board77

Hi Cerin,

I truly want to believe there is an afterlife. I am not being facetious. I WANT to believe there is some larger than life purpose for our existence here on earth. Yet I am unable to find any theory of the afterlife that seems to me to be more than wishful thinking. This disappoints me, because it is far harder to fashion a meaning for life as an end in itself than it is to appreciate life when it is a part of a greater purpose.

But, I can't make myself buy into any theory of the afterlife I've read, because it would just be me believing what I want to believe, without anything more to support it.

- TP

I hope this is not too much of sidetracking. The subjects being touched in this thread is enough to spawn a half-dozen new threads.

Nin wrote:

I continue to be fascinated by judaism, and I am still very shy about expressing myself concerning it, and for instance concerning Israel, I feel that my German heritage denies me that right.

I don’t know how to express the way I feel at reading your words. You are a lovely human being and I admire you for going down that painful path. It’s so much easier to shrug off the past, bury it into oblivion, blame the victims for their own suffering. I would say that if anything, your German heritage gives you a greater right and imperative to learn anything that interests you. I find a great hope of healing in this – in learning to look at each other and see the shared pain and joy of being human. That, I think, is our only defense against being stripped of our humanity altogether, as our ancestors were, yours and mine, on opposite ends of the rifle barrel. Thank you for speaking up as you did.

Yovargas wrote:

I don't understand the issue people are having with Sidonzo's quotes and statements. What's the problem? She's merely saying that God punishes those who do not follow him. Is there something controversial about someone who believes in the Bible saying that?

If that was the way Sidonzo put it, nobody would object to her words apart from debating their belief in God’s punishment.

That said, Sidonzo, I certainly don’t want you to leave this thread and I don't believe you were trying to be hurtful. It's just that I’ve had much too much experience IRL with statements implying that Jews are cursed, rejected and damned, and with actions that those statements can inflame. Sometimes I get dead tired of dealing with that. So when I come across something like your original statement, it's hard to take it in isolation and not say, "Oh, great, here we go again." But that doesn't mean that I take offence at you personally.

As for Isaiah, here’s a brief summary of the historical context. It is not hard to connect it with the wording of his prophecies.

Sidonzo - regarding your quotations from Isaiah, this is typical fare from all of the prophets. They were the 'secretaries of state' of their day, or perhaps Justice Minister would be a better analogy, and all of them berated the people of Israel for wrongdoing. They all called upon God to curse the people unless they repented, and sometimes, like in the story of Jonah, the people did repent.

All of those exhortations belonged to the specific historical moment in which they were delivered. One cannot draw general conclusions from them, except perhaps of an anthropological nature, any more than one can draw general conclusions from a State of the Union address. The State of the Union has not alway been sound; we've not always had a budget deficit/surplus, the greatest task before us has not always be [fill in the blank] and so forth.

If one looks at the various punishments rendered for breach of Jewish law, the most serious crime seems to be the failure to observe the Pesach. The punishment for that is galut - exile from the land given of Abraham. This makes sense, too, because the celebration of Passover is the celebration of our becoming an identifiable nation among nations with this particular law to uphold. Failing to affirm the existence of the Jewish People would rightfully be punished by rejection from that People and from its traditional homeland.

Di: many Christians from evangelical backgrounds would see the passages from Isaiah which Sidonzo quoted as part of the great prophetic tradition of Israel,

Yes, this is the correct way to view them.

Frelga: Can I take the TP defense and say I just transposed the numbers?

I was sure that's what happened.

Idylle: For example, much was made of the martyrdom of Vietnamese Catholics in the pre-Vatican II years.

I remember this very well, though I was a bit too young to be paying attention when it happened and rather learned about it as 'historical fact' in the laste 1960s. In my recollection, this was bound together with the anti-Catholic counter-claims that President Kennedy was embroiling us in Vietnam for 'Catholic reasons.'

TP: I saw people who were in a class on the Holocaust suddenly start appearing in shul.

When people seek to heal or repair the damage by committing their own lives to the recreation of what was lost, then there is a positive result. It is the ability of turn the loss into a new creation that seems so rare a virtue among human beings, and yet I think that our 'salvation' in the concrete psychological sense, depends upon this and very little else.

This is to the point where for some, it is difficult to understand why anyone would possibly want to convert, to take on an identity which they themselves so hate ... I wish there was some way to make these Jews appreciate that portion of their heritage, and not only the painful history that has in the past been associated with being Jewish.

I think if it were possible to stop being a Jew, a large part of this problem would go away. But failing to practice the Jewish religion, even converting to another religion, does not make one stop being a Jew in the eyes of either the Jewish community or anyone else. For whatever reason (and I do blame this mainly on anti-Semitism) there is a "no escape clause" in Judaism that is not contained in other religions and I think this leads to a lot of resentment.

Jn

tolkienpurist wrote:

Hi Cerin,

I truly want to believe there is an afterlife. I am not being facetious. I WANT to believe there is some larger than life purpose for our existence here on earth. Yet I am unable to find any theory of the afterlife that seems to me to be more than wishful thinking. This disappoints me, because it is far harder to fashion a meaning for life as an end in itself than it is to appreciate life when it is a part of a greater purpose.

But, I can't make myself buy into any theory of the afterlife I've read, because it would just be me believing what I want to believe, without anything more to support it.

- TP

Hey, TP... What about this for a concept that supports it...

You want to believe in an afterlife. Why? If you're answer is because your parents or someone or whatever religion you want to believe says that ther is one, then you are correct, none of that "supports" the belief you want. This is because all of those points of view have been developed with the concept of an afterlife as a given. Therefore you would be using circular logic.

However, if that desire for a belief comes from a personal desire for what exists in THIS life not being the whole of your existence, then there are other things to consider. Why would you have that desire? What about this life, this existence is unsatisfying.

Of course you have to be careful that you don't fall back on the "well, I've been told about the afterlife by so many, and it's such a cool idea, so I wish it were true." Instead, you must focus on why you want there to be an afterlife.

If, after such a separation and internal debate, you decide you don't need the idea of an afterlife, then your problem is solved (and I'd be sad ). However, if that desire still exists... then, well, where did it come from?

If there is some innate desire for existence outside of this one... I don't see where this could come from other than outside fo this existence.

The common concept of how the idea of an afterlife could have come about is a fear of death. A fear of the unknown which results in a fear of going to a place it is impossible to come back from... which means it will always be an unknown.

This wars, however, with a desire to learn, which I think is more fundamental than a fear of the unknown.... So why then, would people be afraid to die. It is merely a step towards something different. If death was the end, somehow I think we would know it. It would be part of our evolved mentality if you will.

Instead, we (that is, humanity) have this concept that there is something more, and we have the desire to know more about it.

To me, that is enough to start to build on.

Ok, I think I see what upset everyone now. I wasn't in anyway trying to be anti-Semitic. Please forgive me, if this has caused any of you distress. I was trying to talk about God's judgements and punishments and how I apply God's words to my life today. I was quoting Isaiah because that is what I am reading right now. I still see the Bible as being very applicable today since God doesn't change and I find there is a lot I can learn from it for MY life. I'm not trying to put down Jewish people and call them cursed or anything. I know it is hard to see what others are trying to say on a message board sometimes since we don't know each other personally, but please understand I am the last person that would ever be a bigot. It is contrary to everything that God teaches. I hope this clarified my position for everyone

~Sidonzo

Hi, Wolfie! Your picture cracked me up.

Quote:

The problem I have with it is that many people have told me that if God had given Adam & Eve a nature that was innately opposed to disobeying Him, then God would not have been creating creatures with a free will. And this just doesn't fly.

Sure it flies. God (if I may) made you with the innate quality of being attracted to females. In other words, you do not have free will in the matter of which gender you are sexually attracted to.

If God had made us pre-disposed to obey, in the same way that you are pre-disposed to feel attracted to females, then we would not have free will in the matter of obeying God, any more than you have free will in the matter of which gender you are sexually attracted to. Evidently God wished obedience to be a matter of free will for us, so he did not create us with a pre-disposition to obey. I don't see the problem.

Quote:

I have a nature that predisposes me to all sorts of choices (i.e. my being innately opposed to having sex with men), yet no one would presume to claim that these predispositions somehow violate my free will.

You do not have free will in the matter of which gender you will feel attracted to. The pre-disposition to be attracted to females is mutually exclusive of free will in the matter of who you will be sexually attracted to.

Had God created us with a pre-disposition to obey, that pre-disposition would be mutually exclusive of free will in the matter of obeying God. Evidently it was important that we have free will in the matter of obedience, as that is the way we were made.

Quote:

God could have given Adam & Eve a nature that made them as violently opposed to disobeying Him as I am violently opposed to being romantic with a man.

Yes.

Quote:

In doing so, He could have made their chances of disobeying Him effectively nil while keeping intact their free will.

No. Pre-disposing you to an attraction to females means you do not have free will in the matter of choosing who you will be attracted to. Had God made Man's chances of disobeying Him effectively nil, then Man could not be said to have free will in the matter of obeying God.



Hi, tolkienpurist

I don't know what to say. I'm sorry you can't believe in something you want to believe in.

Are you willing to seek God without any pre-conditions of what is acceptable?

Sidonzo,

I apologize for thinking the worst.

Quote:

If there is some innate desire for existence outside of this one... I don't see where this could come from other than outside fo this existence.

But why? Seems to me as a living person I have one experience: life. It's easy for me to believe that I might find it difficult to conceive of not existing, or of my loved ones not existing, even if death was the absolute end of existance. My loved ones "live on" in my memory, for instance. I have experience with people going to sleep and waking up, or going away and living somewhere else. Their death would feel that way to me, so I might understand it that way even if it weren't true. When I was little, in fact, I used to try to imagine what things would be like if nothing existed. Like, if you think about just empty space that's not enough because space is something. Trying to imagine nothing existing--it was impossible.

And then, imagining there's another greater existance outside this one seems like it could just say humans look around and see things they don't like about their world and can imagine something more to our liking: Middle Earth, Narnia, Oz, Mars, etc. If I can see, for instance, that I don't have enough food, I can imagine a place where there's lots of food.


-m

halplm wrote:

LM, have you read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" It's a compilation of many radio addresses he gave edited into book form, attempting to form a logical basis for choosing Christianity. It's a very interesting read.

I’ve read Screwtape Letters, but none of Lewis’ other theological books.

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

What, therfore, is necessarily invalid about someone saying that they have chosen to believe that the Guru Granth Sahib represents the truth of God?

It is not invalid, except that they have chosen to believe something is truth that isn't (IMO).

All I’m doing is shooting your logic back at you. A Sikh would respond to your post with:

‘It is not invalid, except that they have chosen to believe something is truth that isn't (IMO).’

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

What is different between your belief and their's?

I would say, the difference is that my belief is in what is true, and theirs isn't.

I was more asking for the difference between your belief in God and their belief in God; the nature of the belief itself and not the object of the belief.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

If nothing, doesn't one's salvation simply depend on one's place of birth?

I find C.S. Lewis' take on this comforting, as he presents it in the last book of the Narnia series.

In that story, there is a race of people, the Calormenes, who worship a god called Tash. They plot to enslave Narnia by offering a false Aslan (Aslan is the God of the Narnians, and the true God). When the world has ended, a young Calormene soldier encounters Aslan, and recognizes that he has been worshipping the wrong God. Let me quote the passage from that point, where this young soldier is telling others what happened to him (I am adding paragraph breaks for visual ease, where there are none in the text):

Quote:

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false.

Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oaths's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?

I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

All find what they seek? Many Christians have converted to other religions. Most followers of other religions will never convert to Christianity. Have they all found what they sought?

If you are born in South Carolina, USA, your chances of become a Christian are hundreds of times better than your chances if you live in the middle of Borneo or in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All religions are naturally tied to geographical regions; making Salvation very much a matter of luck.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

Accept what we tell you at face value; you will know it in your heart to be true. Well, why should I accept what one religion tells me at face value to be true when the others have just as much a claim on my beliefs?

I guess the question would be, why do the others have just as much a claim on your beliefs? (I don't know the answer to that.)

Because no one religion can offer any real proof; it’s all guesswork.

Cerin wrote:

tolkienpurist wrote:

If anyone believes that X faith, your faith, is the one true faith, and Y faith is simply not a valid path to God (or some less harsh incarnation thereof), then it would be easier if we got that on the table and discussed from that perspective.

I believe that Christianity is the only valid path to God. The reason I believe that, is because the Bible doesn't present faith in Christ as one of many paths to God, but as the only one (and I have chosen to believe the Bible).

That just strikes me as supreme circular reasoning. Jesus is the only path to God, why? The Bible says so. Why can we believe it? Because it says that Jesus is the only path to God.

My problem with your arguments is that they all apply equally well to any religion. I could be having this discussion with a Muslim, Jew, Pagan, ect. It would essentially be the same. As such, claiming that your specific religion has an obvious monopoly on the truth is, IMHO, bizarre, and as such, claiming that a loving God is perfectly justified in punishing those who do not subscribe to it (for that is what it boils down to) makes no sense to me.

So far I’ve only been rebutting. Perhaps I might start forwarding my own case soon.

Thank you, Frelga...

halplm wrote:

If, after such a separation and internal debate, you decide you don't need the idea of an afterlife, then your problem is solved (and I'd be sad ).

You have every right to be sad for me, then hal. I find on the contrary my present life much more enjoyable and my moral decisions enforced by the idea of an absence of afterlife. I think that this life is my only chance, and that who I am is only defined by what I do, the way I act. I value, for instance fidelity, and even if I am aware that specifically this value is originated mainly in my cultural - thus christian- background, I hold to it. But just because I am convinced that it is a good thing, and not because I believe in obeying any divine or higher moral in doing so. Does that give to my fidelity less value than to a person who acts because he/she is convicted that it is a divine law?

Like Tolkienpurist, for a long time, I wanted to believe in a form of religion – any form, because there are the moments, when you feel touched by something beyond your rational understanding, and I was looking for something strong enough to make believe – be it in Christ, or in other religion.

My personal experience, is that you cannot choose to believe in something- maybe for those who choose a religion, there is or was already an inherent belief that a divine force of any kind exists, a belief in a creator. And then, you find a religion with a moral system close to your personal values and experiences and you can adopt it. I could not, and if I could of course act as if I believed, pray, go to church, this would be only an empty shell and I don’t see any sense in pretending something that I do not hold for true in my innermost self. Thus the decision of making my lack of faith my spiritual base.

I think, however, that many people follow their geographically predominant religion out of habit or social contraint and don’t relate to the spiritual values fully.

If I could choose, I would have liked to believe, because it must be so reassuring, maybe a bit like a child would like to believe that his parents will always love him. Doubt is not an easy guide.

Jnyusa, I can only repeat again, how much your words appeal to me… What you describe as a burden was precisely what attracted me to Judaism in my youth – that you belong to a community, whatever you do.

Jnyusa wrote:

It is the ability of turn the loss into a new creation that seems so rare a virtue among human beings, and yet I think that our 'salvation' in the concrete psychological sense, depends upon this and very little else.

And I cannot even say how much those words appeal to me…

halplm wrote:

If death was the end, somehow I think we would know it.

But we do know it! We know that nobody who dies rises again and joins the living except some few seemingly dead (anabiotic, my dictionary says). Even Jesus appeared only for a few instances and then rose up to heaven. He did not join his friends where he left them. I don't believe in miracles.

I have seen many dead people, and some very dear to me. But I find consolation in the fact that people die and nothing but their memory is left. Only in nonexistence lies the peace that I would like to find when my life is over. Until then, I have responsibility for those around me and the world I was born into, and I enjoy it while it lasts.

halplm (and others),

Re your quote about Christ being the only way to God...

Doesn't it bother you that you, and over 80% of people around the world, simply believe in what was told to them during the formative years? That these hand-me-down stories are used for your World View and your approach to the Afterlife?

You fervently believe that Christ is the one and only way to God. Thousands of other beliefs fervently does not believe this. Yet all of you 'know' in your heart of hearts that you are right.

But you all can't be. Either Christ is the one and only way, or he is not. It's not a question of different facets of the same diamond or many paths to God. Therefore, someone deeply religious, who feels God is with him, must be wrong. Either way, billions of people are wrong.

And if billions can have this feeling and yet be mistaken, it's such a small step for me to be skeptical about all religions and religious people professing they have knowledge of a "Truth".

But to end, as ever, with a customary bad pun, I can't conceive being born again.

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

halplm (and others),

Re your quote about Christ being the only way to God...

Doesn't it bother you that you, and over 80% of people around the world, simply believe in what was told to them during the formative years? That these hand-me-down stories are used for your World View and your approach to the Afterlife?

You fervently believe that Christ is the one and only way to God. Thousands of other beliefs fervently does not believe this. Yet all of you 'know' in your heart of hearts that you are right.

But you all can't be. Either Christ is the one and only way, or he is not. It's not a question of different facets of the same diamond or many paths to God. Therefore, someone deeply religious, who feels God is with him, must be wrong. Either way, billions of people are wrong.

And if billions can have this feeling and yet be mistaken, it's such a small step for me to be skeptical about all religions and religious people professing they have knowledge of a "Truth".

But to end, as ever, with a customary bad pun, I can't conceive being born again.

Well that quote in particular is a direct quote from Jesus himself, as much as any other quote of his from the Bible that is credible.

So, if you believe the Bible, then you can't just pick and choose parts to keep and parts to toss. So when the entire reason for Christianity states clearly that he is the only way... well, that's tought to argue with.

Personally, I hope God isn't that strict, or that people who never hear of Christianity can be shown THE way in a different manner. However, I wouldn't count on it.

But that doesn't mean I only believe the Bible is true because I was told that in my "formative years" as you put it. I've examined it extensively in my "post formative years" as much as anyone can have those and found Christianity to be the only religion that offers what I think religion should offer, and also has significant backing in historical fact.

Actually, the fact that it has been distorted so many times, and divided against itself so often, is to me the greatest evidence for its truth among religions (stipulating that at least on religion is right). If there is a force for evil working against God, then its best offensive tool is to slightly twist the truth. A half truth is FAR easier to believe than an outright lie. The more half truths and slight twistings that can be incorporated into the whole, the more peopel will be misled.

Most of these people might never question what they are told as young people, but it doesn't logically follow that everyone is wrong... only that most everyone is wrong.

All that said, if you take the Bible, and look at how often it has been targeted and tried to be wiped out... and yet... it stands as it did in its earliest incarnation that we know of. Yes, people have tried to twist it, people try to ignore parts of it, pull other parts out and focus on them out of context... all to the detriment of Christianity...

That's why all of that has to be stripped away... resulting in a personal examination of what's there... Furthermore it can be stripped away more and you can examine exactly what God himself seems to have guided through history to this time... his words to us.

People want God to communicate with us??? It's all right there... all that's necessary. You can say it's just something men wrote down saying God was talking to them... but if God is going to communicate any specifics with us... this is it.

Personally, I've felt God comforting me on many many occasions helping me through something I otherwise would not have the strength do do. But I won't be offended if you don't believe me, or if you think it's just me comforting myself.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

I was more asking for the difference between your belief in God and their belief in God; the nature of the belief itself and not the object of the belief.

I couldn't really comment on that. I don't know what it would be like to believe in something that wasn't true. I don't know what would substitute for the relationship with God by the Holy Spirit, that Christians experience in their daily lives. Perhaps it would be a matter of the comforts of ritual, or of self-generated emotion, or of experiencing aspects of the spiritual dimension for which God is not the immediate source. I don't know.

Quote:

All find what they seek? Many Christians have converted to other religions. Most followers of other religions will never convert to Christianity. Have they all found what they sought?

Focusing on what Lewis proposed, he would seem to be saying that people find what they truly seek. So if they are truly seeking God, they will ultimately find Him -- perhaps outside of time or the confines of this portion of eternity. If, however, they are seeking a belief system that satisfies what appeals to them, then that is what they will ultimately find (a god of their own making).

Quote:

If you are born in South Carolina, USA, your chances of become a Christian are hundreds of times better than your chances if you live in the middle of Borneo or in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All religions are naturally tied to geographical regions; making Salvation very much a matter of luck.

Referring again to Lewis' proposal, I would say it makes a knowledge of Christianity in this life very much a matter of destiny, but not necessarily determinative of salvation.

Quote:

That just strikes me as supreme circular reasoning. Jesus is the only path to God, why? The Bible says so. Why can we believe it? Because it says that Jesus is the only path to God.

Jesus is the only path to God, because this is what God has ordained. We know what God has ordained, because He made His truth known in His relationship with the nation of Israel, and in the writings (the Bible) that record the history of that relationship. Why can we believe it? Because it is true, and because God has given us the capacity to respond to His truth.

Quote:

My problem with your arguments is that they all apply equally well to any religion. I could be having this discussion with a Muslim, Jew, Pagan, ect. It would essentially be the same.

I suppose it would be superficially the same.

Quote:

As such, claiming that your specific religion has an obvious monopoly on the truth is, IMHO, bizarre,

Actually, I'm not making any claims. I'm stating that this is what I have chosen to believe. Are you saying that you think it is bizarre for any one religion to claim it has a monopoly on the truth? I think someone presented the logic of that earlier in the thread. I don't think it's bizarre, it merely presents a limited set of options:

1. The religion does have a monopoly on the truth, therefore all other religions are false.
2. The religion does not have a monopoly on the truth, therefore it and all or some other religions are true in part or in full, or
3. The religion does not have a monopoly on the truth, but another religion does, and all other religions but that religion are false.

Quote:

and as such, claiming that a loving God is perfectly justified in punishing those who do not subscribe to it (for that is what it boils down to) makes no sense to me.

If every human being is given the capacity to recognize the truth, but some by free will reject it, then the end (whatever it may be) is a result of that choice, not an exercise of punishment.

Cerin wrote:

Hi, Wolfie! Your picture cracked me up.

Me too.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

The problem I have with it is that many people have told me that if God had given Adam & Eve a nature that was innately opposed to disobeying Him, then God would not have been creating creatures with a free will. And this just doesn't fly.

Sure it flies. God (if I may) made you with the innate quality of being attracted to females. In other words, you do not have free will in the matter of which gender you are sexually attracted to.

Of course I don't have free will in the matter of which gender I am sexually attracted to. That's what my predisposition is. That's genetics. But I do have the free will to pursue a romantic relationship with a male. Such a choice would inevitably fail, but I can still make the choice.

Quote:

If God had made us pre-disposed to obey, in the same way that you are pre-disposed to feel attracted to females, then we would not have free will in the matter of obeying God[...]

Sure we would. Having a predisposition towards a particular choice doesn't force us to choose it. That's what free will is all about Cerin - choice. That's the beauty of free will. We are not slaves to our innate predispositions. We can choose to go against them. I can choose to eat calamari (something I hate the taste and texture of). I can choose to touch a hot stove. I can choose to jump off a cliff without a parachute. I can choose to fail my classes.

Having a predisposition towards a particular choice, no matter how strong that predisposition is, cannot violate free will with regards to our actions. I may not be able to choose how I feel about something (females, calamari, pain, etc...), but I can choose what to do about it.

Thus, I believe my argument stands. Why weren't Adam and Eve given predispositions towards choosing to obey God? Having those predispositions wouldn't have forced them to obey God. It would only have made it highly fulfilling for them to do so (just as it is highly fulfilling for me to pursue a woman for a romantic relationship) and highly unfulfilling to choose to disobey God (just as it is highly unfulfilling for me to pursue a man for a romantic relationship).

I bought "Anguished English" yesterday (one of the funniest books evah!), and one of the jokes seemed relevant to the discussion. Hope you don't mind.

Quote:

A Sunday School teacher is explaining Heaven to her students. She asks them, "Children, if I were to sell all my posessions and give all my money to the poor, would I get into Heaven?"

The children say, "No!"

The teacher goes on, "And if I were to keep this place very neat, always pick up after myself and do a really good job of all my duties, would I then get into Heaven?"

Again, the children say, "No!"

The tearcher continues, "And if I am very kind to children and animals, and always help everybody in trouble, would I get into Heaven then?"

The children say, "No!"

The teacher beams proudly. "Very good, chidren. Now tell me, how do I get into Heaven?"

And one little boy replies "You've got to be dead."

Wolfgangbos wrote:

Of course I don't have free will in the matter of which gender I am sexually attracted to. But I do have the free will to pursue a romantic relationship with a male.

No, you do not have the free will to pursue a romantic relationship with someone for whom you feel no romantic attraction. If you feel no romantic attraction, you aren't pursuing romance, you're mimicking the pursuit of romance. So, yes, you do have free will to pursue a relationship with a male, in imitation of a romantic relationship.

Similarly, with an Adam and Eve pre-disposed to obey, they would not have free will to pursue a genuine response of disobedience, as they have no such natural response within them. They would have free will to pursue a course they identify as disobedience, in imitation of disobedience.

But I see no sense at all in that construct; it appears very convoluted to me. Do human beings generally pursue courses of conduct that go against their nature? It makes no sense.

I think it's really quite straightforward. God did not pre-dispose Adam and Eve to be obedient; evidently God preferred not to influence the outcome of a test of obedience, by pre-disposing Adam and Eve to one course of action (obeying) over another (disobeying).

Quote:

Having a predisposition towards a particular choice doesn't force us to choose it. That's what free will is all about Cerin - choice. That's the beauty of free will. We are not slaves to our innate predispositions. We can choose to go against them. I can choose to eat calamari (something I hate the taste and texture of). I can choose to touch a hot stove. I can choose to jump off a cliff without a parachute. I can choose to fail my classes.

You're not talking about free will here; you're talking about something pathological -- going against one's nature. What would you think about a person who forced themselves to eat something they hated the taste and texture of? What would you think of a heterosexual male who forced himself to have sexual relations with another man? What would you think of someone who forced themselves to touch a hot stove? This is unhealthy behavior. You aren't talking about free will here, you're talking about a perversion of it.

Quote:

Why weren't Adam and Eve given predispositions towards choosing to obey God?

Because God (evidently) preferred to be obeyed as a matter of choice, not pre-disposition.

Quote:

Having those predispositions wouldn't have forced them to obey God.

It would have forced them to go against their nature in order to disobey God.




Frelga, that's adorable. It sounds like something a child would really say.

Reminds me of the quote at the beginning of Jane Eyre.

*starts to get warm fuzzies himself*

Cerin wrote:

Wolfgangbos wrote:

Of course I don't have free will in the matter of which gender I am sexually attracted to. But I do have the free will to pursue a romantic relationship with a male.

No, you do not have the free will to pursue a romantic relationship with someone for whom you feel no romantic attraction. If you feel no romantic attraction, you aren't pursuing romance, you're mimicking the pursuit of romance. So, yes, you do have free will to pursue a relationship with a male, in imitation of a romantic relationship.

Exactly. I can try. I won't succeed. But I can try. I am not forced by my nature to act in a particular fashion. I can act in a way that ignores my natural predisposition.

Cerin wrote:

Similarly, with an Adam and Eve pre-disposed to obey, they would not have free will to pursue a genuine response of disobedience, as they have no such natural response within them. They would have free will to pursue a course they identify as disobedience, in imitation of disobedience.

But I see no sense at all in that construct; it appears very convoluted to me. Do human beings generally pursue courses of conduct that go against their nature? It makes no sense.

Not generally, no. But we do pursue courses of conduct that favor certain aspects of our nature over others. A mother will risk her life to save her child. A man will eat broccoli because it is good for him even though he hates its taste and texture.

Quote:

I think it's really quite straightforward. God did not pre-dispose Adam and Eve to be obedient; evidently God preferred not to influence the outcome of a test of obedience, by pre-disposing Adam and Eve to one course of action (obeying) over another (disobeying).

Not influence the outcome? I'm suddenly reminded of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

Having a predisposition towards a particular choice doesn't force us to choose it. That's what free will is all about Cerin - choice. That's the beauty of free will. We are not slaves to our innate predispositions. We can choose to go against them. I can choose to eat calamari (something I hate the taste and texture of). I can choose to touch a hot stove. I can choose to jump off a cliff without a parachute. I can choose to fail my classes.

You're not talking about free will here; you're talking about something pathological -- going against one's nature. What would you think about a person who forced themselves to eat something they hated the taste and texture of? What would you think of a heterosexual male who forced himself to have sexual relations with another man? What would you think of someone who forced themselves to touch a hot stove? This is unhealthy behavior. You aren't talking about free will here, you're talking about a perversion of it.

It is unhealthy to do so in a purely random and thoughtless fashion. But that's not what I'm trying to get at.

Being capable of going against one's predispositions, one's programming if you will, is the essence of free will to my mind. It proves that we do not live in a pre-determined universe, and that we are not slaves to our creator (whoever that may be). It is in this sense that we are truly free beings.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

Why weren't Adam and Eve given predispositions towards choosing to obey God?

Because God (evidently) preferred to be obeyed as a matter of choice, not pre-disposition.

Pardon? We couldn't make choices without predispositions. Predispositions imply preferences. People without preferences don't make choices.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

Having those predispositions wouldn't have forced them to obey God.

It would have forced them to go against their nature in order to disobey God.

Yes, and as long as they could go against that nature, then they still had as much free will as you or I have. As long as they could go against the preferences God gave them, then they could not be called slaves to His will.

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

I was more asking for the difference between your belief in God and their belief in God; the nature of the belief itself and not the object of the belief.

I couldn't really comment on that. I don't know what it would be like to believe in something that wasn't true. I don't know what would substitute for the relationship with God by the Holy Spirit, that Christians experience in their daily lives. Perhaps it would be a matter of the comforts of ritual, or of self-generated emotion, or of experiencing aspects of the spiritual dimension for which God is not the immediate source. I don't know.

Ah, but my argument is that a belief in the Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, ect, concept of God would feel no different to a belief in the Christian concept of God. As such, you characterize your own beliefs as being, quite possibly a matter of the comforts of ritual, or of self-generated emotion, or of experiencing aspects of the spiritual dimension for which God is not the immediate source. From what I have read and heard, many non-Christians feel that they have a relationship with God that is the true and intended relationship. How could they know that they are wrong? How would you know if you were wrong? How would I, who has no experience of God or the divine, know that I was wrong?

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

All find what they seek? Many Christians have converted to other religions. Most followers of other religions will never convert to Christianity. Have they all found what they sought?

Focusing on what Lewis proposed, he would seem to be saying that people find what they truly seek. So if they are truly seeking God, they will ultimately find Him -- perhaps outside of time or the confines of this portion of eternity. If, however, they are seeking a belief system that satisfies what appeals to them, then that is what they will ultimately find (a god of their own making).

Do you suggest that everyone who turns away from Christianity is seeking a god of their own making and that no-one who turns towards Christianity is seeking the same thing? So far, you have made many claims about the genuine nature of Christian belief vs the artificial nature of non-Christian belief. I see no reason to accept them; based on experience they seem like simple rhetoric that would apply equally to the followers of any religion.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

If you are born in South Carolina, USA, your chances of become a Christian are hundreds of times better than your chances if you live in the middle of Borneo or in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All religions are naturally tied to geographical regions; making Salvation very much a matter of luck.

Referring again to Lewis' proposal, I would say it makes a knowledge of Christianity in this life very much a matter of destiny, but not necessarily determinative of salvation.

So everyone is destined for salvation or destruction? This makes sense given some Biblical verses, but not others.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

That just strikes me as supreme circular reasoning. Jesus is the only path to God, why? The Bible says so. Why can we believe it? Because it says that Jesus is the only path to God.

Jesus is the only path to God, because this is what God has ordained. We know what God has ordained, because He made His truth known in His relationship with the nation of Israel, and in the writings (the Bible) that record the history of that relationship. Why can we believe it? Because it is true, and because God has given us the capacity to respond to His truth.

But that reasoning is fallacious; your statement boils down to ‘we know it to be true because it’s true’. You may know, personally, that it’s true through experience but there is no objective argument to make me believe it.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

My problem with your arguments is that they all apply equally well to any religion. I could be having this discussion with a Muslim, Jew, Pagan, ect. It would essentially be the same.

I suppose it would be superficially the same.

Yep; the difference would be in the exact nature of the theology.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

As such, claiming that your specific religion has an obvious monopoly on the truth is, IMHO, bizarre,

Actually, I'm not making any claims. I'm stating that this is what I have chosen to believe. Are you saying that you think it is bizarre for any one religion to claim it has a monopoly on the truth?

No; that makes sense. However, my argument runs thus:

1) There is no particular objective reason to accept the truth of one religion over another
2) One religion is true and the others are false. Following the true religion results in salvation while the false religions lead to damnation
3) The true religion is centred around a belief in a loving God who desires salvation for everyone
4) But, there is no reason to believe the true religion over the false ones (1)
5) Therefore, salvation is a matter of chance, luck or destiny
6) Therefore, either (2) or (3) is false; a God cannot desire everyone to be saved and yet leave salvation up to chance.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

and as such, claiming that a loving God is perfectly justified in punishing those who do not subscribe to it (for that is what it boils down to) makes no sense to me.

If every human being is given the capacity to recognize the truth, but some by free will reject it, then the end (whatever it may be) is a result of that choice, not an exercise of punishment.

The freely rejects is what I take issue with. I cannot freely reject the idea that London is in England, I cannot freely reject the idea that a bird is not a fish, and I cannot freely reject the idea that I wear glasses. I am bound to believing these things because they are, to me, the objective truth. Likewise, I cannot freely accept the idea that I am seventeen feet tall, that Australia has seven states, or that rat poison is healthy and nutritous. These are things that contradict my notion of what is logical, sensical or true, and I cannot make myself believe them. I cannot reject atheism for Christianity any more than you can stop being a Christian today and start being a Hindu instead.