Did Christ have a Choice?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bowser, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    I think it would really suck though, to have spent ones life as devoted follower of God and then wind up in hell because that is what God determined.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    But according to the God premise, if one follows the dictates of God as a devotee, then God wouldn’t be expected to cast one into hell. To do so would amount to a broken promise by God regardless of whether or not it engineered a determined reality.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Can god be all powerful AND the universe be determined?

    Is believing you have free will the same as actually having free will?

    I would think not on both questions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    If you believe in an all powerful/all knowing God, then he would be the creator/determiner.

    It's not the case with all things, but we don't even think about our free will much, do we? I'm replying to you, because I choose to. I could also choose to ignore you. Whether it's an illusion or not, I'm still doing it, so it doesn't negate my free will from happening.

    That depends on the lens you're looking through. If you're coming at it from a purely secular perspective, then I can see your point.
     
  8. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    Maybe, but we have no idea who was and who was not sent to hell. We have no idea if God breaks promises. We have no idea if our reality is determined. Pretty much anything goes when it comes to lack of knowledge of something never shown to exist.
     
  9. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Isn't lack of knowledge wonderful.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,828
    This is your own article of faith.

    If there is a particular application you wish to document, make the case.

    • • •​

    That's the thing about faith. Spend your life at it, sure, but nobody says you did it correctly.

    Try this example, from the Bible: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward." (Mt. 6.5, RSV↱) Consider what has happened in the '16 electoral cycle among Republican presidential contenders: Shortly after they announced, most turned up at one or another religious gathering to demonstrate their Christian piety in order to be seen; indeed, they have their reward. That evangelicals fell in with Trump is its own question, but Cruz and Jindal and the rest all have their reward.

    It's kind of fun, that way. You can actually say the bit about punishing the fourth and fifth generations for the sins of the parents (Dt. 5.9↱) went awry with H. P. Lovecraft, since his father's sin eventually destroyed him, and there were no more generations after that. But that's also unhelpful, a vicious mockery of pedantic pseudoliteralism which, in its own, does nobody any good and ought not be empowered even long enough to be seen spitting in its face.

    And, besides, by the time we get around to wondering after Winnfield's great-grandfather's sins, it better be something impressive, and the decision to spelunk that rabbit hole is given priority according to each beholder.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 30 April 2019. http://bit.ly/2rJddky
     
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    It’s not my article of faith, it’s essentially Christian doctrine. Walk God’s line, recite the alphabet backwards, blow below a .08 on the sinalyzer, and you don’t go to hell.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,828
    Like I said, make the case.
     
  13. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    The Bible tells me so. It tells you different?
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,828
    So, then, is the problem that you are incapable of explaining what that means?
     
  15. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Are you that culturally illiterate that it has to be explained to you? How would you summarize the carrot and stick message of the New Testament.
     
  16. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    Compared to having knowledge? If you say so.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,828
    So, you can't explain, then?

    I think the problem might be that you are not able to explain.

    It's my understanding the best summary is supposed to be John 3.16, but that circumstance either has not been fulfilled, or means something a bit more obscure, say, than an English-language expression that he who believes in Him shall not perish from the Earth.

    The problem, in our moment, is looking for a neat summary. God knows what is in a man's heart, as the saying goes. It's true, this doesn't come up much in the discursive range of making believe in order to complain that God doesn't exist, but when we set aside such balbutive as an old atheistic inquiry about free will and an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, we should remember that Christian faith is not supposed to be easy, and if the faithful should falter that is what it is; the faithless critique pretending some manner of enlightened rational analysis ought to know better than to require Christian faith should be easy. If we presume the faithless critique educated, we might wonder at the unethical posturing. To the other, if we accept that having a clue is too much to ask of a critique without silencing the discourse, sure, whatever, we can just file such ignorance under the day ending in -y.

    Compared to the history of discourse on the subject, you have apparently chosen a model to abide—("But according to the God premise, if one follows the dictates of God as a devotee, then God wouldn't be expected to cast one into hell")—but apparently cannot support. It's just that by literalism, you're wrong; and should you then retreat to some convenient interpretation ensconced in apparent ignorance, you will be relying on articles of faith when prescribing your own theology and demanding others answer. Seriously, it's two thousand years later, and Christians still can't comprehend the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand. And it's one thing to argue one's way around it, but history is rife with the tolls of such ego defense, and the significantly affecting maneuvers in history have at least been capable of presenting a pretense of having a clue.

    We should not be surprised to find ourselves returning to the problematic proposition of letting people you already know, believe, or assert are wrong set the terms of discussion.

    Meanwhile, your argument on this occasion presumes to know God's will, which history ought to have shown never really works out well. How many examples of following religious zealotry to enlightenment have actually succeeded? It's like the old joke that you can have all the inner peace you want when you're dead. Oh, wait, no, it's not, at least not quite: The problem with following religious zealotry to enlightenment is that there is no proper means of validating attainment. In such cases that enlightenment comes in the afterlife, though, sure, you can have all the validation you want when you're dead. True, to the other, it's a disappointing prospect of being unable to take satisfaction in the fact of death being final, as such, but even still, there is also a difference between accepting an outcome and properly appreciating or even desiring it. More directly, on this occasion, the sentiment that one will show others when we're all dead and nobody is resurrected isn't exactly a happy thought.

    Still, clueless articles of faith are best left to the religious:

    Even taking you figuratively—i.e., not literally, and therefore not demanding biblical citation for the bit about the alphabet, &c.—what stands out is the make-believe surrogate for informed criticism. It's one thing to complain, but actually having a clue what you're bawling about is apparently too much effort.

    We get it: This isn't really about "religion", in general or particular, but, rather, people you don't like. Such as it is, that is very common human behavior.

    But you need God to be something particular in order for your argument to work; that assertion of God is your own. And you also need Christendom to be something particular in order for your critique to apply correctly; life is not so accommodating.

    The functional summary of Christian redemption is John 3.16; not every English-language translation specifies the Earth, which is worth noting because we are again reminded the question of what it means to be Saved or Redeemed, or judged worthy, or to have one's name writ in the Book of Life since before time, remains unsettled among believers.

    And your article of faith, likewise, is your own. Even still, if the summary of Christian redemption, salvation, or faith in Christ, or however we might identify the question, is to be sussed out from John 3↱, Sermon on Mount (Mt. 5↱-6↱) or Plain (Lk. 6.17-49↱), and Matthew 25.31-46↱, we still face significant mystery, as the resolution thereof remains to each beholder, 'twixt self and God, but some things are clear.

    Such as it is—

    —you seem to be demonstrating your own point.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Depends on lots of things. Can you sin and then confess and be forgiven? Can you be a murderer and repent at the last minute? Is it only about accepting the existence of God? Which interpretation is correct? Which translation is correct? Which religion is correct? Who knows?
     
  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I didn’t think it necessary to explain such a commonly held tenet of Christianity, that if an adherent tows the proverbial line then they are rewarded in the afterlife, and if they don’t they can expect punishment. Apparently I overestimated your cultural IQ.
    You take issue of my characterization of Christian expectation regarding the afterlife, yet offer nothing relevant to substantiate your beef. Where’s the beef regarding the critique of my statement?
    But I’m not wrong, and we both know that the relevant Bible citations will back my assertion.
    Any argument I make regarding a particular god is done in accordance with its stated characteristics. It’s no different than arguing the nature of any other mythical character in accordance to a particular story line. If gods do exist, I would be the first to acknowledge that myself or any other person on the planet would be incapable of validating their status or intentions.
    That tends to be the nature of religious belief, that it requires a willingness to remain clueless to maintain such beliefs.
    I’m not brawling about anything, I simply made a statement that essentially reflects Christian expectations of salvation and punishment and you felt the need to use it as an opportunity for some of your typical catwalk posing.
    We get it do we? Just who is it I’m supposed to be targeting with my dislike? My Christian wife, friends and relatives? Unless someone is using their religious beliefs to adversely effect my real world ideals, I have no reason to take issue with such beliefs. That said, when belief in the mystical aspects of religion are brought up as an example of justified belief, I will always take issue with that assertion.
    I don’t need Christendom to be anything other than it is. As for the nature of God, that all depends on which version is being postulated by those who feel the need to do so. Regardless of how either is presented by adherents, it’s always done from a position of wilful ignorance.
    Sounds like you harbor doubts that your personal conduct warrants inclusion.
    I have no articles of religious faith, I gave that up in my childhood. I simply made a statement that essentially reflects mainstream Christian thought, and you still haven’t shown that I haven’t.
    Lack of knowledge regarding the actual existence of gods allows for unreasonable assumptions regarding the character of the various conceptions of gods. Gods get to be what we desire them to be rather than what they actually are, or are not. If you count yourself as a believer, then I imagine you take comfort in not realizing that your beliefs are not based on any rational example of knowledge.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,828
    I wouldn't think it necessary to explain the necessity of a critic having a clue.

    If you intend to spend your efforts denigrating people, yes, having a clue is one prerequisite.

    The striking part is how desperate you are to remain clueless:

    Who, aside from you, can be an expert in your personal, ad hoc substitute for a real excuse?

    After all, you're the one who needs the phrase, "God premise", because you apparently don't know the real words like soteriology, or even theology.

    (We might note aside a once upon a time atheistic habit of writing "Xian" and "Xianty" instead of "Christian" and "Christianity", and never have I encountered the rational explanation of why anyone would go to the trouble of taking the abbreviation that allegedly chafes some people and adding extra lettres; it was as if they were determined to make a point of putting effort into being insulting. And as stupid as that sounded in some misty once upon a time, atheism at Sciforums appears to have gotten dumber over the years. How long before we're down to discussing, "That all-power thingy", because the word, "God", is too difficult for an atheist to figure out?)​

    Note the discussion of omnipotence ("all powerful", "all-powerful"), and free will. A mistake similar to one of yours occurs in #43↑: "Can god be all powerful AND the universe be determined?" To answer proposed answer, "I would think not", makes demands, and places particular limits on God; neither is it insignificant that the demand and limit is anthropomoprhic and even personal. To the other, that personalization is a common error among theists and atheists alike. The question our neighbor runs up against is actually very similar to the atheistic question of determinism in the Universe itself. The most straightforward expression is that one requires God to have particular finite boundaries such as perspective, perception, and experience. More functionally, one fashions their own God for the sake of criticism, an act of both faith and fallacy. Your argument about "the God premise"—

    —ignores scriptural considerations such as the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand (Rv. 7.3-8↱), and the Book of Life (Rv. 13.8↱, 17.8↱). Additionally, it presumes God's perspective and will according to your particular need.

    And that error is what it is, but while our neighbor's presupposition occurs within the context of an ongoing inquiry seeking a resolution, yours superstitiously presupposes what you apparently don't really know about in the course of seeking satisfaction. Your assertion of "cultural IQ" only highlights craven dependency on ignorance, superstition, and fallacy.

    Still, what a performance: That everybody else should do the work for you, so that you can devote your labor to fallacy and satisfaction, is itself a ridiculous proposition, yet here we are, with you describing what is "essentially Christian doctrine" (#48↑) but relying on what the Bible tells you (#50↑), complaining of cultural illiteracy while explicitly citing the "New Testament" (#52↑) and "cultural IQ" (#56↑), while offering no scriptural support, and, furthermore, making demands of others in both: "How would you summarize the carrot and stick message of the New Testament", and, "You take issue of my characterization of Christian expectation regarding the afterlife, yet offer nothing relevant to substantiate your beef. Where’s the beef regarding the critique of my statement?" The latter complaint is problematic: Do you not recognize the New Testament?

    • It's just that by literalism, you're wrong; and should you then retreat to some convenient interpretation ensconced in apparent ignorance, you will be relying on articles of faith when prescribing your own theology and demanding others answer. Seriously, it's two thousand years later, and Christians still can't comprehend the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand. (#54↑)​

    What was that you were saying about how I "offer nothing relevant"? Perhaps you might have bothered with some substantial argument, instead of, "But I’m not wrong, and we both know that the relevant Bible citations will back my assertion".

    • The functional summary of Christian redemption is John 3.16; not every English-language translation specifies the Earth, which is worth noting because we are again reminded the question of what it means to be Saved or Redeemed, or judged worthy, or to have one's name writ in the Book of Life since before time, remains unsettled among believers.

    And your article of faith, likewise, is your own. Even still, if the summary of Christian redemption, salvation, or faith in Christ, or however we might identify the question, is to be sussed out from John 3, Sermon on Mount (Mt. 5-6) or Plain (Lk. 6.17-49), and Matthew 25.31-46, we still face significant mystery, as the resolution thereof remains to each beholder, 'twixt self and God, but some things are clear. (#54)​

    Again, what was that you were saying about offering nothing relevant? Maybe you don't like my argument, but pretending it isn't there is just another fallacy.

    And you go on and on, making excuses for not having a clue:

    All you're doing is making excuses for not having a proper argument. The one thing you did get right, though, is saying, "As for the nature of God, that all depends on which version is being postulated by those who feel the need to do so." But that also includes you and your "God premise" (#42↑) postulates comprehension of God's perspective and will. The nature of the God you are criticizing in these posts depends entirely on which version of God you postulate.

    And you're not making the "relevant Bible citations"; if the Bible tells you so, the question remains whether you are capable of telling us what it tells you. Furthermore, your sosobra Christendom relies more on your own adherence to superstition, per cultural literacy and "cultural IQ", than Bible in general or New Testament in particular. And your fondness for non-sequitur—(e.g., #56, "That tends to be the nature of religious belief, that it requires a willingness to remain clueless to maintain such beliefs", "Sounds like you harbor doubts that your personal conduct warrants inclusion")—only reinforces the absence of any substantial argument.

    While you mentioned your "Christian wife, friends and relatives", you apparently don't give much thought to their actual beliefs and how those work; your pretense that, "Unless someone is using their religious beliefs to adversely effect my real world ideals, I have no reason to take issue with such beliefs", simply doesn't hold up compared to your caricature sosobra. Pretending you "don’t need Christendom to be anything other than it is" rings falsely when your argument requires its limitation to some cultural idiom you seem rather quite unable to explain.

    Moreover, self-righteous pretenses like yours, "Unless someone is using their religious beliefs to adversely effect my real world ideals, I have no reason to take issue with such beliefs", are what they are, but also entirely self-centered. If your articles of faith are just another clamoring noise in a cacophony of superstitious hollering, you're not actually helping anything or anyone other than your own satisfaction.

    And that last, in turn, is what it is. At least you're honest about it being about you. Some people try to make it about the harm religion causes in the world, which is a useful sentiment, but often false insofar as their own self-righteous pretenses are just as religious as the religion they criticize, and only reinforce ignorant faith by further augmenting its self-measured empowerment. Which, in turn, leaves those advocates against religion and theism looking like part of the problem for pursuing personal satisfaction instead of any pretense of addressing religious harm. You, in turn, straight up declare the self-centered aspect of your advocacy. Indeed, it's important to know.

    That said, religious zealotry is still religious zealotry.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 2 May 2019. http://bit.ly/2rJddky
     
  21. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Interesting. It seems to me that all living things exist as they are, not endeavoring to fight their God-given nature. A tree is a tree, A cat is a cat. A human is a human? Could it be that this temporary playground is literally our one chance at experiencing Heaven? The spiritual essence is always with us; or rather, we are the light of this world--or perhaps someone else said that long ago.
     
  22. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    How can you claim I’m clueless when you haven’t demonstrated the validity of your assertion?
    Frustrated by common English, aren’t we in sad shape. I would think it better to be logically consistent in one’s propositions than to be obsessed with terminological and literary style.
    What's your reluctance to cite scriptural passages that address salvation and punishment as I have described? Being an apparent devout Xian you must certainly be familiar with them.
    I missed your earlier reference to Matthew 25.31-46, which is one of many citations that basically support my statement.
    And you still haven’t shown my statement to be inconsistent with the New Testament god.
    It’s up to you prove your assertion that my statement regarding the nature of the New Testament god is invalid. You’ve already referenced one citation that validates my statement, we both know there’s more to show.
    I’m sure you have the transcripts of my thoughts to validate that assumption.
    Can you imagine any human being that has ever existed that didn’t have ideals that concerned their real world existence? Those self centered bastards such as Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK for instance.
    What an absolute joke as a judge of character. To unjustifiably assume that one’s ideals only concern the welfare of the one.
    Whatever you say Professor X.
    And it takes practitioners such as yourself to actualize it.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  23. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Real words like "arrogant" and "asshole" come to my mind.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.

Share This Page