Why do we need a God?

Why would I have to explain that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really - we have been asking and you have been avoiding a straight answer to the question, if not use the scientific method, how do we evaluate religious/theistic claims. Given that regardless of who was asking how, you gave only vague replies, whether because only vague replies are possible or that you really dont have an answer at all, either way, we can expect only a vague reply from you, since neither a straight answer nor a admission of a mistake seems to be a likelyhood.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because YOU assert [or support the assertion] that we both have been been exposed to the same truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The no excuse is usually interpreted to mean exactly what it says. That there is no excuse for not knowing god as god has made himself self-evident through his creation. Thus every human, it was said, could come to know god if they were to truly seek him, so those that didn't had no excuse.

As for the punishment, it doesn't say. The fundies tend to assume it means eternal damnation based on a few scriptures in the bible(and ignoring every canonical thing in the OT regarding hell), however many moderate sects are moving away from that and towards something similar to it's ancestral form, the temporary punishment of judaism. Still others believe that people are punished in this lifetime and that the hereafter is solely paradise(though that's hardly a popular view).

 

Quote me on saying that!!

 

If there are no consequences specified for not doing something, then what is the point of stating that it is wrong not to do something?

You are focusing on this "no excuse" - but if nothing follows upon it, then what?

 

I replied as I see fit, and as far as I am concerned, I answered your question.

It seems to me that some of you are seeing these exchanges as a fist fight, and when someone refuses to hit you back, you see them as vague or refusing to engage.

But you don't seem to question whether the terms of the exchange as you see them - namely, a fight - are the best for the purpose (or any purpose, for that matter) nor whether the other person wants to engage with you on such terms.

I have the impression that you and some others are projecting into me (and into LG and a few others) an adversarial attitude that we simply don't have.

I don't think you'll go to hell if you don't think, feel, speak and act as I say. There's no need to paint me as an adversary. I don't see you as an enemy. Although I have the impression that you think I see you as an enemy.
I am just trying to have a conversation.

 

@wynn --

I don't even buy the "no excuse" bullshit, so it's not me that's focusing on it, it's the christian theologists who taught me. I'm just passing along a relatively popular and scripturally accurate belief.

Besides, any good torturer(and christianity is nothing if not good at torture, it had nearly eight hundred years of institutionalized practice after all) will tell you that the best way to prevent people from doing certain things, or to push people into doing them, is to threaten them but leave the actual punishment up to their imagination. They'll come up with things a million times worse than you would. So it doesn't necessarily have to have a proscribed punishment to be an effective control mechanism.

 

But for some reason, you are "passing it along here."

What is that reason?

 

@wynn --

Because of this post.

LG was talking about those who hadn't heard "the truth" getting for free what others had to pay for and I pointed out that there is a rather popular and scripturally accurate interpretation of said verse that plainly says that people don't have an excuse not to believe because they've been surrounded by evidence all of their lives. And yes, this interpretation is popular among both fundies and moderates.

I already told you this though, and the flow of conversation is easy to follow. Why don't you go back a page and actually read it through?

 

Do you think that LG was defending that popular Christian view?

 

we are not talking about hard work
we are talking about accepting jesus and all that comes with it

Even if, for arguments sake, you are suggesting it simply requires lip service, 99% of the population didn't have that opportunity

IOW the image of God is getting weirder and weaker - like a pathetic antagonist that condemns persons eternally for thought crimes and gives 99% of the population the green flag of eternal salvation anyway because technically they never had the opportunity for their life to be anything else but a thought crime

well what are they saying about them then since they are clearly in the vast majority

If genuinely seeking god = accepting jesus then over 99% of the population is excluded

On the contrary, the closer one navigates an epistemological course towards fiedeism, the more diametrically opposed it becomes to rationality

It goes further than merely saying logic is limited in the pursuit of god.

It says that logic is diametrically opposed to the definition of god. IOW it allows one to pass off any definition of god full of contradictory qualities (eg " god is the highest moral entity in the universe and he condemns persons who are otherwise pious in all regards and believe in god with full devotion except for the thought crime of not outright and exclusively accepting jesus as the one and only son of god to eternal damnation of the worst type of torture)

Sure, because, amongst other things, it has a stronger more substantial definition of god (at least if we are accepting core definitions of god such as "the topmost expression of attractive qualities find their expression in the personal form of god and his representatives) that doesn't insist on sub-clauses for the sake of political solidarity

 

Then it appears that statement is about accepting the general nature of god's existence on the evidence of creation (which in turn encompass a vast number of religions to be at least potentially viable)

 

I don't think that they are epistemological approaches to the subject.

One can still be a nervous wreck in the name of fidesim ... or even moreso

 

Agreed - numbing and spiritual narcissism cannot pass for epistemological approaches to the subject. But they are relatively common, many people practice them, and they do affect a person's epistemological approach to religiousness.

Sure.

In fact, I think that the closer to fideism an epistemological approach is, the more of a nervous wreck the person trying to practice it will be, or just considering it, one will be put off by it.

I find it strange though that so many people find fideism acceptable.

 

(Note: I'm getting bored of having to say things like 'Christian's believe' and 'according to Christian theology' etc, so I'm just going to represent the viewpoint from now on.)

You're not listening. I've already explained that those who have never been exposed to Jesus and his teachings can still be saved, so why are you still carrying on about how unfair and illogical it is that they can't be?

If a person really is pious in all regards and believes in God with full devotion, they will have achieved a state where they will be open to recognizing the power and significance of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us when they are exposed to it. So it's not 'thought crime' that counts against them, it is whatever they are holding on to that causes them to reject it. In other words, there is something more significant in play.

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." - The Westminster Confession of Faith

The accuracy of the above is easily demonstrable from scripture, and it faithfully conveys the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on the nature and quality of God.

In your mind, it seems, everything is fine right up until the point that judgment is mentioned, which is no surprise. So what we've established then is that God must meet with your intellectual approval before you are willing to humble yourself before Him; that you like to set yourself up as an authority on matters that are well above your spiritual pay grade (so to speak). This is an example of the sort of thing I was talking about above when I said that there are more significant issues at play than mere 'thought crime'; that there is something that you're not willing to let go of that is causing you to reject God's actual message. It seems to be the pride you take in satisfying your own intellect according to your limited perspective.

 

Yup, I even had a Christian say to me that for the sake of my intellectual integrity (sic!), I am even willing to go to hell for all eternity.


So what if Christians, including the fundamentalists and militants among them, say whatever they say?

Should they automatically be taken seriously, on their terms?

 

Someone once said, commenting on talking to Jehovah's Witnesses:

It's useless to argue with them since they have a hearing problem. Their way of talking is a monologue.

I think it is perfectly in place to adopt that attitude toward some Christians as well, as they are not listening, their way of talking is a monologue.

 

513.
Btw, also see 519

 

Opposition breeds adversity. Very true. I understand that you are talking about something very subjective and we a demanding an universal method for it, but still, give us something to go on. If we are wrong in using science to evalute it, what do we do?