There's absolutely no reason to suppose its true. Hence, it lacks sense.



But what is the flaw with the "experience method?" Can you outline exactly what you mean?

There is no reason to suppose that it isn't. There is also no reason to suppose that God is Jehovah other than because Jehovah says so.

Think about it. If a police officer comes to your house and says they want to ask you a few questions, it's not up to you to stand there and puzzle out reasons as to why they might lie about being a police officer and how they could have obtained a uniform if they aren't one. Even if it was, there might be certain factors that you aren't aware of, which would limit your ability to do so. But it doesn't work like that. If they want to come into your house and take up your time, they have to show you their ID and prove that they are who they say they are.

Now why is this situation any different? Why do I have to sit here and come up with reasons about why Jehovah might not be who he says he is? Especially since I am a limited human and we're talking about transcendent deities here, which makes the probability of factors that I am not aware of extremely high. Why can't he just show his "ID"?



The flaw is exactly the same as the one you point out with the method I propose; just because someone has had an experience teaching them that they should (or should not) do something doesn't necessarily mean they will (or will not) do it.

You're analyzing this like its some conspiracy theory.

Okay, God is the Logos, the fount of reason. Hence, there's really no good reason to suppose that God would lie to man, directly or indirectly (such as by letting a non-God being masquerade as God).

Hence, I find there to be no reason to suppose that Jehovah isn't just a name for God.



But then who's fault is that?

Experience can bring growth; to just "hardwire" the "right" beliefs or actions precludes this growth. And no, this isn't a growth to only the point at which the hardwiring could happen; you must take it in whole. If, no matter how finitely great we are created, we are yet finite, then we are always infinitely far from God and there is room for growth. If we cannot grow, or if growth is not intended, then we can't have peace because we remain as far away from God always, and in fact can only deteriorate in peace.

This post has been edited by AquinasD: Sep 22 2009, 05:02 PM

That's why I always feel awkward going down this road. I still think it's a perfectly valid angle, but I can never seem to approach it without coming off as some paranoid, tinfoil hat-wearing nutcase.



But as I pointed out earlier, that's not the point. It's not up to us to puzzle out why he might lie; he has to prove that he's telling the truth.

As a side note, doesn't God, in the Bible, send forth lying spirits and "strong delusion"? Isn't that indirect lying?



As we do if we grow. Four is no closer to infinity than three is.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Sep 22 2009, 05:31 PM

I trust God, because quite frankly, if one can't trust God, then who can you trust?



Not lying as in "I'm withholding the truth from you despite your seeking!"



There's still the element of growth. Otherwise, we're static, and staticity implies stagnation; we could neither come closer to God or be farther away. (Yes, I understand that the concept of infinity throws this off, but I feel free to point out that there are larger and lesser infinities)

Are you free just cause you're not a christian? You're subject to your education, culture, society, peer groups, so on and so forth. That's just a thinking point.

It's a good question you've asked.
Paul the apostle frequently uses the paradox, to be free, you must be a slave to christ. There's a lot of biblical imagery associated with it. The point that's often excluded, is it's not about demands, rules, or even necessarilly morality.

The imagery is supposed to be associated with another aspect of Pauline Theology, and that is the cosmological, and eschatological one.

What that means is, to put it simply and briefly, there are two layers of existence. The first, and the second. The first one is the current world as we see and know it. In other words, our view points. How we think. How we see this world. (Comsological part)

Christianity believes that this world is also shrouded in darkness (suffering, injustice, illness, ect) Through Christ however, God reveals Himself to us, and shows us how the world should be (The eschatological part)

So when we combine these two parts, what we get is not a religion, (although it is, and does worship a God, as a religion does, and is in this sense, a religion) Instead we get a new world viewpoint, or what is biblically called New Creation. How the world should be. Fair, just, peaceful ect. Christianity believes that until the time of the second coming, Christians are to represent Jesus, and this new world view to the rest of the world, so they can either accept it, or reject it.

So we've finally reached free will. I hope you've managed to read this all, I know it's long winded, but it is important.

People are given a choice. They can choose to live in this world, or they can choose to live in New Creation. There's alot implied with both, but to cut to the chase. If you choose this world, well we believe that this world will die, and those who choose it will go with it. It's not malicious, it's just what people have chosen, to live for this world. If we choose New Creation, well we 'die' to this world (to use the biblical imagery) We instead 'are slaves to christ' and thus, try to show the world, what this New Creation thing is. Which is why Paul says (to paraphrase) 'if Christianity is wrong, we'll we christians are the biggest fools on earth.' Because we strive for rewards we will not see in this life, and expect to be mocked and ridiculed for it.

As far as all the 'hell' stuff is concerened. Well the New Testament doesn't really mention it. There's a lot of talk about Jesus speaking of hell more than anyone...though he really doesn't. That's not to say he doesn't speak of it, because he does. Though the question to be debated there is, 'how much rhetoric is Jesus using' Personally, I believe he was using the language of the pharasees (the Jews who did condemn people to 'eternal toerment') back on them, to demonstrate how far from God they were.

Oddly enough, I actually find it easier to trust humans than God.

That's not to say I trust easily; don't get me wrong. Humans have a great propensity for lying. However, what they also have is a great propensity for making mistakes. Even the most carefully constructed web of lies can come crashing down if you poke it in the right spot. We may deceive, but our deceptions are not impenetrable.

That is not so with God. If, indeed, he can lie (even if it's only by proxy) then he is the perfect liar. If he wishes it, there will be no errors, no contradictions, no anything to even suggest that he might not be telling the truth. It's rather like putting someone on trial when you know that they've had first access to everything connected to the crime; the scene, the photos, the evidence, the witnesses, everything. Sure, there might be plenty to absolve them of guilt, but you don't know if you can trust any of it anymore.



If he can lie then he can lie. Maybe the truth is being withheld for a reason; not all of God's plans come to fruition right away. He certainly took his time between mankind's first sin and shoving Jesus out on to the stage.



Well, lesser or larger infinities or not, you still don't get any closer to infinity simply by increasing in magnitude. The only way to get close to an infinite is to become infinite himself, which you seem to suggest is not possible. If the goal is to become closer to god then no progress is made whether you grow or not. It's like trying to run a marathon by jogging on the spot; you're not getting yourself anywhere faster than the guy who's just standing there.



But I cannot choose neither.

Lol, I love the reasoning.

But even if we take God out of the picture. To a athiest world, with no God, no religion.
What are you free to do?
You don't choose to be born. You don't choose for bad things to happen to you. You don't choose to be heart broken.
Most of us don't get to choose how we die. You don't choose to be stuck to the planet by gravity.

Freedom is in this sense impossible.

So then is it so bad, that to Christians there even is a choice? For us to be able to choose, a new way of thinking?

I don't think so. To me, freedom is God allowing me to make that choice.

I don't believe He can lie. He is omnibenevolent per being God, or the "maximally possible being in actuality."



I have to thank you for this discussion, because it helps me to articulate my ideas.

Allow me a revised explanation of the idea of growth in analogy;

As we are now, we cannot achieve perfection.

To achieve perfection takes an infinite effort.

This effort is achieved through God; it can only be achieved through God.

Beyond this initially perfection, there is an infinite amount of growth that can be experienced to bring a person closer to the Father, while at the same time a person has achieved the infinite. Salvation may then be defined as "partaking in the divine life of the Trinity." There will be infinite unhindered growth, and it is growth that brings peace to man.

I would love to continue the discussion, but I feel I ought leave it here for now. If you have new questions, shoot me up, but otherwise I think you have enough here to work out the problems for yourself. I wish you luck in your search.

Fair enough, then. Thank you for your time; it's been very enlightening.




I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

The fact that we don't get a choice isn't what bothers me. The problem is that, if God exists, he claims to offer free will and doesn't. We don't get to opt out and not be born at all. We're forced into the "locked room", and we're forced to do what he says or die.

While it's true that we wouldn't get to choose to be born if God did not exist, it's also not relevant. Reality is not a thinking, feeling entity. It has never made any claims to being fair or just. God, on the other hand, does make such a claim. Therefore, if he is truly benevolent, why don't we get to choose whether or not to live? Why does he force us into a situation where we must devote ourselves to him or suffer for it?

This post has been edited by Secundus: Sep 24 2009, 10:42 AM

I get what your saying. But who says you suffer if you don't choose him?
I didn't.
I think you suffer if you do choose him.
Would it be nice to climb the corporate ladder and make lots of lovely money, buy a mansion and have lots of trophy girlfriends? Yeah it would. Instead I gave up business and now study theology because I believe it's right. More fool me hey?

I don't believe in predestination. I don't think God 'sits down' and creates and everyone of us individually.
We get born by the choice of our parents. It's just how humanity works.

So I don't understand how you can say 'God says believe in God or you will suffer' I've heard lots of people say it. It's a bit harder to back up theologically, and I often argue with those people that they show very little mercy and love.

I'm talking about the afterlife here. Everybody suffers to some extent in this world, God or no God. Besides, trophy girlfriends aside, I see no reason why you couldn't do any of that as a Christian.



Really?

Perhaps you'd care to give your take on the whole "eternal punishment" bit, then?

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this repeats anything.

But for me the main issue with free will is that if we didnt have free will, then we would be forced to love god, and if we were all forced to love god then why would there be people in the world that dont love god? If god had the entire world under his thumb then surely he would have thought that it would be best just to have all of the people as his followers?

I dont know if you have ever tried to force yourself to love someone, but if you was in a relationship, not through your own free will but because you were being forced to, do you think that you could love that person? To me love means having the choice to say yeah I want to be with you, if someone held a gun to your head and said if you dont love me i'll shoot, would that make you love them anymore?

I also think that because not everyone in the world believes in and follows god it shows that we are not forced to follow him. We chose god because he chose us. Its like the wheels on a bike - you need both.

Judging from what you're saying here I'm not even sure you read the first post thoroughly enough.

There are different ways of "forcing" someone to do something. For example:



Coercion. Technically you have a choice in that situation, but it's a really, really bad choice. You have to love someone or die. Those are your options. They're not actually directly controlling your brain to make you love them, in that sense, but they're essentially still forcing you to do it.

Likewise, while God isn't actually using "mind control" to make us love him, our choice (assuming the typical Christian view of heaven and hell) basically comes down to "Worship me or die." Ergo, we're still being forced. Granted, a lot of people seem to think that worshipping God is a sweet deal, which is fine, but to use your example, if someone holds a gun to your head and says "If you don't love me I'll shoot, but if you do love me then you will be rewarded," what they're doing is still wrong.

Just to point it out, we put ourselves into that 'locked door'. And we were the ones who said 'put that gun to my head'. God created humans, Adam and Eve (and don't say that if it wasn't for them nothing like this would've happened. We each sin hundreds/thousands of times in our own life.), so that He wouldn't be lonely. He gave them the choice to eat from the treat of knowledge of good and evil. Love is not love unless it is tested. That's why people say, "Our love was tested through our 60 some years of marriage", but they still love each other. God didn't say to Adam and Eve, "Okay, listen up, you don't eat that fruit and you get to live with Me forever. If you eat that fruit I will kill you."
No, God knew that if they ate of the fruit they would know what 'doing wrong a.k.a. sin' was and He knew they wouldn't be happy ever again. Have you ever been happy your whole life? No. Why? Sin. You choose to do it. Others choose to do it. That's why there are so many DUI accidents, broken homes, etc. But God is blamed for it all the time. But it wasn't His fault. Remember, He created Lucifer. But because He loved him He gave him free choice Lucifer took that choice and decided to become vain, proud, and wanted to have God's power but not His character. Then Satan wanted to ruin what God had made and tempted Adam and Eve. You know the rest, you live in that rest. God knew what would happen if they gave in to temptation. But He didn't create robots. He knew robots couldn't love Him and share their experiences and emotions with Him, so He gave them the free will to choose.
See, God is accused constantly. First by Satan that He is an unjust and unmerciful God. That is why there is so long of a time here on Earth. All the angels and other beings on other worlds are watching this planet to see what is the outcome of sin. Why sin is so harmful. It's not that God doesn't want us to do this or that, but because He knows what is good for us. Like I know I should de-worm my cat and give her heartworm medicine because I know that I can prevent it and my cat would be happy and healthy without a riddled heart. But His love is greater than my love for my cat. People accuse God every day for their broken marriages, car accidents, dead children, and all ask God "Why did You let this happen?!" when it really came about because of their choices, or the choices of others.
To me, that's what free choice is about. God loves me so much that He'll give me the choice to live my life on this world, doing whatever I want, messing about as much as I want. And I can live my life on earth, I'll only have one life, but hey, it's my life, right? I can do anything I want, and enjoy it to the fullest extent.
God's not saying I can't do that. He's just saying, "Okay, you decided to live your life without me. I feel sad about that, but I know that since you've made those decisions you won't be happy living with Me in heaven." A person who enjoys the thrill of city life, who lives in its beats, and all wants all its comforts would not enjoy the peace and primitive conveniences of a campsite in the Rockies, but a person who has learned to love the Rockies will enjoy that campsite. Same thing with going to heaven.
But God will also give me the door to a life where He knows I'll be happy. Where I'll know love, peace, and contentment. I don't have to be like a monk to get to heaven, I just need to love Him with all my heart. Why? Wouldn't you love the person who rescued you from the world trade center as it fell down? And if that person gave his life for yours in that building, wouldn't you feel the tiniest bit grateful?
All God wants is for us to be happy, and He knows that only He can provide it. Life here on earth isn't going to make us happy. You can have all the money in the world, or that cottage in the mountains, or that 'perfect' family. But you'll still have death and sin surrounding you. The stock market may change and you may be living on the streets the next day; a fire may run through the mountain and all your worldly possesions may be taken away; your family might be taken away because of some drunk driver, and people still die. There is still grief and death in this world. But that's why there's the choice of following God. That choice is for a better life. That's what every parent who loves their child wants, and who knows it better than the Person who created you and gave you life?

This post has been edited by crookedeclipses: Nov 2 2009, 12:18 PM

(I'm posting this again, since the forum ate my previous, well-worded and awesome post.)

Hello, again. I dodged out for a while, there, one part because I felt like a religious saleswoman (which I hate), another part because I was sick to death of the internet, and a third part because I ran out of answers for you. But you said some things that have been rattling around in my head and I thought I'd give 'em a try.



Ah, but that's not really love, is it? I John 4:18 "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear."

Anyone can say that they do what they do with love, and they may even believe it, but love is pure and true.



I "know" in the same way that I "know" God. Through faith. Besides, knowing is overrated.



I would accept that said person had actual reason to believe such a truth in the same way that I have actual reason to believe in my own. Who can say what is truly reality?

In studying subjectivity, a student should find that something happens to cause people to believe the truths they do. That either a subject is insane or has a real reason for their worldview. Once I hated God. Now I love him. What happened between that solemn period and that capital N? What spectacular phenomena lurk between the thens and nows of existence?

Also, the existence of two completely opposing truths is not obligated to negate their verity. The universe is full of riddles like these. That God should be the utmost of the macrocosm and also the most infinitesimal of the microcosm. That he should be both alpha and omega. We cannot set laws on the unyielding universe. I've found that reality rarely makes sense.



I can't truly answer such a question: I don't see the full picture. But I do know that if I hadn't been so stubborn as an atheist, I wouldn't be such a fervent Christian now. Because of this, I believe that God makes the best out of everything in life. I also know that I've met incredible atheists and I don't think their lack of belief in God makes them any less morally sound nor does it cause God to love them any less. I think some of the best Christians don't actually believe in God at all. But their salvation is proven by their outstanding merit and unfailing, sometimes unconscious obedience to Christ's law.

No we did not. I didn't choose to be born.

Seriously, did you even read what I said? None of this has anything to do with Adam and Eve or sin or God wanting us to be happy. The point is that God cannot lay claim to giving us free will when we are being coerced into obeying him. Whether you think God intentionally sends people to hell or simply allows it to happen is not relevant; the fact is that we are forced into a situation where we have to choose one or the other. We CANNOT simply say "I don't want to exist at all."



This sounds an awful lot like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.



No, it really isn't. Faith without proof is basically just saying "I hope", or "I would like to think."



See what I said above. If you think both "truths" are possible and you're just kind of going along with whatever one suits you then really, what good is your belief? Why hold views if you cannot defend them and explain why the alternatives are wrong?



Subjectivity is madness. Things either are or they are not. It doesn't matter how good of a reason a person may have for believing what they do; if they're wrong then they're wrong.



What?

If two possibilities exist that completely contradict each other than they cannot both be true. X can't be X and not X at the same time.



Even though said law includes "Accept me as your saviour".

No, you don't choose to exist. Maybe your parents chose to have you exist, but that's an uncontrollable factor. But, I think the reason why I think the way I do is because I look at death differently. Maybe that's what colours my view of things differently than yours.
You see, I do not believe that hell is something that is going on right now. At Jesus second coming those who chose Him will be taken to heaven. After the millenium (during which time Satan will be confined alone on the earth) then those with Christ will return to earth in the New Jerusalem. That is the time of the judgement for those who were not resurrected because they were not in Christ. Then, and only then, will the earth be cleansed. That is the final end of the wicked. I believe that they will not be tortured forever and ever, but like smoke rises forever from a fire, so will the the smoke of that final cleansing. Instead, after their destruction that will be the end.
God gives us one life. He says that we can do anything we want with it, He just gives us the choice of going home with Him at a later time. He's not going to roast us in hell forever because of our choice, but gives those who die a final and everlasting peace.

I will try something more practical with you. You presented your questions about hell, I said I didn't believe in hell, and you asked what, then, was the point of life?

What if we could bring heaven to earth? What if we could create a movement so incredible that it would stop world hunger, stop war, stop hate? And I'm saying it's possible. If we are the hands and feet of Christ, then it is our responsibility to care for the world. In the book I'm reading, The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne, he recounts a cartoon:

"I remember hearing about an old comic strip back in the days of St. Ed's. Two guys are talking to each other, and one of them says he has a question for God. He wants to ask why God allows all of this poverty and war and suffering to exist in the world. And his friend says, 'Well, why don't you ask?' The fellow shakes his head and says he is scared. When his friend asks why, he mutters, 'I'm scared God will ask me the same question.'"

People seem to think that Christianity is about taking man to heaven but really it's just the opposite. It's about bringing God to man. So life right now isn't about living the right way so that later you can go to heaven. It's about bringing heaven to earth. Helping to establish God's kingdom right here, right now. Make the world a little better.

We are not being forced to worship God. I'm pretty sure if we were forced to do anything, it wouldn't be pretty. Everyone has a choice. God says I placed before you life and death. Just because one leads to destruction, doesn't mean we don't have free will, the choice.

This post has been edited by ilovejesusxoxo: Nov 14 2009, 01:34 PM

free will - we can do whatever we like, we can! that is free will to me, but if we choose to do bad things then we would be punished, we do have free will, if you don't think we have it completely, think of those who are real slaves, who are 'owned' by other people, it's not right, they don't have any free will, they have to do as they're told, hopefully slavery will end some day soon.

free will does exist. God gives you a choice. You can believe in him, or you can go your own way and follow the devil. Its your choice. The consequences just come with your decision.

The state of the Earth will be of no consequence to me once I'm dead.





*sigh*

I'm not going to explain this yet again. Read the thread, carefully, then come back when you've actually paid attention to what I've said. Both of you.



"Look, I know that guy might have shot you in the arm, but just yesterday he cut someone's legs off! Some people have it worse than you. Therefore you should just forget the fact that you were shot."

How about when you're resurrected?

To take a slightly different turn here, I would like to submit that we don't have "free will" the way most people define it. All decisions we make come out of the greatest desires of our heart. The desires of our heart are
a)inherited from our ancestors,
b)influenced by environmental stimulus, and
c)determined by God

A totally "free will" would not be a will at all; it would be a completelly random and arbitrary choice.