, I'm sure your response would be quite a bit more than just the word "No". |
Well, it would just be "no, thanks." I'm not offended by anyone asking. I'm a little offended by my brother (a Mormon) who promises that if he outlives me, he'll convert me after I die. But that's another argument.
My point about perfect knowledge removing free will is true if you assume (as scientists did pre-quantum-mechanics) that initial state always determines final state exactly. If that were true, then from the very initial steps of the creation of the universe, everything, every bounce of every oxygen molecule, every decision anyone made (including me writing these words) was already pre-determined by the initial state that was created. Since, presumably, God created that initial state, he created the conditions that would determine my every choice, and my free will would be only an illusion.
However, when you introduce quantum mechanics, then initial state does NOT determine final state: it determines the probabilities that different later states will occur, but not which state will actually be chosen. It's important to understand that the probabilities are not simply there to take into account our human inability to measure and understand to an adequate degree, they are built into the system. Even with perfect measurement and perfect knowledge, one can only know the probabilities of different possible later states and not the actual result which will be selected. THAT is the missing piece which means we have choices, that our every whim is not pre-decided based on the initial state of the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: 643 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| You must be able to show reason for Gods' motives not being poor independent of "because they aren't". If I start out not believing in God, then there is no reason for me to because Gods' motives are unknown, and to do what you're doing and give my life to do that is madness! |
I bolded that phrase because you'll note that I never once claimed a non-believer should give his life to God. If that is what you are trying to argue, then I whole-heartedly agree with you, and not only that, but you have a much stronger, simpler case than that. No one should invest anything is something they do not believe in. The idea that God's motives are unknown is simply neither here nor there. You can't take the position of a non-believer and then talk about "God's motives" as if they existed, but were simply unknown. It is sufficient to say no investment in something not believed in.
I have not talked at all about why someone should believe in God, as that was not originally part of your question. Being in this thread, your question was taken to be addressed to Christians and a Christian is someone who already believes in a God with only good motives. So to ask a Christian that question implies wanting to know the answer from the Christian perspective. And the simple answer from the Christian perspective is "having already come to believe that God's motives are always good, the fact that they may be mysterious does not make it dangerous to invest our lives in Him."
The real question that is left unanswered to you, it seems, is why would someone come to believe in the Christian God at all? And I think there are various motives and reasons for coming to believe in the Christian God among different Christians. They are not all simple and probably often occur over a gradual period of time, like anything else. It would be a long post to go over the many possible ways someone could come to accept the Christian God as true, but I'm happy to attempt it if that is the question you really want to ask.
| Deception wrote: |
| Sure, I get to say, "I gave my life to a divine and kind god", but how do I know that? Well I would know that because I believe! Why do I believe? Because I want to serve a kind god! Why do I know he's a kind and just god? Because I believe! |
Again, no where did you simply ask me or any other Christian why they believe in the Christian God. If that is what you want to know, just ask it. You don't have to try and trap us with chestnuts.
| Deception wrote: |
| If we "discovered" logic as it has been divined by god, then we wouldn't be changing it, and there wouldn't be so many problems. |
Why not? What if we are sharing in God's creation, and the joy of discovery? What if God is guiding us in the refining of this great tool? Christians believe that God is intelligent. Since intelligence entails logic, it follows that the Christian God uses logic.
| Deception wrote: |
| I'm sorry but I simply refuse to accept that god crafted a logical system which we have been refining for centuries (and STILL ARE) and which still has a plethora of issues it brings up. |
If logic is only something from the human brain, then how are we able to use it to predict the behavior of planets and stars light years away? The very intelligibility of the Universe indicates that logic is not merely localized here on earth.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: 644 |
|
|
First off:
If you are going to make the claim that this thread is only for responses from a Christian point of view, AND THAT such views do not need to consider a viewpoint which is not believing when defending their religion, then I question the integrity of this thread.
If you must first believe before you have reason to believe, then logically (there's your god given tool again) it should be the case that no one believes in god. If you begin not believing, then there is no reason to believe, then you won't believe. The only reason why Jesus supposedly had supporters is because he "performed miracles". If you can not demonstrate to me in the physical world Jesus doing these things, then why should I be convinced?
I do not want a round-about answer of why a Christian believes in God. To be honest, 90% of Christians are ignorant of their religion, even priests can't seem to keep up.
The question I ask will be the same as before (this conversation has developed, which should be no issue):
Why would someone give their life to a God whose [edit]motives[/edit] are unknown?
(sorry if I come off as rude, I am just passionate about this; I've talked to many Christians in particular, even priests who are very respected in their areas, and I kept running into a brick wall where they opt out of the conversation) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:00 am Post subject: 645 |
|
|
And my reply is going to sound a bit rude too. I think Bravehat gave you a pretty good answer, but I'll have a go as well.
The reason they opt out may be because you are asking silly questions? Or, rather, questions that are not about an answer but about attempting to prove some bogus logical point or other e.g. to ask whether God could create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it, is not a question about God, or, rather, it's not a question that would illuminate any aspect of God that matters. I am happy to live in a post-Enlightenment world, except that apparently people still seem to want to tell me that I believe in a pre-Enlightenment God. I have never had any problems with the idea that as we grow up our understanding of God might change just like our understanding of the Universe. I'd much rather discuss Free Will based on (as Zag notes) our partial understanding of Quantum Mechanics than on an outmoded simplified dichotomy of "Good" vs "Evil" in which Zeus-God is pitted against Satan in a battle of lightning bolts.
As to some other points :to claim that the only reason people followed Jesus was because he "performed miracles" is so totally to fail to understand things that it really isn't worth pursuing the discussion. You say that 90% of Christians are ignorant of their religion; as it happens I would agree with you to some extent, but I wouldn't say that your comments convince me that you know any more - it doesn't even sound as though you have read the Gospels let alone the rest of the Bible.
And finally, are you married? If you are, then you can probably answer the question you posed about God. If not, then try simply substituting the word "person" for "God" in your question and consider that instead.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: 646 |
|
|
Interestingly enough, I stuck to non-mainstream questions except for perhaps, the "euthyphro dilemma". I did refer to the "was is there evil etc" line of questioning once or twice, but it was never an argument on its own.
I don't see why I need to have a strong understanding of Christianity to have questions answered about it. Do you have a strong understanding about all the religions you don't believe in?
As to the last bit of your post, I am not married. I have some amazing friends, but I don't go so far as to simply give my life for them. They have been tested as well, not due to any system of checks I run, but due to the nature of friendships. If I have a friend whose background I know nothing about that I can verify independent of his word, then he isn't a close friend and there is no way you can possibly say I give my life to that person.
If I were married it's the same false-comparison. You know a lot more verifiable facts about your spouse and their motives than can be said about Gods' motives.
Feel free to directly answer my question any time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: 647 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I'm not sure what you mean when you say His motives are in question. I know that the nature of his motives are clearly believed to be good and in the best interest of both humans and the whole universe. This is accepted as a basic characteristic of the Christian God. |
(For context this is from post #638)
I have to take issue with the bolded portion. I've listened to a fair amount of Christian radio during my early hours at work, and there's a key idea I've heard alluded to often, and addressed in detail several times: The primary purpose of Mankind (and the whole universe) is to glorify God.
It's possible that the means of fulfilling that purpose are neutral or even hostile to the best interests of Mankind and the whole universe. I feel this is entirely consistent with an ultimately-good God. If such a God exists and considers glorification to be the ultimate good, then it is, by definition, ultimately good.
(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: 648 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| If you are going to make the claim that this thread is only for responses from a Christian point of view, AND THAT such views do not need to consider a viewpoint which is not believing when defending their religion, then I question the integrity of this thread. |
The name of this thread is "Ask about Christianity? (help appreciated)". Am I wrong in assuming it is intended to be a place where people can go to ask questions about Christianity??? And I never made the claim that this thread is only for responses from a Christian POV, as if I'm deciding what people can and can't say, but it certainly seems to be the main point of it. That or perhaps, from a non-Christian scholar of Christianity POV. All other POV's probably would not get too far in enlightening someone on questions about Christianity (thread title). But even disregarding that, if I see a question like:
| Deception wrote: |
| Given that we can't precisely discern Gods' motives, is it not questionable to serve him? Isn't it dangerous to give your life to a God whose motives are unknown? |
Even in the slightest chance that I was being unreasonable in assuming this question was asking for a Christian POV response (again, in thread entitled "Ask About Christianity..."), it was still the assumption I had in mind and NOT an attempt to avoid considering a non-believer viewpoint. So. Breathe.
Also, I was not even "defending" my beliefs. I was not intending to. I was trying to answer questions about them as truthfully as I know how.
| Deception wrote: |
| If you must first believe before you have reason to believe, then logically (there's your god given tool again) it should be the case that no one believes in god. If you begin not believing, then there is no reason to believe, then you won't believe. |
Where on EARTH is this coming from??? Certainly from nothing I actually said. I never said you must first believe before you have reason to believe. I said you must first believe before you have reason to give your life to God. Where is the miscommunication here? Are you just simply skimming over what I wrote in your passion or ignoring it completely? If the former, I advise you to stop and read it over again. Pay attention to antecedents and consequents. It is not circular, but linear. Here it is the form of a list:
Claim A: There are various reasons and motives that bring people to believe in the Christian God (reasons and motives which you apparently are not interested in)
Claim B: The Christian God entails the characteristic of always having good motives.
Claim C: Since the Christian God always has good motives, to the Christian, there is no danger in giving one's life to Him.
Please note the above is not a syllogism or an argument. It is simply a list of the claims I've made an in attempt to answer your question from the Christian POV (without going into any ways in which people might come to believe in the Christian God, ways which you, for some reason, don't want to hear).
| Deception wrote: |
| The only reason why Jesus supposedly had supporters is because he "performed miracles". If you can not demonstrate to me in the physical world Jesus doing these things, then why should I be convinced? |
First off, it's a pretty bold claim you made that the only reason Jesus had supporters was because of the miracles. What about His teachings? I obviously did not witness the miracles either, but the power of those red letters in the Bible certainly contributed to my accepting Him as the Son of God. And as for being convinced, it is not my intention to convince you. There are an infinite number of ways others and myself become convinced every day. If you aren't convinced, than leave it at that. If there's any truth to it, then maybe some day you will.
| Deception wrote: |
| I do not want a round-about answer of why a Christian believes in God. |
The nature of your question is such that the answer cannot actually be direct. One does not give ones life to a God unless one already believes that the God is real. It's just the basic order of operations here. The question cannot be answered from a non-believer POV.
| Deception wrote: |
| Why would someone give their life to a God whose [edit]motives[/edit] are unknown? |
I can see why you keep running into a brick wall. The question is a verbal Escher drawing. In order for it to be cohesive, it must present the concept itself of God as somehow more "known" than the nature of His motives. A priest or any other Christian is never going to answer this question to your satisfaction because in Christianity, both the concept of God and the nature of His motives (good) are neither one more known than the other. If one is "known" than the both are. If one is merely "believed" than they both are. So for a Christian, it turns out to be a trick question.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax
Last edited by BraveHat on Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: 649 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| I'm not sure what you mean when you say His motives are in question. I know that the nature of his motives are clearly believed to be good and in the best interest of both humans and the whole universe. This is accepted as a basic characteristic of the Christian God. |
(For context this is from post #638)
I have to take issue with the bolded portion. I've listened to a fair amount of Christian radio during my early hours at work, and there's a key idea I've heard alluded to often, and addressed in detail several times: The primary purpose of Mankind (and the whole universe) is to glorify God. |
Indeed, but Christianity also adds the primacy of God's Love for Humanity into the mix. So that, rather than an impersonal God, God is revered as a superpersonal God who always has our best interests in mind. The God of Christianity takes on the model of the Good Parent.
| Coyote wrote: |
It's possible that the means of fulfilling that purpose are neutral or even hostile to the best interests of Mankind and the whole universe. I feel this is entirely consistent with an ultimately-good God. If such a God exists and considers glorification to be the ultimate good, then it is, by definition, ultimately good. |
All correct, and not contradictory of the God who Loves Humanity. In other words, Our Father.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:20 am Post subject: 650 |
|
|
| (shrug) I love my Shoes, but when the soles wear thin i imagine I'll toss them out and get some new ones. Do you think that's unfair to the Shoes, in light of the fact that their primary reason for existence is to keep my feet comfy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: 651 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| (shrug) I love my Shoes, but when the soles wear thin i imagine I'll toss them out and get some new ones. Do you think that's unfair to the Shoes, in light of the fact that their primary reason for existence is to keep my feet comfy? |
No, but if the love you have for your Shoes was part of the very fabric of your being, you would probably recycle them. If they didn't want to be recycled you'd have to leave them on their own, and they'd become lost soles.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:29 am Post subject: 652 |
|
|
Okay, this is what I wanted to hear, and now I will tell you precisely the problem.
1 One who believes in God is sure of Gods' motives
2 One who doesn't believe in God is not sure of Gods' motives
3 The sureness of a believer is solely in the fact that he believes
4 The unsureness of a nonbeliever is in the fact that there is no reason independent of belief to be sure of Gods' motives
Now, it would seem that at any instant where one is at 2/4, they would be reluctant to believe, as believing would entail a servitude (for lack of a more appropriate word) to a being who he currently knows may have any motive which may conflict with his best interests.
However, if one goes to 1/3, then suddenly the issue is resolved. However, that is only an illusion, as the issue was in fact not resolved, but only seems so because one is a believer. You see, a specific mindset should not protect an erroneous premise (that god has good motives).
Christians have no problems, but non-Christians do. This is why I didn't want to hear the reasons that people "find God", because they are irrelevant to this point. Unless there is some thing which proves that Gods' motives are in their best interests (and there cant' be), then there is no basis for believing in God.
Now, we could proceed to go into a huge debate about whether people really experience God, and we could argue over whether those experiences prove Gods' motives, but it would be pointless. Reason being, that the claims cannot be disproved (nor proven), and as such, the motives can't be proven either (resulting in this problem I have).
I leave you hoping that you now understand, that your Gods' motives are only pure once you believe, however if you don't believe, they are suddenly not pure. Furthermore, unless divine interactions can be proven to exist between God and humans, and there is some evidence which concludes God is of pure motives from this, then Gods' motives will never be known to a nonbeliever. There are many explanations for people "finding God", and most of which I would bet do not prove Gods' motives, as I can't imagine many ways in which that could be done.
There will forever be an impasse between the nonbeliever who hasn't seen the "conclusive proof of Gods' motives that comes with some experience X and cannot be proven to others", and the believer (regardless of if they have seen the proof).
Thank you though, for your time. This talk has given me a firmer grasp of this religion, and more importantly the reason it can't be assaulted (and it's cheap ways of defense  ).
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:10 am Post subject: 653 |
|
|
I believe I have said in this thread (or similar ones) that I once concluded that a large part of the problem is that "we" live in two entirely different universes, one with God and one without, and the difficulty is that "we" all think we live in the same one. As your post observes, there is no common ground to be had when the best argument that I can use is perfectly satisfactorily countered with "well it doesn't for me." As I have no intention of forcing you to do anything, the argument will always end there. All I have ever said to anyone is that I think you are missing out. Because I get all the benefits of "your" universe plus I get God as well...
Then again, there are certain statements in this thread which I profoundly disagree with, especially the "servitude" one. (The "glorification" one is another.) For me, it's an equal deal. That's why I asked you the question about marriage - although as you point out, friendship is an equally good parallel. If you can't see why the "nature of friendship" is a good analogy then nothing I (or anyone else) can say will persuade you.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject: 654 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| 1 One who believes in God is sure of Gods' motives |
I believe in God. I also believe God is good, by my intuitive understanding of good, though I may not always be sure what in reality conforms to that understanding. I'm not sure God is good ... if not, I believe we'd all be pretty much screwed to the extent he isn't.
I see no reason why belief in God should entail certainty about his motives.
| Deception wrote: |
| 2 One who doesn't believe in God is not sure of Gods' motives |
Of course, if he doesn't exist, it makes no sense to think he has motives.
| Deception wrote: |
| 3 The sureness of a believer is solely in the fact that he believes |
I don't understand this.
| Deception wrote: |
| 4 The unsureness of a nonbeliever is in the fact that there is no reason independent of belief to be sure of Gods' motives |
Is an Eskimo unsure whether the light in his refrigerator goes off when he closes the door, when he has no refrigerator? It makes no sense. How can you be unsure of the nonexistent motives of a nonexistent God?
| Deception wrote: |
| Now, it would seem that at any instant where one is at 2/4, they would be reluctant to believe, as believing would entail a servitude (for lack of a more appropriate word) to a being who he currently knows may have any motive which may conflict with his best interests. |
I personally can't see choosing whether or not to believe a thing is true based on whether or not you like the implications.
| Deception wrote: |
| Christians have no problems, but non-Christians do. This is why I didn't want to hear the reasons that people "find God", because they are irrelevant to this point. Unless there is some thing which proves that Gods' motives are in their best interests (and there cant' be), then there is no basis for believing in God. |
I'm don't see how knowledge of God's motives are a prerequisite to believing he exists. I don't know the motives of many people who I know exist, why should it be different with God?
| Deception wrote: |
| I leave you hoping that you now understand, that your Gods' motives are only pure once you believe, however if you don't believe, they are suddenly not pure. |
"They are suddenly not pure" makes no sense. They don't exist. How can we talk about their purity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: 655 |
|
|
Deception, I think extro's responses basically express my sentiments, but are put more elegantly than mine. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to clear a few things up.
| Deception wrote: |
| 1 One who believes in God is sure of Gods' motives |
Straw man. This attempt to paraphrase my point turns it into an entirely different proposition. Allow me to edit to reflect what I am actually claiming:
1.One who believes in the Christian idea of God is sure of also believes that Gods' motives are good.
First edit: One may very well believe in a God without believing that His motives are good, but such a person is not specifically believing in the Christian idea of God, he is believing in some other idea of God.
Second edit: A Christian is only "sure of" the nature of God's motives to the extent that he is "sure of" His existence as the Christian God. Either change both relational phrases to "believe" or both to "sure of", but to say that he "believes in" the Christian God, but is "sure of" the nature of his motives is to muddle the fact that both assents are a singular act.
Third edit: A Christian does not believe any particular motives about God. Only that whatever they are, they must be ultimately good.
To a Christian, your question is really asking why a person would believe the Christian idea of God to such a strong degree that they would give their lives to it. You may not be interested in the answer to that question, but logically, that is what the question itself, when posed to a Christian, is really asking.
| Deception wrote: |
| 3 The sureness of a believer is solely in the fact that he believes |
Another straw man. Simply a non-sequitor. By "sureness", I assume you mean "strong degree of belief". And I assume you mean to say that the basis of that strong belief is entirely due to the fact that he has that strong belief. This is ridiculous and tautological. One does not believe something because he believes it. He acts on a belief because he believes it, but he does not believe because he believes it. He believes something because something or things has convinced him that it is true. Why do we believe that 2+2=4 is true? Because the fact that it has constant predictable results in counting has convinced us that it is true. It is the same for someone who believes that the Christian idea of God is true. He believes this because something has convinced him that it is true. The problem is that you refuse to hear anything about what those somethings are or may be. You are putting up your own brick wall.
Every other part of your post which extro responded to, I'll stand behind his response as it reflects my sentiments as well. I'll address what he didn't respond to:
| Deception wrote: |
| However, if one goes to 1/3, then suddenly the issue is resolved. However, that is only an illusion, as the issue was in fact not resolved, but only seems so because one is a believer. You see, a specific mindset should not protect an erroneous premise (that god has good motives) |
The issue has never been resolved because we are apparently not allowed to delve into the different factors that might convince a non-believer to believe in the God of Christianity and to believe strongly. That is the brick wall you are putting up.
All proof means is "strongly convincing". Nothing is ever proven absolutely. Certain truths follow necessarily from other truths, but in syllogisms and mathematical proofs you are always starting off with, at best, strongly convincing truths, not absolutely proven ones. The claim that God only has good motives follows necessarily from the claim that the God of Christianity is God. It is that claim which needs to be examined to get any further, and it is your refusal to examine it which is the brick wall.
| Deception wrote: |
| Thank you though, for your time. This talk has given me a firmer grasp of this religion, and more importantly the reason it can't be assaulted (and it's cheap ways of defense ). |
I can't imagine how this talk has given you a firmer grasp of this religion, seeing as the only new piece of information about Christianity is that we believe God has only good motives. You didn't "assault" us, you assaulted a straw man. That poor straw man is some imaginary person who inadvisedly does two things:
1)He believes that if there is a God, His motives may possibly be evil
2)He gives his life to this God
There may be people like this, of course, but this is not Christianity. So I leave you hoping that you now understand that you haven't been assaulting Christianity at all.
What I can't understand is why you don't just simply ask why, if there is a God, a non-believer might find it reasonable to give his life to Him. It would take so much less time than your approach of using trick questions and "assaults".
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:20 am Post subject: 656 |
|
|
I'm just ducking in here to say I was really conservative 7-8 years ago. I'm so glad I got a theology degree, took classes on this stuff, dialogued with people of different beliefs, etc. I totally wish I could take back some of the things I wrote. Meh.
Anyway, I think I'll finish reading the thread. I'm interested to see where the conversation has gone through the years.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: 657 |
|
|
When you say:
| Quote: |
| A Christian is only "sure of" the nature of God's motives to the extent that he is "sure of" His existence as the Christian God. |
I do a double-take, because I can't imagine giving my life to a god who I'm not absolutely sure of. Because if I'm not absolutely sure that the Christian idea of God is true (which requires that I believe he has good motives) then there is no grounds to. God still could have evil motives, as proportional to your degree of nonbelief.
I'll get to the rest later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:28 pm Post subject: 658 |
|
|
The flaw in that argument - as I see it - is that you are still persisting in ascribing "good" or "evil" motives to God. Ascribing any sort of human motives to God is pointless as it is confining God within human mores. It's like trying to suggest that evolution has motives (albeit in nothing like the same way. Hmmm. Perhaps that was a bad comparison!)
I can see why someone who prefers to think of God as a human creation would wish to do that, because it makes it possible to pose unanswerable questions such as "how can I know that God does not have evil motives?" and are designed purely to make any answer look silly. (As I believe commenters in this thread have already said.)
One of the more common answers to your conundrum is the simple concept that "God is Love". If you can conceive of circumstances under which "love" is manifestly detrimental to your wellbeing, then rejecting "love" would be fine. Although I am willing to concede that in a recent anecdote, Zag raised the issue of spousal abuse. And humans have invented concepts such as "tough love" to try and justify certain actions by people. I am not sure that this invalidates my premise; you may disagree.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: 659 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| I do a double-take, because I can't imagine giving my life to a god who I'm not absolutely sure of. Because if I'm not absolutely sure that the Christian idea of God is true (which requires that I believe he has good motives) then there is no grounds to. God still could have evil motives, as proportional to your degree of nonbelief. |
So you believe God exists, but his motives may be evil, and thus you choose to go against him? (just trying to understand) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject: 660 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| One of the more common answers to your conundrum is the simple concept that "God is Love". If you can conceive of circumstances under which "love" is manifestly detrimental to your wellbeing, then rejecting "love" would be fine. Although I am willing to concede that in a recent anecdote, Zag raised the issue of spousal abuse. And humans have invented concepts such as "tough love" to try and justify certain actions by people. I am not sure that this invalidates my premise; you may disagree. |
I don't think that anecdote negates your thesis in the least. The fact that people can pretend to be something they are not, and twist the words of what they are pretending to be, is not any sort of argument against the true followers of what the evil person claimed.
My point with that anecdote was specifically directed at the thesis that marrying a non-Christian was the same as marrying Satan, with the implication that it is important to marry another church-goer like yourself. Unfortunately, marrying a "Christian" -- that is, someone who goes to church every week, spouts the rituals, and claims to be so very pious -- can be a heck of a lot closer to marrying Satan than marrying, say, me.
Marrying a true Christian would probably be a wonderful thing (except, of course, for the proselytizing ). Of course, how can one ever know the true state of another's mind? I suppose, though, you have a lot more chance of getting there if you restrict yourself only to marrying those who claim to be Christian. I'm willing to admit that the percentage of true Christians is almost certainly higher among the group that claim to be than among the group that claim not to be. Still, it's no guarantee either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: 661 |
|
|
I've found it to be a general rule, that arguments that need to be forcefully put, are probably weak to begin with.
All of the vitriol that goes into defending minor differences between the various faiths seems, to me, to indicate that they have little to back them up.
Many of the beliefs that Christians hold to be true, were decided upon by men, many years after Jesus was dead.
Even the nature of Jesus, whether he existed before his birth, whether God was his actual Father etc. was not decided upon until over 300 years later. And that narrowly passed by a majority decision.
Of course, these men argue that they came to the decision after much prayer, but is that really a valid argument, given that so many others have come to other conflicting decisions after equal or more prayer?
And don't get me started on the Bible...
If you believe in God and you believe that He will judge you, then assume he will play Devil's advocate and test your motives.
When defending your decision to castigate the inter-faith couple, what would you say to God if He asked "Why did you cause these loving people such pain?" and how sure would you be that you behaved in accordance with God's will? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: 662 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| I've found it to be a general rule, that arguments that need to be forcefully put, are probably weak to begin with. |
Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: 663 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| I've found it to be a general rule, that arguments that need to be forcefully put, are probably weak to begin with. |
Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. |
No! That's ridiculous! Only IDIOTS would believe such a thing! OMG, why do I have to suffer such fools ALL. THE. TIME???
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:27 pm Post subject: 664 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| I can't imagine giving my life to a god who I'm not absolutely sure of. Because if I'm not absolutely sure that the Christian idea of God is true (which requires that I believe he has good motives) then there is no grounds to. |
Is there anything you can imagine giving your life to? What are legitimate grounds, in your opinion, of giving your life to something?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: 665 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| The issue has never been resolved because we are apparently not allowed to delve into the different factors that might convince a non-believer to believe in the God of Christianity and to believe strongly. That is the brick wall you are putting up. |
| KJV, Mark 16 wrote: |
14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. |
Down a few Drano shots without injury and I'll be convinced your god is real, at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:53 pm Post subject: 666 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Deception wrote: |
| I can't imagine giving my life to a god who I'm not absolutely sure of. Because if I'm not absolutely sure that the Christian idea of God is true (which requires that I believe he has good motives) then there is no grounds to. |
Is there anything you can imagine giving your life to? What are legitimate grounds, in your opinion, of giving your life to something? |
I have already given my life to knowledge, and the hope that my pursuit will jettison humanity to its next breakthrough. I love my girlfriend, and it may sound plausible to say "I'm giving my life to her", that is different than what a relationship is to me. I'm not devoting myself fully into loving and praising her and carrying out her will (I would say that I am devoting myself fully to knowledge though). A relationship is having fun, enjoying time spent, and each doing their equal share to keep that great atmosphere. It is not the same, I say.
As for saying that any argument that is presented in a fashion which you're implying mine is is bad is a fallacy; but not need to tell you that I'm sure you know. I tend to present most of my arguments like I have this past week(style-wise) and not all are weak.
@extro I am not stating any position on this religion other than I do not follow it. However, if there is something you wish to say, then I will for sake of argument say I believe that there is some God, yet that since I believe his motives may not be in my best interest, I choose not to serve him. I think I know where you're going with this, but if I'm wrong then I would not want to miss your inquiry.
Interested to see if Jack_Ian has the facts to back up what he said in that post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:31 am Post subject: 667 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| A relationship is having fun, enjoying time spent, and each doing their equal share to keep that great atmosphere. It is not the same, I say. |
Yup, that's kind of my point. You apparently can't see it as being the same, but to me it is. Would you go out of your way to do something that would antagonise your girlfriend? (More to the point, does she go out of her way to antagonise you?) Do you consider that going out in public with your girlfriend might be considered to be equivalent to praising her? Are you going out with her because you believe her motives might not be in your best interests?
The bit that is still puzzling me a little is that it's a non-argument so I'm not sure why you are still pursuing it. Kind of like rm citing that verse about drinking poison. I might as well concede that 2 Chronicles says that Pi is equal to three. What does that prove? The only way it is relevant is if you think that a shallow surface reading is the only thing that matters. If you want to get hung up on the possible "motives" of God, then that's your problem. To me it seems so utterly irrelevant that it isn't worth debating. Not because your argument is so overpowering that I can't refute it, but because it seems so trivial and dependent upon specific interpretations of concepts.
Oh, and jack_ian is pretty much correct in his thumbnail sketch of early church history. It misses out quite a lot of significant detail but on the whole it is true - much of the "tradition" of the Church was indeed decided by vote at a series of councils. One of the clauses of one of the original Creeds was only put in because the Emperor believed it and they thought it would be smart to agree with him. There's even a really neat card game called Credo which has fun with the basic idea.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:54 am Post subject: 668 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| I have already given my life to knowledge, and the hope that my pursuit will jettison humanity to its next breakthrough. ...[relationship stuff]...I would say that I am devoting myself fully to knowledge though...[relationship stuff] |
Needless to say, we'll leave relationship stuff alone and deal strictly with your full devotion to knowledge. (The reason I'm interviewing you right now, by the way, is to try and find some common understanding on the issue of devotion. This needn't be an assault/defense dialogue, and I hope it doesn't turn into one)
So if you devote yourself fully to knowledge, my next question is which is greater to you? Knowledge or the hope that your devotion to it will allow you to help humanity? In other words, are you trying to help humanity first and find that devoting yourself fully to knowledge is a great way to do that, OR are you devoting yourself fully to knowledge first and find that helping humanity is a great application for that devotion? Or put yet another way, If you found out that you will never end up helping humanity through knowledge, would you still devote yourself fully to knowledge regardless, or would you rather ease up on knowledge and focus more on other ways to help humanity?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:36 am Post subject: 669 |
|
|
| The verse tells how to recognize a believer. I'm going to hold him to his word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:12 am Post subject: 670 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| As for saying that any argument that is presented in a fashion which you're implying mine is is bad is a fallacy; but not need to tell you that I'm sure you know. I tend to present most of my arguments like I have this past week(style-wise) and not all are weak. |
Heh? I never said anything was bad, I was just saying that the way you phrased your question made it irrelevant to Christianity. The concept of God that Christians devote their lives to has Him always having good motives.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: 671 |
|
|
| ralphmerridew wrote: |
| Down a few Drano shots without injury and I'll be convinced your god is real, at least. |
Really, though? If I actually did that, would you be so sure it wasn't some trick of mine? What if I was just an illusionist or had some special tolerance for Drano?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:55 am Post subject: 672 |
|
|
Scurra not sure if you want me to answer those questions or not, as you seem to say the line of questioning is pointless, and unless you have something in mind, I'd say it is. Case in point, I didn't like the analogy that people gave of relating devotion to God to marriage.
BraveHat: I will answer that question in this fashion, and let me know if it is acceptable: There is knowledge which I pursue in selfishness, not to help humanity (each one of these has a good reason for that approach), and there is knowledge which I pursue for the purpose of advancing humanity in a positive direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:14 am Post subject: 673 |
|
|
Yes, that is an acceptable and clear answer. You have given your life fully to pursuing knowledge, whether for selfish reasons or altruistic reasons or reasons concerned with the greater good. Now are there any times in your life where you are not pursuing knowledge? For instance, are there any times where you intend to serve humanity in a way that doesn't involve acquiring knowledge?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: 674 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| Case in point, I didn't like the analogy that people gave of relating devotion to God to marriage. |
That's why I was pursuing it. I was trying to explain why I didn't think the argument was going anywhere because the two sides were having different arguments under the impression we were having the same one. (This turns out to be the problem more often than not.) You seem to be interpreting the concept of "giving your life to God" as being some sort of "slavery to an unknown master". I am saying that it's far more like a relationship commitment (such as marriage) and was trying to relate some of the concepts to relationship-type concepts. Did you think the questions I raised in my previous post - about your relationship with your girlfriend - weren't worth answering?
If you prefer to maintain a position that says that since it is not possible to divine* God's motives, you aren't prepared to enter into slavery, then no, this argument is going nowhere since I believe your premise is faulty. And until I can see if this is your premise (or whether I am still failing to understand you) then it's really not worth pursuing the argument.
*yes, a verb that means intuitive understanding that derives partly from our inability to explain God...
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: 675 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
You seem to be interpreting the concept of "giving your life to God" as being some sort of "slavery to an unknown master". I am saying that it's far more like a relationship commitment ...
If you prefer to maintain a position that says that since it is not possible to divine* God's motives, you aren't prepared to enter into slavery, then no, this argument is going nowhere since I believe your premise is faulty. And until I can see if this is your premise (or whether I am still failing to understand you) then it's really not worth pursuing the argument. |
In defense of Deception's reasoning (though all-in-all, to me, it seems a bit dodgy), if you can't divine God's motive and his general nature, then the nature of giving one's life to God, and whether it is slavery to an evil being, or a rewarding relationship with ultimate goodness, may be uncertain, and not merely a matter of our interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: 676 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Yes, that is an acceptable and clear answer. You have given your life fully to pursuing knowledge, whether for selfish reasons or altruistic reasons or reasons concerned with the greater good. Now are there any times in your life where you are not pursuing knowledge? For instance, are there any times where you intend to serve humanity in a way that doesn't involve acquiring knowledge? |
If I'm not looking for knowledge I'm having fun. I think that's the most simplistic way of putting it.
Scurra: No to your first question. To your second question, I go out with her (while not definitely knowing her motives) because the risk is not major. There is no harm I could possibly fathom (other than I suppose playing with my emotions) that could come from her intentionally from even an objective standpoint. In comparison to a "relationship" with god, it is a small risk situation.
My premise is that unless there is considerable reason to believe gods' motives are in my best interest or in the best interest of humanity (a premise whose prerequisite is that we have considerable reason to believe god exists) then I should not believe in god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:34 am Post subject: 677 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
In comparison to a "relationship" with god, it is a small risk situation.
My premise is that unless there is considerable reason to believe gods' motives are in my best interest or in the best interest of humanity (a premise whose prerequisite is that we have considerable reason to believe god exists) then I should not believe in god. |
Now you see this is why the "argument" is bound to go nowhere, since we still haven't established if we are actually arguing about anything. So I will restate my position in response to you restating yours, to demonstrate that we are still in the same relative positions as we were some days ago...
The first point is that of "motive". Since that's how we approach all relationships (given that all the ones we have are probably with human beings, although some of them may be with animals), it is perhaps natural to wish to assign motives to God. However, as I said in an earlier post, I think that's like ascribing a motive to Evolution (although that's clearly not an ideal analogy at all. And no, I don't believe in "intelligent design"...)
And secondly, you are presuming an element of "risk" in your decision. As I also said before, if we were talking about something like signing a slavery contract with Zeus then I would be inclined to agree with you - there could be nothing to justify that sort of "risk" apart perhaps from unwanted thunderbolts. (Although I will probably be the first to bow down to our new [whatever] overlords. ) Because "Zeus" was merely a superhuman of some kind, able to marshal forces beyond us (a rapidly decreasing pool of things these days!) We're not talking about anything like that - again, no matter what those who like to make thunderbolt jokes continue to insist. (And sometimes those jokes are quite funny, I admit.)
The result of this is that my understanding of and relationship with God is so clearly not related to human terms such as "motive" and "risk" which others consider to be a prerequisite of any such decision that we are none of us likely to be able to move forward in this sort of discussion. That people have to use expressions such as "giving your life to" shows how difficult it is to try and explain what it is. A passing acquaintance of mine once wrote a book called Jesus is my best mate which was an attempt to capture the concept, but it still gets bogged down in human terminology.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:51 am Post subject: 678 |
|
|
Reading your response, I believe I now understand your position, and it has told me one thing:
If you are correct, then I will never be able to believe in god.
Well, thank you for your patience with me, Scurra.
I leave just as frustrated with the religion as before, but at least now I know why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:14 am Post subject: 679 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| If I'm not looking for knowledge I'm having fun. I think that's the most simplistic way of putting it. |
Ok, so it seems like you are devoted to the pursuit in almost the same way that the good Christian is devoted to pursuing God. (I say almost, because I don't want to rule out the possibilities that some Christians, as unlikely as it sounds, are actively devoted 100% of the time. Most Christians, however, it seems to me, admit to not even be devoted as much as you seem to be to the pursuit of knowledge).
My next question is how can you be absolutely sure that the pursuit of knowledge, which takes up most of your time and energy, is in your and/or humanity's best interest?
| Deception wrote: |
| unless there is considerable reason to believe gods' motives are in my best interest or in the best interest of humanity (a premise whose prerequisite is that we have considerable reason to believe god exists) then I should not believe in god. |
So let me get this straight. If you have considerable reason to believe God exists, but it's possible He may not have your(our) best interest(s) in mind, then you should not believe God exists? Isn't the likelihood or unlikelihood of something being true the only relevant factor in deciding whether or not to believe it? That believing may be dangerous is quite beside the point, isn't it?
First accept or reject the concept of God based on the likelihood or unlikelihood of His existence being true. The fact that some people give their lives to God does not point to the existence or non-existence of God.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:28 am Post subject: 680 |
|
|
A world where knowledge is not in humanitys' best interest? I cannot fathom a realm where ignorance is above knowledge in its pursuits for truth.
A typo: change "then I should not believe in god" to "then I should not follow and obey god such as a devout christian would".
To answer your question though, I do not have considerable reason to believe that there exists a god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
