|
|
|
|
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 6:01:19 PM | trippy hare wrote:
Nobody, not one single person, has exclusivism of truth,
Sounds like a strong pronouncement. Are you absolutely exclusively sure on this?
and it is only in looking at all faiths as pieces of the puzzle of Truth that I have come to accept their differences and appreciate their diversity.
Believing in everything is just the flip side of believing in nothing. Take a stand and let the chips fall. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 6:50:50 PM |
It is not God who damns us, but we who damn ourselves. That ultimately, it all comes down to our own choice.
I think an all-loving God can punish. The problem is the extent, which determines whether God is all-loving, loving, somewhat loving, not very loving, or not loving at all. I think we can damn ourselves, but is an all-loving God going to hand out unforgiving sentences?
An all-loving God wouldn't have cancer run rampant. Yes, people who live great lives, of the faithful and non-faithful, die a horrible death due to genetic processes that are not a result of any bad people out there, but of the way we are genetically made -- it could be better. Even we humans understand that, and that it's not necessary. Additionally, an all-loving God would use punishment to teach someone a lesson, and a chance for forgiveness -- especially when it's His first time dolling out the punishment to a particular person whose first time knowing that it's God dolling it out.
Punishment's true purpose is to teach in order to allow someone to learn and carry out their life in a more wise way. A temporary "hellish" experience for someone who knows why they're being punished, from the mouth of God, just as from the mouth of a court Judge? Sure, I could see circumstances. I'm not going to nitpick... but obviously damning someone to a hell for eternity is an act of vengence, made up in the minds of mere frustrated mortals. Or, one stuck on the Old Testament! | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 7:42:43 PM |
Trippy Disaronno Ever watched kittens watching ping-pong? I'm sooo not touching this...
Then you haven't met any "turn or burn" believers. That's probably a good thing, but you should know that they exist. Awareness, yeah. Heap big important stuff, man.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. This actually goes against Biblical teaching. I didn't take it so much as "test God" by, say, screwing around with something off-limits, so much as "test God" by looking into Scripture and seeing how and why stuff might be applicable.
Sounds like a strong pronouncement. Are you absolutely exclusively sure on this?  "Are you sure?" "I'm certain." "Only fools are certain." "Are you sure?" "I'm certain." 
Believing in everything is just the flip side of believing in nothing. Take a stand and let the chips fall. I disagree. I do believe in everything, just not necessarily in every context. Important, that.
It is not God who damns us, but we who damn ourselves. That ultimately, it all comes down to our own choice. I think an all-loving God can punish.
The problem is the extent, which determines whether God is all-loving, loving, somewhat loving, not very loving, or not loving at all. I'm not sure whether to mark "C" on this multiple-choice question, or not...
I think we can damn ourselves, but is an all-loving God going to hand out unforgiving sentences? I agree, and good question.
Additionally, an all-loving God would use punishment to teach someone a lesson, and a chance for forgiveness... Wait, you're saying the threat of everlasting punishment isn't enough to teach a vague, ill-applied lesson that, in many cases, doesn't even appear applicable? Come on, you're foolin', right?
Punishment's true purpose is to teach in order to allow someone to learn and carry out their life in a more wise way. No, no, I'm sure the purpose of punishment is punishment. Paul said so.
... but obviously damning someone to a hell for eternity is an act of vengence, made up in the minds of mere frustrated mortals. Or, one stuck on the Old Testament! There's a difference? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 7:56:09 PM |
Im sooo not touching this
Darn it, Feral! I had so hoped that you'd take my side...*pouts*
Now I feel like a child, sent to her room....
Cant you tell that Ive been trying to be nice, though?
Glad to see you're recovering from those Budweisers, darlin.  | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 8:06:33 AM |
Sounds like a strong pronouncement. Are you absolutely exclusively sure on this?
Think yer clever, doncha? :-P
Until I see otherwise, yes.
Believing in everything is just the flip side of believing in nothing. Take a stand and let the chips fall.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear:
Every religion has some core, fundamental Truth... that's how adherents remain loyal. Some are rather obscure, some appeal to the most basic of human emotional needs, but all of them, somewhere, have a grain of Truth. That doesn't mean I believe everything about everything, it means that I can appreciate the diversity, while also seeing the things that bring them together.
Except for scientologists. :-P | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 1:13:53 PM | I've been away a few days *sighs* but now I'm back! I know you all have missed me *chuckles* And I've even missed a few of you  So here goes...
Actually, that IS how it works. Life is only 10% what happens, and 90% how you react
Ummm isn't it, everything in life is 100% what happens, but what matters is how you deal with it?
The child choses to be devastated by the molestation, creating in-numerable issues, or the child choses to percivere, and to overcome any hinderences or stigmas asscociated with the autrocity that fell upon him/her.
Ummm pick a better analogy, and not one that deals with lifelong trauma, because you can't imagine what rape victims go through, and to sit and say "well you can either play the victim or move on" is incredibly wrong.
We are not defined by our situation unless we allow ourselves to be.
And what is wrong with being defined by a situation?
Poeple are obviously not reading entire posts.
Yes people are reading, you just change your thoughts from message to message.
Are you sure?" "I'm certain." "Only fools are certain." "Are you sure?" "I'm certain."
lol I was thinking this when I read that haha | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 1:26:53 PM | Perhaps I didn't make myself clear:
Every religion has some core, fundamental Truth... that's how adherents remain loyal. Some are rather obscure, some appeal to the most basic of human emotional needs, but all of them, somewhere, have a grain of Truth. That doesn't mean I believe everything about everything, it means that I can appreciate the diversity, while also seeing the things that bring them together.
Except for scientologists. :-P
Hey trippy hare, This quote gave me a thought... Would you give one or two of N8's analogies a tune-up, so to speak; with the core, fundamental truths that you referenced? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 1:53:13 PM | | God does love us no matter what we do he always lets us fall...but he's also there to pick us up again if we allow him in. God also gave us the greatest gift of all....FREE WILL | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 2:16:50 PM |
Believing in everything is just the flip side of believing in nothing. Take a stand and let the chips fall.
I see, so if you believe everything is either black or white, you don't have a colour TV, your don't perceive any noticeable change in traffic lights; you've never seen a rainbow... that's a dangerously boring world you live in. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 2:27:04 PM |
I see, so if you believe everything is either black or white, you don't have a colour TV, your don't perceive any noticeable change in traffic lights; you've never seen a rainbow... that's a dangerously boring world you live in.
On the other hand I’m proud of a revision I made to the French maxim “Tous comprendre c’est tous pardonner” (To understand everything is to forgive everything). My revision, in translation, is
To understand everything is to understand nothing. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 2:33:04 PM |
To understand everything is to understand nothing.
ad infinitum (endlessly) so. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 2:40:17 PM |
God also gave us the greatest gift of all....FREE WILL
Then why does the Bible say this:
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
Romans 3:10-12
? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 4:23:07 PM | trippy_hare wrote (original declaration)
Nobody, not one single person, has exclusivism of truth,
Sounds like a strong pronouncement. Are you absolutely exclusively sure on this?
Think yer clever, doncha? :-P
Until I see otherwise, yes.
I'll take that as a "no."
every religion has some core, fundamental Truth... that's how adherents remain loyal. Some are rather obscure, some appeal to the most basic of human emotional needs, but all of them, somewhere, have a grain of Truth. That doesn't mean I believe everything about everything, it means that I can appreciate the diversity, while also seeing the things that bring them together.
I understand what you're saying and agree that there has to be Truth in a popular religion. But there is disagreement between all religions on fundamental points. In other words, the diversity of error is such that there would not be a coming together in unity without destroying the original revelation.
Consider an analogy of so many planes and jet planes at an airport. They all look like passable flying machines but some can be inspected to have defective engines while others function perfectly except they lack a qualified pilot. So the question is do any of them actually fly?
My claim is that there is enough fundamental difference between all religions that, continuing with the plane analogy, either they're all grounded or there is one that actually flies, that is, one with exclusivity of Truth.
And since it is impossible to declare a universal absolute negative, without being omniscient, one must accept the proposition of one true religion or refuse to take a stand on the issue (agnostic). | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 6:21:58 PM |
And since it is impossible to declare a universal absolute negative, without being omniscient...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but isn't it also impossible to declare a universal absolute positive without being omniscient? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 11:39:23 PM |
I'll take that as a "no."
Hmm. I'm not aware of the word "yes" meaning "no" in any newfangled sort of slang... but let me clarify. Again.
There are no absolute truths. Nobody can have exclusivism of truth. I am well aware of the fact that both of these statements contradict themselves semantically. Would you prefer the opposites?
Everything is an absolute truth. Everyone has exclusivism of truth. Meaning everybody is right. But, then, by default, everybody would also be wrong.
That's the problem with many faiths: the notion that "we are the only ones who have it right" means that "everybody else has it wrong" by default... so every religion is wrong in the eyes of every other when exclusivism of truth is concerned. I'd rather think that everyone has part of it right and nobody is wrong than think EVERYBODY is wrong.
I understand what you're saying and agree that there has to be Truth in a popular religion. But there is disagreement between all religions on fundamental points. In other words, the diversity of error is such that there would not be a coming together in unity without destroying the original revelation.
Er, what? No, I'm not saying all religions need to merge into one... not at all. The differences are important, and even vital. I'm saying that, when you get past the ceremonies, names, and laws... and get right down to the nitty-gritty... every religion has more in common than it does differences. That doesn't mean the differences are inconsequential... it means that the differences shouldn't be used to promote any one over any other, or demonize any one over any other.
Consider an analogy of so many planes and jet planes at an airport. They all look like passable flying machines but some can be inspected to have defective engines while others function perfectly except they lack a qualified pilot. So the question is do any of them actually fly?
Irrelevant analogy. But for argument's sake: Every one of them is capable of flying, given the right circumstances.
My claim is that there is enough fundamental difference between all religions that, continuing with the plane analogy, either they're all grounded or there is one that actually flies, that is, one with exclusivity of Truth.
And that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it: however, saying "there is ONE absolute truth" is the exact same semantic problem with saying "there are NO absolute truths". How can you prove that any one Truth is absolute, or that any one Truth is not?
And since it is impossible to declare a universal absolute negative, without being omniscient, one must accept the proposition of one true religion or refuse to take a stand on the issue (agnostic).
Nope. It's impossible to prove a universal positive without omniscience. Why, then, would I limit my own understanding? Learning about other religions cannot be proven to cause harm... and it can foster understanding, as well. Isn't that worth the risk?
I'd like to think so.
And until I see otherwise, I can say with certainty that there is no one true Faith. There is no religion that is inherently correct in every regard. Every religion is formulated by humans, and humans are flawed. Even those divinely inspired are adhered to by people, and people are flawed. Until such time as Mankind itself becomes perfect, a perfect ideology cannot exist. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/27/2007 11:51:23 PM |
But there is disagreement between all religions on fundamental points. In other words, the diversity of error is such that there would not be a coming together in unity without destroying the original revelation. I disagree. Is it not possible that the error is not with the premise --that there exists an ultimate reality which trancends, informs, and justifies all else-- but with the myriad interpretations? Who's to say the "lowest common denominator" isn't the truth we all seek? As for the revelations of the various religions, is it not possible that their originators all somehow "glimpsed" this ultimate reality and subsequently based their flawed subjective interpretations on seeing what is essentially always the same thing through the lenses of their own cultural or personal presuppositions and biases?
Consider an analogy of so many planes and jet planes at an airport. They all look like passable flying machines but some can be inspected to have defective engines while others function perfectly except they lack a qualified pilot. So the question is do any of them actually fly?
My claim is that there is enough fundamental difference between all religions that, continuing with the plane analogy, either they're all grounded or there is one that actually flies, that is, one with exclusivity of Truth. N8, if you're still around, take notes from this guy on analogies. As to the analogy itself, I would say that it seems ultimately more probable that all the planes on the airfield have the potential to fly, once "tweaked" enough to reach that point. In my opinion, it's the fundamental flaws of humanity that have kept them all grounded for one reason or another.
And since it is impossible to declare a universal absolute negative... Is this a paradox, or are you omniscient?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but isn't it also impossible to declare a universal absolute positive without being omniscient? I'd say any claim to absolute knowledge with regard to anything is suspect. I only know one "thing" even close to the kind of intimacy that that would entail, and I keep finding out more about myself every day. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/28/2007 12:01:16 AM |
Then why does the Bible say this:
Im not real sure what you meant but just because the great I AM did infact give all breathing creatures free will, doesnt mean that that particular group of people couldnt be "worthless"
They were, as you read in His Word, "not understanding, did not seek God, had turned away, and therefore became worthless doing no good. It is BECAUSE they had been given free will to due what they wish, that they had choosen to become what they had.... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/28/2007 3:10:47 AM | | Our problem is one of faith, isn't it? We doubt life after death and see the nature of our present existence as the only one possible in the universe. We are cool on anything the Holy Spirit might offer for our relief here in this hellishness or maybe have shunned God completely. What can we, who are incredulous, do to open our minds which might really make faith begin to take root in us? Since we are neutral we need to be polarized. Let's go negative before we go positive. Why not pursue spirituality in the occult for a while? We'll get results, I'll guarantee you. We may find ourselves so pestered by demonic entities we will be praying for relief, which if done in sincerity, will come for us; thank God for His powerful angels of good. Now, hopefully we go positive (unless we happen to like demonic company) and our new found faith begins to open the world of God for us, even while yet on earth. Things that troubled us and seemed impossible or hopeless to resolve begin to untangle for us. Our hearts are now in pursuit of forgiveness and peace, not hostility. Remember that our soul is a prize, let us resolve that it shall reside with the inhabitants of heaven. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/28/2007 4:10:41 AM | Since we are neutral we need to be polarized. Let's go negative before we go positive. Why not
I admire the process you lay out but would suggest it could be applied otherwise. Life on earth is such a terrifying mystery; mortality is terrifying. Let’s go negative and deny that we are alone in facing these terrors and turn instead to this concept, ‘God,’ who, we have heard, created us, loves us and promises us eternal life if we follow in His ways....
Ah, that feels better, and we now have a community of those who think like us, with whom we can huddle together in places of worship, smiling and reassuring each other that we have made the right choice.
But wait! Every now and then a bit of that terror returns. We notice that the world that this God has created is far from a perfect place and, if anything, it may be getting worse. So then we go positive: We decide that the terror and the lack of answers are intrinsic to our condition - in fact, they are the very things that present us with the opportunity to grow as individuals. We will allow that there are answers that may forever elude us but will choose to live as intelligently, as humanely as we can. We will be brave. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/1/2007 5:30:07 PM | Mattadore:
I'll give it a shot. However, I'm in the midst of moving, and my internet access is shaky at best. I'll take the request into consideration, though. ^_^ | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/29/2007 8:07:12 PM | | Well i couldn't disagree with you more. No where in the scriptures is salvation presented as a choice that man makes, but throught the scriptures we r taught that salvation is God's choice. He alone chooses who he saves and who he damns according to his purpose and will. His elect, who he chose in Christ before the foundation of the world ( eph 1:4) will all be saved, while the rest he will throw into hell. For a better understanding of this I would point to to the 9th chapter of romans , especially verses 14 - 23 . | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/30/2007 8:53:27 AM | "while the rest he will throw into hell"
I have news for you Luther... we are already there, if you have chosen it. Love your brother/sister regardless, and make it heaven. :) | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/30/2007 10:50:18 AM | Well i couldn't disagree with you more. No where in the scriptures is salvation presented as a choice that man makes, but throught the scriptures we r taught that salvation is God's choice. He alone chooses who he saves and who he damns according to his purpose and will. His elect, who he chose in Christ before the foundation of the world ( eph 1:4) will all be saved, while the rest he will throw into hell. For a better understanding of this I would point to to the 9th chapter of romans , especially verses 14 - 23 .
Luther
Ive been a Christian a number of years,its the one question i could never get a proper answer for predestination,i know there was been a thread on here awhile ago,but i couldnt find it.I dont think im going of topic,so what youre saying is God picks out who he wants saved,and lets the rest perish.Whats the point in talking to someone about God then if they are not chosen,or as in that other thread one man said why bother at all.The only sensible answer i could come up with is everybody is chosen,but some choose to ignore it.That makes sense to me from a loving God. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/30/2007 1:46:41 PM | an far ..
As i am sure u have read, God's ways r not our ways. No where in the bible does it say that God loves everyone, in fact we have strong statemants concerning his hatred like psalm 5:5 and psalm 11:5 " God's soul hates the wicked". In fact paul in romans 9 makes this very clear .. " Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" and not for something they did but before they were born or had done anything - God hated Esau. Paul explains how God is sovereign in his election using pharoah as an example of how God used him as an object of wrath to bring about God's purpose. Paul goes on to present his audiences logical conclusion " you will say to me then, why does God find fault since no one can resist his will" but he quickly puts away any objections with his answer "who are you oh man to say to God why have u made me like this? Has not the potter power over the clay to make out of the same lump some for honor and some for dishonor?" Paul then shows us God's reasons for making objects or destruction .. for his glory, so that his wrath and power may be made known to all the world and especially to his elect who he saves in order that they may know the grace and mercy of God. So yes, everyone is chosen, some to eternal life, some to eternal damnation, according to God's plan and purpose .
You ask what is the point of spreading the gospel? we do not know who God's elect are. They are spread out amongst all the nations. So we take the gospel to the world, and those who are his sheep will hear it, the goats will remain deaf to it. " You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep .. my sheep hear my voice and I give them eternal life" John 10 .. Notice the cause of their unbelief, they are not his sheep. Jesus is the good shepard and he lays his life down for his sheep, not for any goats. He pays for his sheep's sins, the goats will pay for their own sins in hell.
Hope this answers ur questions
" As many as God chose to have eternal life, believed" acts 13:48 | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 6/30/2007 2:46:37 PM | | Thanks Luther95 for prompt reply.Yes that has given me a better understanding of it,at last.Thank you for taking the time to explain it.Wouldnt you know the thread i was looking for is after appearing,so ill have a read through that.But im happy enough now. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
