board77

LM, I don't have a fraction of your knowledge on the subject, but your conversation with Cerin looks very much like a T talking to an F.

It occurs to me that in the context of strict monotheism - of there being a single Creator of whatever nature from whom all sprang into being - the idea of "one true religion" makes no sense at all. There can't be any such thing as a "false god", simply because there ain't no other God but the God. There is only a bunch of imperfect beings, seeking to comprehend things that are much greater than we are.

It also seems to be in our nature that we wish to seek out the divinity and it gives us deep satisfaction to believe that we comprehend it. Frankly, I don't understand the idea of the God who would set out dozens of paths that all seem to be leading toward that understading, yet make all but one of them dead ends.

Quote:

You may know, personally, that it’s true through experience but there is no objective argument to make me believe it.

*has beautiful flashbacks of the ever-so-valuable "Argument vs Experience" thread*

In response to Wolfy and Cerin,

Wolfy,
I agree with you that the ability to make choices that go against our predispositions is an exercise of free will, but I’m not so sure about your rationale for assuming the predispositions of Adam and Eve.

How do we know that God did not create Adam and Eve with the predisposition to obey him? You point to the rather nonchalant way in which Eve made her choice, but you leave out the bit about the serpent who tempted her. Temptation, especially one which involves becoming “like God”, is certainly powerful enough to make us exercise our free will in ways that contradict our innate predispositions, is it not? The question, really, is could God have created Adam and Eve without the ability to be tempted and without desire? Can you have free will without desire?

If I look at the story of Genesis as a metaphor (which I do) and at Adam and Eve as being representative of all mankind (which I do) and vice versa (which I also do), then I’m inclined to believe that God did create us with a very strong disposition towards spirituality, faith and fellowship with God. Like Frelga said, it seems to be in our nature to seek divinity. (I’m even inclined to believe (in some of my more generous moments) that people are predisposed towards obedience to God.) Look at the ways in which nearly all cultures, throughout time, have sought out the divine. Religion seems to be hardwired into us. Even those who do not believe, who feel they cannot believe, still seek the answers to these questions.

This question of predisposition is very interesting to me - the reasons why people believe the things they do. Why are some people predisposed to see the worst in man, while others see the best? Why are some inclined to have faith, while others are inclined to resist such notions? When Idylleseethes posted in this thread that his personal view of religion is that it has been a very destructive tool for mankind, my immediate reaction was the exact opposite - that it has been a very creative tool. The difference of opinion fascinates me. Why do people look for the things they do?

Tinwe wrote:

Why do people look for the things they do?

The glass half empyt/full argument. There's no real answer.

I'm finding the discussion in this thread interesting. Between the lines of argument I am finding out quite a lot about different religious denominations and the personal perceptions and interpretations of various posters. Some of what I'm reading frightens me a little for it seems to demonstrate a degree of wilful intolerance to the fundamental core outlook of others.

For me, a most interesting realisation has been that there seems to be real effort on the parts of quite a few to actually change the minds of others. Seems a pointless exercise; I can't see that anyone is going to be converted to anyone else's point of view (or faith).

It's also skewed the thread topic - hal originally asked about people's personal definitions of "Born Again Christian", which to me, at least, seemed a harmless dialogue. It seems now to be less harmless, at least to me.

I personally find it anathema to try to change the faith of another, particularly when that person is strong in that faith, when their faith is the foundation of their life. Why should I try to shake their foundations? What do I gain but a pyric victory in an argument, while my opponent in that argument loses their ethical/moral foundation?

I have no desire to prove Cerin or hal or Sidonzo wrong; I am content that they live their lives in a way that makes sense within their personal religious framework. If they are not equally tolerant to the choices I have made, I don't think I lose (unless they go into politics and attempt to impose their beliefs on me and others)

I will therefore bow out of here.

EDITED: for grammar. Will probably edit again, for grammar or spelling, if it hits my eye.

Yes, this thread has wandered quite a bit, but I think I got my answer to the original question, and I hope people will think twice before using the "born again Christian" label carelessly.

As for why someone would want to change another's view of their faith... it's the same as trying to introduce someone new to your faith... For Christian's God has called us to do this regardless.

Personally, I don't like to actively "preach" to others. I like people tomake their own choices, and most people I would talk to get defensive when anyone starts talking abotu religion. So for the most part, I try and act the way God would want me to, and if someone comes to me, I'll explain what I believe as much as they are interested. It's a bit passive, but like i said very early in this thread, if I feel the need to be more pro-active, i generally associate that with God influencing me. It's very much against my nature... so to me, this seems even more evidence that God works through me.

I know I felt that way in this thread, as this is about as pro-active as I get talking religion. In fact, this is more than I've discussed the subject in quite some time. I hope it has been enlightening for some, and i hope if you are seeking God, this thread may have helped in some way. I think I've about exhausted my strength to stick to this thread, but it's been really good. I'll always be available to discuss more in the future, be it here, other threads, or in PM... I just think I need ot focus on work for a while .

Thanks to all who joined in, and by all means continue...

Talking to people about their religion is, by most people, considered abotu as personal as talking to them about their personal hygiene. That's why prosyletizers tend to raise hackles and why I stop eating lunch outside when the Mormon missionaries are roaming the campus.

Halplm,

Thanks for starting this thread. It has been interesting. I agree with you about preaching and for that reason have tried, mostly successfully, to stick to history and not wander into theology. As I said before, I find it very odd to align myself with a Church I've largely ignored all of my adult life.

tinwe_linto

I agree with your statement on predisposition.

I was a bit harsh about the negative ventures of the Church. There was also much that was positive. I have a fondness for many of the things that it accomplished and attempted to accomplish. It has done and continues to do much good in the world.

But, it has been misdirected sometimes in the past. It is this inclination (predisposition?) that I have a problem with. Whenever it decided that there was only one "true" point of view, horror followed.

I recently read a book that expressed the opinion that more early (< 300 CE) Christians died from each other's hands than those of the Romans. I study European history and mythology from the fall of the Roman Empire through the Renaissance. Millions of Christians died during this period because of disagreements on the nature of the Trinity that would seem abusrdly pedantic to most of us. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophytism, and other heresies were brutally suppressed in the early part and towards the end of the period large numbers died during the Albigensian Crusade. That was just Christians against Christians. Don't forget the Crusades against Islam, and the "missionary" work of the Spaniards and the Portuguese in the New World. There were also the sins against the Jews.

This is the danger I see in any religion that pretends to be the "one true" anything. Only unspeakable horror can follow and it is sad to see how much affection normal people have for the idea. It isn't the fault of the Church, its just a human institution.

Quote:

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.

But then why have many Christians explained to me how my nature is in fact predisposed to *not* obey God, and this is why I must turn my will over to him in order to be saved? Isn't the point of the religion no that we stay on the straight and narrow by ourselves but that we turn our will over to God because that's the only way we'll be saved? I mean, it's not just that God gives us the free will to do what we want, it's that we have this free will but we'd better believe in him just by faith or we're screwed. We're not even necessarily talking about the predisposition to obey him but to know he exists. Surely God could make us all born with the knowledge that he exists, or he could show up and make it clear that he does, without interfering with our will at all.

-m

I know I have serious responses to make in this thread, particularly to halplm, who wrote a thoughtful comment to my scattered thoughts on the afterlife, but they'll have to wait for tomorrow because I'm in a rush and have work to do before bedtime.

I just wanted to disclaim any interest in changing anyone's faith or views.

I'll be honest about why I like discussions like this.

Cass Sunstein, among others, has written of how the Internet can turn into the "Daily Me" - some of us tend to seek out others who share our views online, which contributes to the phenomenon of group polarization - we move further in the direction of the extreme in which we believe. This can have the negative effect of being less willing to meet others in the middle.

I think that discussions like this, in forcing all of us to confront the diverging beliefs (or lack of belief) of people whom we hopefully respect, but who think very differently, force us to meet in the center and talk. This doesn't mean that our beliefs have to move to the center, but that we have to be willing to find a midpoint for the discussion. Even if none of us are "converted", and it's highly unlikely any would be, there are at least two positive effects:

(1) In being forced to defend our own positions, we must dig deeper for justification, which can result in the positive experience of a more thorough, reasoned belief in our position.
(2) We have the opportunity to ask questions of and to understand more fully the views of others who think differently. This discussion is one that many of us are reluctant to start in real life, remembering the old ban on discussing religion and politics. This offers us a chance to do so "consensually", without forcing anyone who doesn't want to be here into the discussion.

Now, if someone was to come to believe that their position was untenable, then perhaps it could be the start of finding their way to a position that they themselves found tenable. This could be beneficial as well, but is unusual and is never a result that I expect or hope for.

- TP

Idylle,

Thank you. I don’t disagree with the points you are making, particularly the one about the “one truth” mentality. But, we have to remember that for many, if not most people, the foundation of their spiritual lives lies in their convictions. I don’t have a problem with that and I think it can in fact be a very useful thing, as long as those convictions have been scrutinized within the framework of some theological institution, what Jnyusa referred to earlier as a “method” for theological debate. The problem, in my opinion, is when the institutions themselves become fixated on “the one truth” to the point that they feel the need to attack other beliefs. On this point I am in total agreement with you - great harm can come from this. But even here, I think we have to distinguish between the religion and the church. History shows that when churches become political or governmental bodies they are capable of tremendous atrocities, but I don’t see that as necessarily a fault with the religion, just with the people who claim to practice the religion.

For myself, growing up in the church I was able to both sides of the coin - the good and the bad. Believe me, even within the inner working of a small southern Methodist church, political infighting can be a nasty business, and I’ve seen plenty of it in my life. But I tend to have a positive view of the church because I saw more of the good than I did the bad. One example - my father, who is technically retired but refuses to quit working, is currently serving a tiny little church in the mountains of North Carolina. When the hurricanes came through last year the town where his church is located was devastated by floods and many of his parishioners were driven out of their homes. I went to help with the clean up, and what I saw really impressed me. The generosity of his congregation and the way that they worked together, not just for their own members, but for all of the townspeople, was amazing. Perhaps I am merely predisposed for this, but this is what I tend to think of when I think of “the church”.

By the way, I can also relate to a statement that you made earlier about feeling odd for being in the position of defending the church. By the standard definition of Christianity, I am not a very good Christian.

Sister Magpie wrote:

...why have many Christians explained to me how my nature is in fact predisposed to *not* obey God, and this is why I must turn my will over to him in order to be saved?

I must admit that I have always had a problem with this idea myself, but I don’t think the characterization is entirely accurate. As I understand Christianity, it does not teach that we are necessarily predisposed to “sin”, whatever that may mean, but that we do have a weakness to succumb to temptation and that often this weakness leads us to do things that are contrary to our nature (our nature, by the Christian definition, being to have fellowship with God). However, in a general sense, I can understand the notion that we are not perfect, that we all make mistakes, we all make (at least occasionally) bad choices and bad decisions.

The notion of “turning over your will” to God also sounds strange to me. Perhaps this is taught in some Christian sects, but I’ve always heard that freedom to chose endures even after you have given your life to Christ.

TP,
Thanks for making an excellent point. It is nice to have a place where people of different opinions can discuss these things in a civil manner, and honestly, this is just about the only place I’ve ever found in my life where something like this could happen.

Quote:

The notion of “turning over your will” to God also sounds strange to me. Perhaps this is taught in some Christian sects, but I’ve always heard that freedom to chose endures even after you have given your life to Christ.

Oh, I think there are lots of different ways that different Christians interpret things--I was raised Catholic and had never heard this idea, but I have met people since who have told me that human nature is naturally bad and incapable of being good. It sometimes seems very bizarre to me--like I remember somebody using toddler behavior as an example--look how selfish young children are, the way they just take what they want from others and don't share! As if this was a sign of an evil nature that had to be tamed and not just the way we naturally grow--we are able to recognize our own needs before we can comprehend that others also have needs like us, etc.

And the idea of us giving into temptations sometimes in itself becomes almost fetishized, so if you cheat on your wife it's all, "I was weak and I gave into the big evil temptation of the devil but now I'm turning to Jesus for help and forgiveness!" Which is all very dramatic but neatly avoids just being responsible for your own behavior and saying hey, you're not just a "weak human being" who gave into the temptation the devil offered, you're a regular-strength human being who saw a woman you wanted to sleep with and chose to do that hoping your wife wouldn't find out. You certainly did have the power to keep yourself from doing it, so stop making it into some grand battle between you and the super powerful devil that you lost because you didn't have the supernatural power of a deity in your corner that day.

Not that all Christians do this at all, of course, it's just a certain way it seems to get used that many people seem to buy.

But then the other thing I was thinking of was just the belief in God. I don't think belief has to be an act of will, so God could easily make himself known and stop us all guessing without interfering with our free will. Instead he's apparently witholding important information and rewarding people for being predisposed to believe it without proof--so I don't see how that's an act of free will. He's already just rewarding a predisposition.

-m

Wolfgangbos wrote:

I did not, for example, choose to be sexually and emotionally attracted to the female gender. Yet I am. Thus, as a result, my choice is to seek out a woman in a way that fulfills this innate preference.

Looking at this statement again, it strikes me as being incorrect.

Your attraction to females is not a choice; therefore, your "seeking out" of females is not a choice comparable to the choice, for example, of deciding what to eat when you're hungry. Your 'seeking out' of females is more akin to the basic need to find something to eat, than to the choice of what to eat. The choice of what to eat would be comparable to the choice of what woman to pursue, not to the artificial 'choice' you've posited, of deciding to pursue a man rather than a woman.

If your choice in the matter is deciding which woman to pursue (or put off pursuing), then that is where you will exercise your preference. To call your sexual orientation a preference is misleading. It is not just that you prefer women over men, it is that you do not have a natural sexual attraction to men at all.

In other words, you would not suggest that if you were hungry, seeking out a sandwich over a hunk of scrap metal was a choice that fulfilled an innate preference. It is much more fundamental than that. The scrap metal is not really a choice for you to satisfy your hunger, any more than a man is really a choice for you to satisfy your romantic longings. So the idea of 'choice' here is false.

Wolfgangbos wrote:

Cerin wrote:

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.

No, you cannot try to feel something. That is not the way human beings work. You cannot try to feel fear you don't feel. You cannot try to feel love you don't feel. You cannot try to feel attraction you don't feel. This fundamental example you've posited is false.

Quote:

I am not forced by my nature to act in a particular fashion. I can act in a way that ignores my natural predisposition.

You are forced by your nature to have certain impulses and feelings. You can choose how you will deal with those natural impulses and feelings. You can pursue a woman, or you can squelch your sexual desire. Pursuing a man in order to satisfy your desire for a woman is not a natural choice. It would only be brought about by extraordinary circumstances of some kind. It is therefore not an exercise of free will in the same way that exercising a choice within the parameters of your natural inclinations is an exercise of free will.

You've been equating the process of taking action according to your natural impulses and feelings, with the process of taking action in opposition to your natural impulses and feelings. In the first case, action would flow without effort as a natural part of your disposition; in the second case, action would require extaordinary purpose and effort in a thwarting of that natural disposition. So in your Adam and Eve scenario, obeying God would have been the effortless and natural outcome, whereas disobeying God would have required extraordinary purpose and effort. Yet you seem to want to say that in a scenario positing these two choices, either choice would represent the same exercise of free will.

Suppose you and a friend are enjoying an evening together in front of a fire; your friend is about to offer you a choice of two apples for your eating pleasure. You would very much like to have one of the apples. He puts one of the apples on the coffee table next to you, and tosses the other into the flames. Which apple do you exercise your free will in choosing? Are the choices equal? Are they equal examples of the exercise of free will? Are you not 'free-er' to take the apple from the table than to take the apple from the flames, because there are no constraints on that choice? What circumstance would have to exist, to cause you to choose to take the apple from the fire?

Your argument seems to be that God could have made it as difficult for Adam and Eve to choose disobedience over obedience, as it is for you to choose the apple in the fire over the apple on the table, without violating their free will. I think there's something fishy about your argument.

Quote:

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

I'm not familiar with that principle. But really, this seems to be the whole point of your argument. You seem to be saying that God could have influenced the outcome of the apple test by pre-disposing us to obey, thus preempting the bothersome problem of eternal damnation.

Quote:

Being capable of going against one's predispositions, one's programming if you will, is the essence of free will to my mind.

Well, it is not to mine. I think it is a rather strange notion.

My concept of free will is a heterosexual male deciding to wait until marriage to satisfy his urges, or deciding to take some condoms with him on his date, or deciding to go to the red light district and satisfy his appetites.

Your concept of free will is a heterosexual male deciding to have sex with a man. Would he do this absent some extraordinary circumstance? If not, then is it really a matter of 'free' will?

Quote:

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

We've not been talking about mere preferences. We've not been talking about the mechanism for choosing Lindt chocolate over Hershey's. You put the question in terms of practical absolutes:

Quote:

But my innate preference makes this choice seem so terribly unpleasant as to make the chances of my taking this option effectively nil.

We all act as our natures dictate.

We've been talking about absolute predispositions; we've been talking about our natures, not our preferences.

Wolfgangbos wrote:

Cerin wrote:

Wolfgangbos wrote:

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.

I think this idea of "as much free will as you or I have" is the point at which we're not connecting. The comparison isn't between an amount of free will a pre-disposed Adam and Eve would have had, and the amount of free will we have, to make decisions within the parameters of our natural inclinations.

The comparison concerns the concept of 'free', within the context of making a choice. The choice is between doing something one is naturally inclined to do, and doing something one is naturally disinclined to do, and which action would therefore require the exercise of extraordinary purpose and will in order to accomplish. That scenario does not represent the concept of 'free,' as it relates to the idea of being equally 'free' to make one choice, as to make the other.

Quote:

As long as they could go against the preferences God gave them, then they could not be called slaves to His will.

Neither could it be said that they were free; they are not free to disobey, anymore than you are free to feel romantically attracted to a man. We're not talking about either absolute slavery or absolute freedom. We're talking about the freedom to make choices within certain parameters.

I suppose it all comes down to definitions in the end.

free will - 1 : the power of willing or choosing within certain limitations or with respect to certain matters without the restraints of physical or divinely imposed necessity or outside causal law : spontaneous will or partially causeless volition.

To me this perfectly describes the case of a heterosexual male making choices about how to exercise his sexuality within the parameters of his pre-disposed sexual orientation. He is not a slave to God's will.

I'm not sure it describes as well, a heterosexual male choosing for some reason to engage in sexual activity with another man. It seems to me that that scenario implies some kind of imposed necessity; that is, this man really is a slave to some kind of circumstance or situation, because otherwise he would not be acting as he is acting. His action would certainly not be spontaneous, and it seems to me that it would not be even partially causeless. So not free.

:):)

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

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.

Yes, I understand. I disagree.

Quote:

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.

No, I do not characterize them as being possibly such. I understand, though, that you do.

Quote:

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?

We can't know. Hence our use of the word 'believe'.

Quote:

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?

I don't suggest that everyone who turns away from Christianity is seeking a god of their own making. There may be other reasons for people to turn away from Christianity. I suppose some people may turn towards Christianity in seeking a god of their own making, but I don't know the likelihood of people encountering God while that is the motivation for seeking.

Quote:

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.

Yes, I can see where they would seem like that to you.

Quote:

So everyone is destined for salvation or destruction?

Well, I'm hoping everyone is destined for salvation. I believe we will all continue eternally. As I understand it, the question is, will we continually eternally in God's presence, or in some place or dimension from which His presence is removed.

Quote:

You may know, personally, that it’s true through experience but there is no objective argument to make me believe it.

Yes, that's correct. I don't have an objective argument to make you believe it.

Quote:

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.

I believe there is reason to believe the true religion over the false ones. God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Therefore salvation is a matter of our attitude combined with God's grace.

Quote:

I cannot reject atheism for Christianity any more than you can stop being a Christian today and start being a Hindu instead.

I could stop being a Christian today and start being a Hindu instead, if I so chose.

Sister Magpie wrote:

It sometimes seems very bizarre to me--like I remember somebody using toddler behavior as an example--look how selfish young children are, the way they just take what they want from others and don't share! As if this was a sign of an evil nature that had to be tamed and not just the way we naturally grow--we are able to recognize our own needs before we can comprehend that others also have needs like us, etc.

IKWYM. Haven't those people ever noticed how loving those same toddlers are, how quick to offer hugs and kisses to comfort their families, how eager to imitate the grownups (ah, there's the problem ) and help when they can.

I am fully aware that this is by no means the norm among Christian families, but I have ran into some parents who literally claim that their children are inherently evil and sinful and will remain this way unless dealt with very harshly and punished frequently both physically and emotionally. It breaks my heart.

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

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.

Yes, I understand. I disagree.

Can you provide evidence for that?

What would be really, really helpful now would be a religious Jew or Muslim to join this discussion. Do we have any on b77?

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

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.

No, I do not characterize them as being possibly such. I understand, though, that you do.

I don’t as such, but I understand how the world’s Muslims and Jews might.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

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?

We can't know. Hence our use of the word 'believe'.

But below you say that God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Is there evidence and objectivity or not?

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

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?

I don't suggest that everyone who turns away from Christianity is seeking a god of their own making. There may be other reasons for people to turn away from Christianity. I suppose some people may turn towards Christianity in seeking a god of their own making, but I don't know the likelihood of people encountering God while that is the motivation for seeking.

And many find God because they’re born into Christian communities. Religion isn’t a big part of everyone’s life; some people don’t think about it.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

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.

Yes, I can see where they would seem like that to you.

You’re starting to sound like Tuor now.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

You may know, personally, that it’s true through experience but there is no objective argument to make me believe it.

Yes, that's correct. I don't have an objective argument to make you believe it.

If there is no objective argument to make me believe that one religion is correct over the other, then salvation is left to chance. I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving God leaving salvation to chance. It would be like me, as a parent, posting different lists of rules around the house, or, alternatively, posting a set of rules but letting anyone post rules up as well, not telling my children which rules are correct, and punishing them for breaking them.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

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.

I believe there is reason to believe the true religion over the false ones. God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Therefore salvation is a matter of our attitude combined with God's grace.

What is the evidence of his nature and why do 75% of the world’s people not see it?

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

I cannot reject atheism for Christianity any more than you can stop being a Christian today and start being a Hindu instead.

I could stop being a Christian today and start being a Hindu instead, if I so chose.

But could you stop believing in the Christian concept of God and immediately change to the Hindu concept of God? If so, you must have a remarkable ability to brainwash yourself.

Cerin wrote:

You would very much like to have one of the apples. He puts one of the apples on the coffee table next to you, and tosses the other into the flames. Which apple do you exercise your free will in choosing? Are the choices equal? Are they equal examples of the exercise of free will? Are you not 'free-er' to take the apple from the table than to take the apple from the flames, because there are no constraints on that choice? What circumstance would have to exist, to cause you to choose to take the apple from the fire?

I think I get what you're saying, Cerin. You're saying that by giving us a predisposition one way or the other, he removes a certain amount of the...let's say, value, of the choice. When we are naturally inclined to do something, it is not significant or meaningful when we do it, which would be why God did not do that. He left us fully free, according to what you're saying. (Though, many Christians say that humans are naturally drawn to him).

The problem is that you're saying he didn't want an essentially compulsory choice brought about by an internal predisposition. But what he's given instead is much worse - an external compulsion presented by the choice of eternal paradise or eternal damnation. This is much like the non-choice you presented with the apple, except it's our souls being tossed in the fire. It's as much a non-choice to love God as it is which of the two apples you eat.

I've been away for a few days and am rather in awe after having read through this thread.

Cerin, you said:

Quote:

No, you cannot try to feel something. That is not the way human beings work. You cannot try to feel fear you don't feel. You cannot try to feel love you don't feel. You cannot try to feel attraction you don't feel.

You can try, but effort is somehow not to the point, is it? And that's exactly where Belief and I uncomfortably intersect. My predisposition (my theological rather than sexual "orientation") does not lead me towards believing theological stories. As others have said, it's not that I don't see the appeal in some (not all) of those stories, just as I still understand my deep longing as a child to go to Oz (EVERY wish I made for many years -- white horses, first stars, birthday candles, tunnels -- was to go to Oz). If wishes were horses, as we know, beggars would ride. I never got to Oz, though, to my sorrow, and unfortunately for me, the stories religion offers don't seem any likelier to take me to magical places, or to make me "believe" them -- EXCEPT allegorically or figuratively, which is the way I believe in the truth of Oz or Narnia or our longing that "the circle be unbroken, by and by, Lord, by and by...."

That truth, even if not literal truth, is still immensely precious to me. And honestly, if it were just a wish that would make it so, I would love to believe in a benevolent God watching over this universe with kindness and waiting to catch us up in His arms eventually and dry our tears (or set us up in a peaceful cottage outside the Emerald City -- and I'm not being at all facetious). But a wish cannot make that so, for me.

Others have explained more eloquently than I ever could how it feels to be without belief, but my particular interest is really how those who believe religious stories manage to do so. I am thus the opposite of someone trying to undo another person's faith! It is a mystery to me, this ability to believe these things, and I am amazed and fascinated by it. I do gather from this thread that I am not alone in not having traditional religion as a "choice," and that is comforting -- or at least reminds me of our common humanity, which is a sweet thing truly.

My apologies to those looking to a response from me, but I've been rushing to tie up loose ends before I leave to go to a wedding halfway across the country. I may be able to check in here while I'm away, but cannot guarantee that I'll have enough time to post anything substantive.

Quote:

I think I get what you're saying, Cerin. You're saying that by giving us a predisposition one way or the other, he removes a certain amount of the...let's say, value, of the choice.

But isn't God kind of fighting a losing battle here? He creates people; he gives us our will. Everything we are he creates. Whatever we feel towards him, he is responsible for in some way. Making a certain person prefer heterosexual sex or chocolate over vanilla doesn't seem like it's usually described as interfering with the person's will. It seems like it's only got to do with free will in this case because God really really wants to be loved while believing that love is forced in any way.

But that sometimes seems to wind up with God being a rather neurotic lover. I mean, he creates us and gives us our preferences, but then thinks the love isn't good enough because we're just following orders, so we have to be not naturally inclined to love him, but that's got to be punished. And he also for some reason needs to not even let us know for sure he exists because that, too, would make the love not as good.

It seems to me there's only one way God would get the kind of love that's being described here, and that's to do it exactly as people do it: find a person whose will and preferences you didn't create, let them get to know you, and then take your chances. If they grow to love you, be happy. If they don't grow to love you you just wish them the best.

-m

Can I just say how impressed I am with this thread. I disagree with much that is written and agree with a lot of it. Alas, I don't have the time right now to properly formalize a post, but...wow.