Ten Pontifications on Theodicy

Very good. Thank you.

Good job Cary. What this boils down to is that one should create a god that suits his own beliefs....and his own values....and his own concept of what a god should be. And what THIS amounts to is man the creator...not the other way around.

You may be right, Mike. But I'm still betting my life & soul that that a just God created me. If I'm wrong about that, I'm a huge loser.

Cary....What will you have lost?

The life I would have had as an atheist who was convinced that he's right, and who quit looking for something that didn't exist. A life like yours, which, if you've been representing it accurately, has been considerably better than mine.

Now I'm confused. You are betting your life and soul that a just god created you and if you are wrong, you are a huge loser...but what you will have lost is a life that is considerably better than yours? Does this mean that you are willing to accept a less content life in the hopes of, at your physical death, a reward of everlasting contentment?

If you are wrong...you will have sacrificed something you KNOW you have...this life...for something that does not exist...an afterlife.

I am going to post a portion of a comment I made on another thread...LYR..one in which Shira acted as moderator. I'll post it below your comment of Nov 1, 2009, 1:29am EST.

Does this mean that you are willing to accept a less content life in the hopes of, at your physical death, a reward of everlasting contentment?

Close. I am willing to accept a less content life in the hopes of, at physical death, getting a just reward consisting of what I deserve. It's like investing money in hopes of having more later.

"If you are wrong...you will have sacrificed something you KNOW you have...this life...for something that does not exist...an afterlife."

I don't know that an afterlife does not exist, and (unless somebody has supernatural knowledge) nobody on this planet knows it.

Some good thinking here all around.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977874783
gospel

I don't get it. But then I never have been much good at interpreting poetry. You wanna clarify? or just leave it for those who are cool enough to get it?

Weirdly enough, Cary, I agree with 8 of your points. (I have reservations about #8 and #9.) It was precisely the line of reasoning you lay out above that led me to examine very closely whether the Bible was, in fact, what it had been represented to me as. I concluded it had not (and I didn't do so lightly -- I spent some years studying the texts carefully, in the original language, and in the context of other Middle Eastern writings (in translations, because, no, I didn't go on to learn to read the Ugaritic, Babylonian, etc. texts in their original languages.) Without belief in the Bible, the logical path I saw was to stop being a theist.

Not sure that is the path you're interested in?

Shira

My path was a bit different. I was a muddled atheist/pantheist thru high school/college, and never figured out that I was also a nihilist. I just knew I never found anything to make life worth anything. I explored this area fully before turning to Jesus as the only experiment I hadn't fully tried. Jesus and his afterlife offered an absolute meaning, but unfortunately tied to an intellectually impossible belief package. I took 3 years of Biblical Greek and 2.5 of Hebrew trying to get it straight. It's now almost 4 decades later, and I now think I have it straight.

I'm always interested in truth seekers, no matter where they are, because one of us can always help the other get to the next step.

My comment from the Losing Your Religion thread........(LINK) ...thanks Shira.
"I have not experienced a complicated struggle because I have never thought of this process of personal discovery as complicated.

Existence precedes essence (Sartre)...people do not have predetermined natures....what a person is follows from the choices he makes as he creates his own meaning or purpose of life.

In my case, as I have said, my purpose of life is my purpose for life. This reduces to the essence of "we just are". The only obstacles that are present in the individual's quest for self awareness are those that he puts there himself and these obstacles are always limitations to the quest. Remove the obstacles and the answers replace the questions. It is so very simple....IF we allow it to be.

The essence of life is life. "

In another comment....
"Existence precedes essence (Sartre)...people do not have predetermined natures....what a person is follows from the choices he makes as he creates his own meaning or purpose of life.

In my case, as I have said, my purpose of life is my purpose for life. This reduces to the essence of "we just are". The only obstacles that are present in the individual's quest for self awareness are those that he puts there himself and these obstacles are always limitations to the quest. Remove the obstacles and the answers replace the questions. It is so very simple....IF we allow it to be.

The essence of life is life."


What I have said Cary...is that I haven't "quit looking for something that didn't exist"...something I THINK does not exist....I never looked for it. But this doesn't mean that I have ceased to expand my awareness or my personal wisdom. I have simply removed an obstacle to my path of discovery.

You said..."I'm always interested in truth seekers, no matter where they are, because one of us can always help the other get to the next step."

I believe there is only one step to take to find the truth and that is the step of allowing oneself to know himself. Once this has been accomplished, we can see the truth because we trust ourselves.

This quote distills my personal tenet to one line...
"To the question of your life you are the answer, and to the problems of your life you are the solution." ~Joe Cordare

"I haven't "quit looking for something that didn't exist"...something I THINK does not exist....I never looked for it."

Thank you for that clarification. It means I must revise my previous statement.
In answer to your question, "Cary....What will you have lost?" My answer is just the first sentence: The life I would have had as an atheist who was convinced that he's right, and who quit looking for something that didn't exist. (i.e. something that I didn't think existed)

"I believe there is only one step to take to find the truth and that is the step of allowing oneself to know himself."

I can't prove it, but I think I know myself quite well. It took considerably more than one step. After becoming convinced that I knew myself sufficiently, there was a lot more truth I wanted to know. Of course maybe that means I never fully allowed myself to know myself, but I don't think that is the case.

"To the question of your life you are the answer, and to the problems of your life you are the solution." ~Joe Cordare

If that does it for you, congratulations. I hope you stay there the rest of your life. I have not found myself to be the solution to my problems, mainly because I don't know if an afterlife exists, and that appears to be one of my biggest problems. But I am totally satisfied with my solution, i.e. to bet it all that a just afterlife exists and to invest in it, despite the poverty it leaves me with in this life.

"" "Existence precedes essence (Sartre)..."" should be: Essence precedes existence (jerry).

Then when one self truly knows the self it also knows the Self (the Essence) and then everything falls into place.

That is the truth that truly sets one free ... Joe Cordare also got it right. And our Essence does have a plan for us prior to this life, to the degree we sense and follow it we thrive, otherwise we strive. IMnsHO.

Jerry,
Existence & essence, occur simultaneously. One doesn't preceed the other temporally.
But logically, if one is seen as coming first, it must be existence.
X exists. (existence)
X is what it is. (essence)

I won't argue that, my point was that if there is a priority, I see it different than Sartre.

Y'know, for some reason, this discussion reminded me of another part of the Kalama sutra that has an odd parallel to Descarte's wager, which we discussed in a different thread.

In place of a single afterlife where one was judged and sent either to heaven or hell, people in the Hindu-derived traditions of the Buddha's time believed that all the consequences, good and bad, of every action a person took would come back as reward or punishment in this or a subsequent life. In other words, perfect justice exists, though it is delayed. When the Buddha was asked about this, he suggested that people concentrate on practicing to overcome greed, hatred and delusion, which will enable a person to refrain from taking life, from sexual misconduct, from taking anything not freely given, and from false or harmful speech. He asked the people of Kalama if such a practice would be wholesome, leading to welfare and happiness for the practitioner, and the people of Kalama agreed that it would. Then he sets forth a wager, or logical proposition.

If it is correct that there is an afterlife in which good deeds are rewarded, then a person who practices correctly should obtain the rewards of his practice in the afterlife.

If there is no afterlife in which good deeds are rewarded, then the practitioner still obtains the fruits of his practice in this life.

Likewise, if there is an afterlife in which punishment is doled out for the actions of this life, then the practitioner will escape punishment for acts which he did not commit because of his practice.

And if there is no afterlife in which punishment is doled out, the practitioner still loses nothing, for his practice brings welfare and happiness in this life.

This makes perfect sense to me, unlike Descarte's wager. And I find that, by working to not give energy to my greed, my hatred, my anger and despair, I do indeed reap welfare and happiness and, um, resiliency in painful circumstances in this life. For me, my experience day to day is reason enough to stop worrying about the afterlife and get on with this one.

This seems to be kind of the mirror image of the way you approach things, yes?

There are some similarities, but mirror image seems a bit simplistic. The important thing is what it does for you. If you like it, great. I've found a lot of things that sounded perfect in theory, but had problems in practice. I think testing it out would be an excellent "next Step" for you (unless you've already done that).

But I have to clarify this: It was Pascal's wager, and I wasn't advocating it; I was going past it.

Shira...

Pascal's wager contains a couple of logical fallacies which render the wager useless as far as actually contributing to a conclusion about the NEED for faith in a god and the associated afterlife.

The most glaring fallacy is that of one actually believing and one simply saying that he believes.

But the proposition the Buddha presents is logically sound...IF the assumption is made that there IS an afterlife and unless one associates the proposition with the Christian faith which mandates a belief in the Christian god as a prerequisite for an eternal life in which goods deeds can be rewarded. . And there is the question of eternal punishment...which demands an afterlife.

But I agree with your philosophy in general. I take issue with the negative connotations you have assigned to the emotions of greed, hatred and anger...although I agree that despair should be avoided or fought.

Greed, hatred and anger can all be motivating factors and they can actually help us cope with our everyday trials and tribulations.

Greed motivates us to achieve....the want of 'more' is important to the overall inertia of discovery.

Hatred is a natural emotional response. We need this response to help us face our oppressors.

"Anger is one of the most misunderstood and overused of human emotions. Anger is not a planned action - it's a reaction to an inner emotion. Anger is energy...." George Anderson

The trick is to use these tools constructively. A hammer is used for construction...but it can also be used destructively...as a weapon. But even when used as a weapon...the weapon can be used defensively...justifiably.

My opinion is that we should learn to use our emotions rather than let our emotions use us. To reject the emotions of greed, hatred and anger is an act of avoidance.

correction..."But the proposition the Buddha presents is logically sound...IF the assumption is made that there IS an afterlife ...."

If the assumption is made that there CAN BE an after life...

Cary -- Yes, this works in my life. The more I concentrate on living in a wholesome way here and now, the more irrelevant I find the whole question of any possible afterlife. For me, that seems like a good thing.

Farmer Slim -- It's interesting. I have found that the Buddha was right when he said that both grasping and pushing away are distractions. At first I worried that if I wasn't trying to get what I wanted and get rid of what I didn't want, I'd sit around like a lump doing nothing. But it doesn't seem to have worked out that way.

All things ... in moderation ... balance !

Cary...

I have to admire your honesty. Most Christians, I think, are not will to concede that the concepts they have chosen to believe are "tied to an intellectually impossible belief package" and most Christians claim that their faith in the word of their god enriches their (present) lives....even if it actually leaves them feeling inadequate or incomplete....though I'm not saying that this is the case for MOST Christians.

You said you have worked out the intellectually impossible belief package ...gotten it straight...(I'd like to hear about that)...and yet you are still living an impoverished physical life....which I understand to mean that you feel as though your life is less than emotionally rewarding.

What you are saying falls outside of my ability to comprehend....no disrespect...I just don't "get" it.

an intellectually impossible belief package

INTELLECTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE or an obvious statement on the fallacy of human autonomy?

-Mark

Mike,
"You said you have worked out the intellectually impossible belief package ...gotten it straight...(I'd like to hear about that)"

It was a long and difficult trip. And I don't think I could explain it in such a way that would help you get it. Rather, I suspect that any attempted explanation will just cause more questions. But I'll try anyway. The end result is this: I don't need to know that I'm right. I only need to know that I have placed the best possible bet, based on the data I've seen. Such a bet does not require faith, just inductive reasoning. If there's only one way to win, you bet on it, regardless of the odds. I have a psychological need for justice. If I can't live in a just system, I don't want to live. Therefore I figure out all the prerequisites of a just system, and bet everything on it.

I no longer even try to believe anything the Bible says. When I do believe it, it's coincidence. I remain a monotheist, because all my efforts to be otherwise resulted in nihilism, which I can't stand. I find Transcendental Argument and Argument from Reason sufficient to convince me of a personal Supreme Being. (Yes, some forms of those arguments have problems, but I find the strongest forms convincing.) The majority of the evidence I've seen appears to point to an unjust God. Still, I choose to bet my "soul" on a just God, because that holds my only possibility of getting to worthwhile life.

That's as straight as a person of my psychological requirements can get it.

If you want more, please check out my website:
http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/
I kept a record of my mental evolution on the page called 2nd Book of Proverbs.
And I'll be happy to send you my book free. Just give me your address.

Cary....

Wow...your trip WAS long and complicated. I do not agree that the choices for the meaning or worth of life boil down to either nihilism or the necessity of a belief in the existence of a god....a supreme being....hopefully a good guy god. I also do not believe in the concept of justice....justice does not exist unless the rationalization is made that equality is possible.

Even distributive justice is not logically arguable....not in the literal or in the philosophical sense. Life is not a level playing field...again...not in the material sense, obviously, and not in the philosophical sense. Actions (causes) don't necessarily have uniform results (effects). Needs and wants vary and objective justice is not possible....too many variables. Subjective justice is self-contradictory.

"Still, I choose to bet my "soul" on a just God, because that holds my only possibility of getting to worthwhile life."

You have assumed (been convinced by your investigations) three concepts which I do not believe....that we have a separate soul, that the possibility of the existence of a supreme god is likely and that we have the offer of an afterlife. The afterlife hinges on the validity of the separate soul issue, but I suppose could be possible without the existence of a god.

You perspective is interesting Cary...and as I have mentioned previously...you are more candid that most who claim the necessity of a personal god in order to have meaning for their lives.

The content of your website is fascinating. I would like to read your book...thank you for the offer. I'll forward my address in a private communication.

"" ... point to an unjust God"" ... yes, that is why I "upgraded" to a GOD.

Mike,
"I also do not believe in the concept of justice....justice does not exist unless the rationalization is made that equality is possible."

Justice may begin with equal opportunity to do stuff that warrants reward or punishment. But after that, equality has nothing to do with it. People who do good stuff (or at least try to) deserve rewards proportional to the good they did (or tried to do). I'm defining justice as that which is deserved. Perfect justice may well be impossible, but an approximation to within 5% of what is deserved is sufficient for me. Justice is possible if and only if pleasure and displeasure can be quantified and measured - which can't be done in this life. That part would require, if not a God, then at least the ability to operate in more dimensions than we can operate in. If that much jutice is not possible, then I choose nonexistence.

The parts about the existence of God, souls, and afterlife are unprovable based on any evidence either of us has seen, so I see no point in talking about those things. I choose to bet on their existence; you choose to bet againt it - or not to bet, which in my opinion, amounts to the same thing. Do you disagree with that? My particular psycholgical needs make betting on those things sensible. But if I were as satisfied with this life as you appear to be, I would probably not find that bet sensible. So I don't think we have any solid disagreements.

"People who do good stuff (or at least try to) deserve rewards proportional to the good they did (or tried to do)."

But should people be held accountable for the good they did not do?


"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."
Voltaire

"I choose to bet on their existence; you choose to bet againt it - or not to bet, which in my opinion, amounts to the same thing. Do you disagree with that?"

I and other atheists do not maintain that we believe that a god does not exist, we do not have a belief that a god exists...it is a lack of belief...not a belief. Those who claim a god exists are the ones expressing a belief. I don't claim to KNOW one way or the other.

So to answer your question....no...I don't think it, the bet or no bet, amounts to the same thing. I don't feel as though I am making a bet. If I were betting, I would be making a tacit claim that I believe no god exists.

"But should people be held accountable for the good they did not do?"

That's a difficult call. If a person has the opportunity to do something obviously good with no detriment to his own welfare, and sees it, and chooses not to do it, I think that should be punished. The law appears to agree - criminal negligence is a punishable offense. But most cases are not obvious, and most cost something. e.g. giving money to some parking lot beggar.

Drawing a line between what should and shouldn't be punished would be difficult, but I think it could be done justly.

-----------------

"no...I don't think it, the bet or no bet, amounts to the same thing."

Would a person who bets against the existence of God, souls, & afterlife behave any differently than you behave? Or is it just semantics?

"Would a person who bets against the existence of God, souls, & afterlife behave any differently than you behave? Or is it just semantics?"

I can't speculate about the motives for the behavior of others...but I would behave no differently if I believed a god did not exist. The difference is that I would then shoulder the obligation of a claim maker....my claim being that NO god exists..but I have no way of KNOWING if a god exists or if no god exists. I lack a belief that one does.

This is more than just semantics...at least it is to me and to most atheists. The believer...most believers profess to KNOW that a god exists...they cannot actually KNOW this. In general, they hope a god exists, they may need (need as in want) for a god to exist, they may have faith that a god exists...what has really happened is the believer has chosen to believe in a specific concept (an entity, a force, a power etc) that may or may not exist...while claiming that they KNOW this power exists.

So...would a person who has made the bet that a god exists behave any differently than a good, kind, considerate, generous atheist...or with respect to your question...an agnostic (didn't make a bet)? I don't think so, but for the believer...in most cases...it is important that his faith that a god exists be displayed or offered as the foundation for his goodness. So, in general, for the believer AND the atheist...the distinction is important...more than semantics.

I believe a "GOD" exists, one of my own definition, not that defined by others. I act accordingly now to my beliefs concerning that, but it is in no way at all "a foundation for my goodness", but a foundation for just the way I am, having the truth that has set me free to just be me ... which more often than not, is not seen as "good enough" to claim a relationship with a God let alone a GOD. Which just goes to show to me how little so many understand of the truths involved. IMnsHO.

"Foundation for his goodness" is a poorly worded expression. In the context of my comment to Cary...the subject of self worth and personal behavior was being discussed.

But for you Jerry...let's try this: "...but for the believer...in most cases...it is important that his faith that a god exists be displayed or offered as the foundation for his belief system or personal tenet."

In your case Jerry...and in the case of many "believers"...the god of one's belief is the god of his choice. Meaning that you and many others have invented your god to suit your needs. There is no truth involved in this process...there is only a need that is fulfilled by a suitable belief.

Either a supreme being exists or does not exist. Your personal concept of a supreme being and my lack of belief that a supreme being exists have no bearing on the existence or not of a supreme being. In other words Jerry, no one can invent reality and no opinion can determine reality.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Philip K Dick

Sorry Slim, of course you know that I disagree with you on just about everything. :-)

Mike,

Do you agree with the following concerning God, soul, & afterlife?

1. We can cross of those who claim to know it one way or the other as being incorrect. (I would go so far as to call them fools or liars unless they have supernatural knowledge.)

2. A person can believe it one way or the other and bet some or all of his resources on it.

3. A person can believe it one way or the other without betting any of his resources on it.

4. No statistical correlation can be established between believing it and behaving ethically.

5. Any given individual has more motivation to behave ethically if he believes it than he would if he doesn't believe it. (but only if he believes in a JUST God and JUST rewards or punishments)

6. A person who bets some or all of his resources on a just God & just rewards or punishments will definitely behave more ethically than he would have if he hadn't placed that bet, or if he had bet against it.

I agree with number 1....there is no such thing as supernatural knowledge. I agree with numbers 2, 3, and 4. I strongly disagree with numbers 5 and 6.

Of course the problem with numbers 5 and 6 is that one could argue that IF a person says he believes and then behaves unethically..he didn't really believe in the first place. There also is the 'devil made me do it' excuse. But we have to use what people SAY they believe as our yardstick.

Most people in the United States SAY they believe and most believe in a fair and just god. And yet the United States has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The promise of just rewards and punishments is not a factor for ethical behavior when comparing the ACTIONS of believers and non believers.

This quote from Steven Weinberg comes to mind:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

For more about the correlation of belief/non belief in a judgmental god and ethics/moral behavior...go HERE.


"Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations (while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a more systematic examination of the question has not been previously executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed democracies including the United States."

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so."

The Kripke Center is a part of Creighton University.

"Creighton is a Jesuit university, rooted in the Catholic tradition. At Creighton we live this mission and are guided by our identity. Because we are Catholic, we approach education with a passion for learning and a zeal for making a difference in our world. In the Catholic intellectual tradition, we celebrate our diversity, we learn through dialogue, and we pursue the truth in all its forms. As a Jesuit university we are continually bringing the richness of a 450 year old educational tradition to bear on the most contemporary issues of our world. Our Jesuit vision commits us to form women and men of competence, conscience and compassion who have learned from reflecting upon their experiences of being for and with others. We do this in service of a faith that does justice."

Cary, I will buy into your above list ... and deem myself to have just enough supernatural knowledge to do just that.

Mike,

You and the article you cited are not talking about what I'm talking about. In #5 I am talking about what a person believes. In #6 I am talking about what a person bets on. You and the article you cited are talking about what people SAY they believe. The article compares countries with high and low religious attendance. I'm not talking about religion. Even if everything in the article is true, it would have no affect on the truth or falsity of what I said. If you think you will be rewarded for doing good stuff, you will do more good stuff than you would have if you did not think you would be rewarded for it. If you BET on the possibility of reward, the bet itself consists of doing good stuff.

Cary...

The only way I know to define a person's religious beliefs OR his belief in a reward/punishment system..is by what they say they believe. I discussed this in my comment directly above the comment with the quoted study.

I understand your distinction about the difference of religion and belief in a reward/punishment system. But MOST religions demand belief in a reward/punishment system which is presided over by a god acting a judge. So...MOST people who believe in a god...in the religious sense...also believe that they will be rewarded for doing good stuff and punished for doing bad stuff and the result is that, in general, populations with the most people who believe in a god who employs a reward/punishment system are less civil than those populations with fewer people who believe. Again...there is not way to determine IF a person actually believes... we can only listen to what that person says he believes ("one could argue that IF a person says he believes and then behaves unethically..he didn't really believe in the first place. There also is the 'devil made me do it' excuse. But we have to use what people SAY they believe as our yardstick".)

Another consideration includes that of defining "reward". I DO think that most people who do good deeds are rewarded. But no bet has to be placed. What I am talking about is that the result of selfless acts often rewards the selfless with a feeling of well being or satisfaction. So, in this light, there is always a reward for doing good....an immediate reward, not a promised reward.

Can any person be truly altruistic? It seems that you do not think so...and neither do I....but our reasons to not believe in pure altruism are different.

"If you BET on the possibility of reward, the bet itself consists of doing good stuff."

Yes it does Cary...but the bet also consists of NOT doing bad stuff. And this is the failing of most who have made the bet.

Speaking of the BET ... Basic Equation of Truth (+=-). and it actually applies to the discussion.

Mike,

The main difference between what I'm talking about (belief in justs rewards in an afterlife) and what you're talking about (religionists) is that religionists believe they can offset the consequences of their unethical actions by kissing their God's ass. Such people are more likely to do more unethical actions and more God-ass-kissing. This would account for the findings in the article you cited.

"What I am talking about is that the result of selfless acts often rewards the selfless with a feeling of well being or satisfaction. So, in this light, there is always a reward for doing good....an immediate reward, not a promised reward. "

If that has been your experience with it, congratulations. Here's my experience with it. Failure to do a sufficient amount of good deeds makes me feel evil. Doing a sufficient amount of good deeds makes me feel righteous. Exceeding that amount makes me feel stupid. But I tolerate the feeling of stupidity, not for any fucking promise in a book, but because justice holds the only possibility of satisfactory existence for me, and if justice exists, I want to get what I deserve.

Cary...

Yep. Religionists DO feel like they can fuck up and make up! But I'm not sure the findings in the study can be completely accounted for by that fact.

Re the doing good thing...it's not just that is my experience...but it has also been my observation. And it means more to me than the value of any maybe or hope for reward. But considering my lack of belief...my position is understandable.

Jerry
Plus doesn't equal minus. That's pantheism. And it's not worth my time.

Cary, you show your ignorance (possibly stupidity) ... if anything, it is closer to panentheism. It has subjective spiritual truth ... expected to be rejected by a "rationalist" such as yourself.

To each their own ... no further discussion needed nor wanted.

Cary,

To my mind, the entirety of your "argument" rests on the premis that what a person finds reasonable, just, beneficial, etc., is valid in some absolute sense. The notion that an immensely more intelligent Being, can be rightly "judged" by oneself. That if such a Being does not at all times conform to a human's ideas about what is best, that Being has erred in some significant sense.

How can it be, that a Being with understanding far beyond what we understand, would not differ at times, from our sense of what is best? If one will accept no God that is not in agreement with oneself, are they not declaring themselves all-knowing? If a child took such an approach to their parents and other teachers, would they not be making a huge mistake?

John,

Thank you for this relevant question, which I will answer because of its relevance.

I am certain that the God who created me knows more than I do. My creator programmed into me the ability to judge (not always perfectly) true & false, probable & improbable, good & bad, just & unjust. He also made me UNABLE NOT to make those judgments when the criteria for those judgments is present. I may be totally wrong in the majority of my judgments, but they are nevertheless my judgments. I can't willfully change them. I can refrain from acting on my judgments, but I can't change the judgments themselves. If a certain set of circumstances appears unjust or evil, then I think it is unjust or evil. No amount of coersion can make appearance appear to be other than it appears. From what I have seen of life so far, its creator appears unjust. I see no way He could possibly be just unless He compensates for undeserved suffering in an afterlife.

Now maybe He is just in a way that I can't see. That's certainly possible. I am willing to suspend judgment for the duration of my earthly life. But if I must continue to live under a God who appears to be unjust (whether He actually is or not), then I respectfully request termination of existence.

If you again revert to dogmatics and tangents, I will again stop talking to you.

(Life is strange sometimes . . Here I am, confronted with a man so unethical as to make ad hominem attacks on another person, in a discussion about God's moral character, for instance. What's more, this man is so out of touch with reality, that he actually makes the character assassination remarks, in the form of an ultimatum, as if the person they attacked is actually going to be concerned that he will not talk with them further . . . Amazing stuff, I could never make something like this up . . . )

"If you again revert to dogmatics and tangents, I will again stop making any attempt to learn anything or admit that I do not know everything."

"If you again revert to dogmatics and tangents, I will not continue reverting to dogmatics and tangents like this"

"I can refrain from acting on my judgments, but I can't change the judgments themselves"

Yeah, like there's some action the big bad boy is going to take, on a judgment against God.

Dude, you can't even die without His approval ; )

The GOD that I have created to fulfill my wishes and needs suffices just fine ... at least until such time as IT no longer does, at which point I suspect that I will reconsider and possibly modify my expectations.

When the GOD that one creates is the highest and finest of potential needs, why would they ever want to change to something else ?

If I believed that a GOD created my line of being into a likeness of ITSelf, with abilities to reason and relate to creation involving a high order, why would I want anything more ... more importantly, less ... especially a God of a Book that has so many negatives and on tip of that demands, many of which are unreasonable. ??

You're totally misinterpreting the Scriptures, if I am understanding what you are saying, Cary. Of course, God made you unable not to judge. As you indicate, it makes no sense that God would create you with the ability to judge and then would condemn you for judging, a very part of your nature as the rational being He created. To even think that is the case without further consideration is just plain stupid. (Please don't think I'm calling you stupid now, but think about this.) If you do have faith in a Higher and All Perfect Being, how would such a Being do such a thing? He wouldn't because in His Perfection and His omniscience as part of that Perfection, He couldn't. He'd only be unrighteous, unjust, unloving, undeserving, evil, and unGodly; He wouldn't be God.

You seem to want to dictate to God what you think He should be because your understanding of Him is so limited, and it's easier to understand what you think He's about, rather than what He is about. You prefer to blame God for some mistake you think He made in creating you to judge because you don't understand or want to understand what He means. You prefer to judge God without even knowing Whom you are judging. That's the first problem.

That idea that we are not to judge is taken right out of context of Scripture, and you cannot take Scripture out of context and expect to understand it.

Look at some of the New Testament Scriptures. They are telling you how to judge. You are to judge with mercy and the love of Christ. It is not a condemnation, but a discernment between good and evil. It's not a simple dictionary definititon. In fact, in the OT, there is more than one Hebrew word for judgment. I don't remember offhand what it is, but one of them applies only to legalities of Hebrew law. Judgment has other connotations too.

Here are some of those New Testament Scriptures that show us how we are to judge.

In John 7:24 we see that we are to judge and are shown how. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

In 1Cor.2:15-16, Paul writes, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Matthew 7:1-2 says, "Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you"

All of these scriptures are showing you the way Christians are supposed to judge. These are just a few. The mind of Christ is a merciful mind. The mind of Christ has taken the condemnation on Himself so that no man who is born of Christ will be judged by another, and no man born of Christ will mete judgment that is not of Christ to another.

I don't think our understanding of God is sufficient to say what "perfect" means with respect to God. If God is unlimited, omnipotent, how can we know in any way what God has done, is doing, or will do (if time exists for God). If God is omnipotent, how could anything God does be evil. Not that God could not do things we would consider evil if a human being did them like killing babies in a flood, but since God creates the standards, how could any standard be used to judge God? So how can you say that God is limited to actions that would be good if done by a human being?

If God is unlimited, omnipotent, how can we know in any way what God has done, is doing, or will do (if time exists for God).

How about if He condescends to tell us Himself? This is Christianity's underlying presupposition. He has spoken. He is there and He is not silent. . .

-Mark

"I don't think our understanding of God is sufficient to say what "perfect" means with respect to God."

That's a very good start in realization, Larry. We're never going to know the complete nature of God until He reveals Himself. The complete nature of the simplest human is not knowable completely. Even the science of psychiatry cannot fully discern all the underlying dynamics of how a person thinks, feels, and reacts.

There is that contingency that remains. If and only if you have faith in an all Perfect and all Knowing Being, there are many truths about Him and His nature that are revealed in His Word. I've studied the Bible as a literary piece, completely aside from iinspirational reading. I've forgotten a lot of it now, but we parsed the meanings of the Hebrew in the Old Testatment and the Greek in the New. Although this is good foundational knowledge, it is only (if you'll excuse the overused words on this site I'm about to use, but it's the best way to explain) exoteric, and not necessarily at all any kind of revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that does reveal the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding.

I don't completely understand what you are asking in the rest of that comment, Larry. Omnipotence means all powerful and that, on any level, just doesn't make much sense because you're asking how something all powerful can be evil, and we all know that power is something that can often lead to evil. I don't know where you're coming from at all on that part.

As far as saying that I said that God is limited in His actions, please show me what I said that made you infer that. I never meant to state or imply any such thing.

I've studied the Bible . . . Although this is good foundational knowledge, it is only (if you'll excuse the overused words on this site I'm about to use, but it's the best way to explain) exoteric, and not necessarily at all any kind of revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that does reveal the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding.

What rubbish, Sue.
So now God needs prayerfully considerate Sue to reveal truth? Are His words unclear? Don't they translate well? Does God stutter when He announces:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God”

A tree falling in the midst of the forest does not need a hearer to create a sound. The sovereign God of the universe does not need the perceptive powers of a sinner to relate a truth. . .

-Mark

Mark,

While I share some of your concerns, I do not think Sue was speaking of what God needs, or can reveal, but of what a man can grasp of His revelation, and take to heart. Naturally, if God chose to, He could make Himself, and any part of His truth and knowledge, utterly undeniable by anyone. So yes, to we human beings, parts of His Word ARE unclear, and He surely knows that, and allows it to continue for now. That is a hard thing for anyone to speak of, without generating words that are themselves difficult to interpret clearly . . .

He tells us that He knocks, and indeed I know He does, but He also tells us that if any man opens the door, He will come in to him, and that would seem to imply we have a role to play in our own edification, even if only a tiny one . . else, why would He be knocking ; )

Mark, that college class I took was a literature course concentrating on the study of the Bible as a literary piece, not necessarily as the Word of God. There were Atheists in the class, and people of other faiths too. It was an exoteric view of the Bible. You have to have faith to be able to be open to the revelations in the Word of God, and in the context in which I was speaking, even for a Christian, that kind of reading is not the same as an invocation to the Spirit for the kind of revelation that suddenly illuminates the mind to the truths not only in the verses that one may be reading, but in an entirety of understanding that surpasses that kind of common understanding. I don't know whether you misunderstood what I was conveying or whether you're still miffed from the other day. In any event, it's not rubbish;that is certain.

Oh, is that what Mark got from what I wrote? What concerns are yours, John?

I hope you know that I am referring to this. "While I share some of your concerns..."

Just the usual, Sue, about the Book actually being "literally" the Word of God, and not some sort of remains from a failed ancient attempt by God to produce a Message, or the guesswork of "wise men" and such . . . Any potential straw, seems to be prime grasping bait these days ; )

Well, I never stated or implied that it was anything but the literal Word of God. I didn't create the syllabus for the course though, and we were not studying it specifically as the Word of God in that particular course.

Sue,

Here's what I think is kinda clumsily said, that caused some concern;

' . . . revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that does reveal the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding."

Had you said something like this, instead;

" revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that places one in an appropriate frame of mind to receive the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding."

. . then it is a bit clearer, perhaps, just Who has done what . .

While I share some of your concerns, I do not think Sue was speaking of what God needs, or can reveal, but of what a man can grasp of His revelation, and take to heart.

Hi Guys,

While I'll concur that God's Word has many layers of meaning - I will not assent to the notion that He has been unclear. Any casual reading makes it quite clear as to Who He is, What He has done, who we are and what our predicament consists of and what its ultimate and only solution is. . .
The fact that people choose to dance around these facts or suppress them is also clearly revealed in the words of the Book.
You don't need special powers to crack His code - just as I don't need a nutritionist to enjoy my mashed potatos.
Is that exoteric enough to understand?

-Mark

He tells us that He knocks, and indeed I know He does, but He also tells us that if any man opens the door, He will come in to him, and that would seem to imply we have a role to play in our own edification, even if only a tiny one . . else, why would He be knocking ; )

Why would He cry out, "Adam, where art thou?" when He came that fateful afternoon to the Garden? Did He not know where the sinner was and in what state he lay hidden? (probably California)

Would you have God wringing His hands longingly outside the door of your heart? Maybe He would be lamenting "If only he will open the door. . . If only, if only. . . "
Can a dead man play any role is his own edification? What role did Lazarus play when Jesus knocked on his door?
Each sinner whom God has chosen will come. Each one will open the door. To whom shall we give the glory?

-Mark

Sue,

Anything you might know about God is a limitation on God. If you contend that God is green then you are saying that God can only reflect green wave lengths of light. (Silly example but the principle is the same no matter what one "knows" about God.)

Omnipotence is far greater than just power in the human sense of the term.
Omnipotence means able to do anything at all no matter whether it seems to be impossible or not. Thus, if God is omnipotent, God can lie to you. God can make you believe things that are untrue. Anything that human beings can do, God can do. God is without limit.

Now God can also tell you the truth. But you have no way to know whether God has given you truth or lie. The Bible may, in fact, be the actual Word of God, complete (for humanity) and literal. But you have no way to know that because an omnipotent God can fool you. You can believe but you cannot know. There is a significant difference.

"Anything you might know about God is a limitation on God." No, Larry. My limited knowledge is only my limitation to know Him completely, but it does not limit God in any way. Because you don't know something about me, does it limit my ability in any way? It's almost too ridiculous to even address.

You consistently seem to be on a bent to dismiss the contingency that I repeated. You have to realize that I have faith, and believe that the Living Word of God, the Bible, is the revelation of God and His nature. I'm not going to understand all of it because I am not God, but I can understand what He reveals to me through that Book.

Larry, the word, omniportence means all powerfull, as I have stated above. It is a superlative to an infinite degree, so it goes without saying that it is far greater "than just power in the human sense of the term."

"Thus, if God is omnipotent, God can lie to you. God can make you believe things that are untrue. Anything that human beings can do, God can do. God is without limit."

Well, that goes without saying too. Of course, He can do anything he wants to do. Take it to a human level with limited power, and you could murder me if you wanted to, but would you? I don't know a lot about you, but from my limited knowledge of you, I would least expect you, of a group of many others on this site, to even consider such a thing.

"Now God can also tell you the truth. But you have no way to know whether God has given you truth or lie."

Once again, Larry, you dismiss my faith. Through the Word of God, I see that God is not just all powerful beyond the most superlative perception I can fathom, but He is also ALL loving and ALL knowing of all truth.

I didn't comment directly to it, but I did note that yesterday or the day before, somewhere on this site, and I think it was on that article about psychology and positive thinking, you quoted a verse from the Bible. I don't remember the exact quote now, but you referred to it as being a quote from somewhere. The one you cited that escapes me now, is a commonly used adage, but it is from the Word of God. When I read that, I shook my head a couple of times and thought to myself that this is an intelligent guy who knows that little about the Bible. Imagine the things he could do with that intelligence if he even knew as little as where that quote came from. What you have written here shows me that you know absolutely nothing about the Word of God. I can no more discuss this with you than I would consider discussing any book I read with someone who hadn't read it and was able to understand it. You have to have some point of reference for understanding, and you have none at all.

John Knight Nov 5, 2009, 12:45am EST

A couple of things now concern me because last night when I asked you what the concern was about what I had said, you just told me it was that you inferred that I was saying the Word of God shouldn't be taken literally, and now you have a different concern. I don't know how you got that, in the first place, as I pointe4d out above. In the second place, maybe I could have worded it to be unequivocally clear with the phraseology you suggest, but in the context of everything else I stated, I don't see how Mark inferred what he did either from the way I did state it. Either way, I don't see how what I said, in any way, indicates that I don't think the Bible is the literal Word of God.

John Knight Nov 5, 2009, 12:45am EST

"Here's what I think is kinda clumsily said, that caused some concern;

' . . . revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that does reveal the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding."

Had you said something like this, instead;

" revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that places one in an appropriate frame of mind to receive the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding."

. . then it is a bit clearer, perhaps, just Who has done what . ."

In the first place, you can't just take part of that, and I know with the ellipsis, you did indicate that you were referring to more than just the words you quoted, but I said, "Although this is good foundational knowledge, it is only (if you'll excuse the overused words on this site I'm about to use, but it's the best way to explain) exoteric, and not necessarily at all any kind of revelation as one gets from prayerful consideration and the inspiration that does reveal the truths of God's nature of His Word resulting in an esoteric understanding."


Yes, John, I would suppose that the way you have rephrased it certainly emphasizes and clarifies what I said without doubt. To receive is, however, already implied, because it is all contingent on the open condition of the recipient. Certainly, it isn't God who needs to reveal Himself or his truths to Himself, is it?

Working my way down this sub-thread, I find it very interesting ... what Sue has said has great merit from my view, what John said to back her up also, Larry has made some good insights also ... but Mark ... you show yourself on the surface here anyway, to perfectly fit the concept of the "exoteric" understanding ... the others suggest and admit that there is more truth in essence in the esoteric understanding, you should attempt to see just what it is they are trying to tell you. ImnsHO.

Mark,

"Would you have God wringing His hands longingly outside the door of your heart?"

. . I'll just ease on over a bit if ya don't mind . . and you can tell Him He's wrong for caring about us . . .

. . . OK tough guy, let Him have it ; )

Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth.
Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it; What makest thou?
Or thy work; He hath no hands?

Sue,

"A couple of things now concern me because last night when I asked you what the concern was about what I had said, you just told me it was that you inferred that I was saying the Word of God shouldn't be taken literally

No I didn't, Sue . . . yer trippin', as we used to say ;

My concerns were about how other people might interpret something like what you said.

(My advice, if you have any concerns about what I say, is to ASK me what I meant, rather than TELL me ; )

. . I'll just ease on over a bit if ya don't mind . . and you can tell Him He's wrong for caring about us . . .

I never said that He didn't care for us, John. He must care for us dearly when we consider what He has done, when we consider the Gospel. . .
What I was trying to get across is that God knows His sheep. He has known this from all time - there is no lost motion on His part - no hand-wringing as though He is uncertain as to individual outcomes. . .
For, after all:
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psalm 110:3

-Mark

Mark,

So, why's He knockin' ?


Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So these servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both the bad and the good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not a wedding garment:
And he saith unto him. Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

So, why's He knockin' ?

Because, thanks be to God, He is a God Who seeks and saves the lost. Grace is always prevenient; God is always the initiator. If He wasn't, no one would ever seek Him, no one would ever be found. . .

Jesus came to us, not us to Him.

-Mark

Mark,

"If He wasn't, no one would ever seek Him, no one would ever be found. . . "

Oopsie . . somebody just said that "we have a role to play in our own edification, even if only a tiny one", me thinks ; )

Oopsie . . somebody just said that "we have a role to play in our own edification, even if only a tiny one", me thinks ; )

No, no, no!
This is the leaven behind all heresy and the root of all false religion; i.e. the notion that we have some part to contribute (however small) to our salvation. . .
Our salvation is not the result of our faith, of our seeking. That we seek, that we display faith, that we confess Christ is the evidence that He has already been there, that He has saved us, that we have crossed from death to life. . .
"Lazarus, come forth!" What part did Lazarus play? That he did, indeed, come forth meant that the life principle had already been implanted. . .

John, check out the writings on the Monergism website or simply google the term monergism. Here is the antidote to all notions of synergism in salvation.

Salvation is of the Lord - first to last. . .

-Mark

I think we should pursue this line of reason further, Mark.......

How can anyone be "saved" unless they themselves seek that salvation and, ultimately, accept it??

I will use John as my illustration......

John was once an unbeliever.

John acted by asking God to "prove Himself" to be real.

God acquiesced by doing just that.

Accepting that proof, John became a believer.

How could God have ever "proved Himself" to John until John was ready and willing to have God prove Himself??

And was not John's petition to God to prove Himself the catalyst which resulted in John arriving at a disposition for God to present the proof to John and, thereby, making the free gift of salvation available to John??
.

Sue,

Sorry to be so late in getting back to you on this thread. (Life gets in the way sometimes. :-)

My limited knowledge is only my limitation to know Him completely, but it does not limit God in any way.

Well, Sue, if what you know about God is true, then all your knowledge is of God's limitations. But God has no limitations. Thus, you have no knowledge of God. Everything I know has to do with limitations. I can only know the size of something if it has a limited size. I can only know the color of something if it does not have all colors. I can only recognize words if they are not all sounds at once. If God loves me then that indicates some limitations of God. (I won't go into whether what human beings mean by "love" makes any sense for God.)

[This is about as well as I can explain this idea so if it doesn't make sense yet I'll just drop it. :-) ]

Once again, Larry, you dismiss my faith. Through the Word of God, I see that God is not just all powerful beyond the most superlative perception I can fathom, but He is also ALL loving and ALL knowing of all truth.


Please, Sue, I would never dismiss your faith. I don't question your faith at all. I cannot know your faith. But I can question whether what you believe to be true is actually true. That is all I am doing, questioning how you could possible know that what you believe is true. I don't question that you do believe it for you have said you do and I happily accept that. I question whether your belief is correct. I know I can be wrong (since I have lots of experience with that) and therefore I am confident that others can also be wrong.

What you have written here shows me that you know absolutely nothing about the Word of God. I can no more discuss this with you than I would consider discussing any book I read with someone who hadn't read it and was able to understand it. You have to have some point of reference for understanding, and you have none at all.

Sue, I have spent many hours in Church both for sermons and in "Sunday School" and such activities. I have welcomed into my home for discussions of Christianity many missionaries (probably more Mormons that others but Baptists and 7th Day Adventists in particular). I have read the complete Bible and am rather familiar with many of its passages refreshed frequently by TV shows about the Bible and related topics. I even have attended seminars on the Bible.

That said, I would agree with you that I know nothing about the word of God but I have learned what the Bible's words say and what people say about those words. In that sense only do I know the Bible.
If that is insufficient for us to meaningfully discuss your positions on religion and matters of faith I must regretfully give up trying to understand and share with you on these matters.

Thanks for trying with me. I know I can be a chore to deal with in these maters (as others have let me know :-).

Larry, there's no meeting of the minds on this subject for reasons I've already stated. Your limitations reasoning is non-existent, and your proposition that I have no knowledge of God is just false. As you admit, "I cannot know your faith." I'm not stating that you are consciously igoring or dismissing my faith, but because you have no understanding of it, you inadvertently dismiss it simply because you can't understand it or know it. It's an integral point of reference that without any knowledge of, it's useless to continue. It's only my position to make sure people know that God exists and the way to salvation is through Christ. Once I've made that truth known, it's out of my realm of obligation.

From what I've seen you write before here, I knew that you had attended Sunday school, at least, so I knew that you had already been exposed to the truth. Even as a young child, I was spiritual. I was always looking for deeper meaning and something more than the temporal. I always had a sensitivity for things that were not evident. I loved going to Church, partially for temporal reasons because it was a social event where we had special Mass for children and we always got dressed up and often went to each others' houses for breakfast after church. My experience was always positive. The nuns loved me and I loved them.

My First Communion is as memorable to me as my wedding. At that time, I really felt a communion with Christ. In retrospect, I know most kids didn't feel this way. I do think that there is a calling for some that others just don't get. God has His plans for all His creation, and I don't know what His plans are for others.

Hope you have a wonderful weekend. I'm anticipating a hectic but fun one.

How can anyone be "saved" unless they themselves seek that salvation and, ultimately, accept it??

Remember Who we're talking about here, Berf. This is God. What is impossible for him? Was Saul of Tarsus seeking God the day he woke up breathing out threats and slaughterings against the Christians in his environs? By nightfall, he was a changed man. Jesus had need of him and came and got him. . .
There's an old illustration about a pastor who was fed up with his congregation who, week after week, seemed unwilling to heed his prompts toward obeying the great commission and to leave their church and go out into all the world, etc. Well, he thought, if they're not willing, I'll make them so. And one Sunday he brought in a huge hornet's nest and tossed it out amongst his flock. Suddenly those who, up until then had seemed content to sit in their pew, flew out the door with the greatest dispatch. . .
God makes us willing in the day of His power. . .

-Mark

How could God have ever "proved Himself" to John until John was ready and willing to have God prove Himself??

Berf,
Do you really want to let this question stand?

-Mark

Mark,

"This is the leaven behind all heresy and the root of all false religion; i.e. the notion that we have some part to contribute (however small) to our salvation. . ."

Says who? Are you my Lord? Is your mind the mind of God? Why does that declaration not say; "I figure", or "it seems to me", or "this doctrine seems most reasonable in my eyes"?

Who the hell do you think you are? Step down, and we'll talk together . . . my brother.

. . Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

[Jesus of Nazareth; Luke12:~1]

Berf asked, "How could God have ever 'proved Himself' to John until John was ready and willing to have God prove Himself??"

Mark replied by questioning, "Do you really want to let this question stand?"

At first, I looked at Berf's question and said, she's absolutely correct. Then I looked at Mark's and didn't understand it at all. Thought about it a bit more, and I think this is what they mean.

Berf is saying, much as I did, that you do need to be open to receiving God because God does not force Himself upon us. The fact is that if He wanted to He could, but He obviously does not choose to do so. Perhaps the word could in Berf's question should be replaced by would and that will satisfy Mark. I don't know for sure, but that's all I can see that is possibly what his problem with that is.

(Apologies to any of my connections seeing this in their feeds a thousand times while I corrected a thousand typos a thousand separate times.)

(I am really hesitant to get into what I think Mark is getting at, though I do believe that once again, I agree with his concerns to a significant extent . . . This is a very complex matter . . . my hands are tied, one might say, when he rushes ahead (in my eyes) to claim God backs him up, without explaining more clearly, what it is that God is backing him up about . . . Too many variables being floated . . . Too many unspoken steps in the reasoning . . . )

"This is the leaven behind all heresy and the root of all false religion; i.e. the notion that we have some part to contribute (however small) to our salvation. . ."

Says who?

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"
Ephesians 2:8-9

Thus saith the Lord. . .

-Mark

Mark,

Don't bother with the cryptic stuff, I don't bite on that bait. You did NOT quote the Book saying that "This is the leaven behind all heresy and the root of all false religion; i.e. the notion that we have some part to contribute (however small) to our salvation."

Didn't happen.

Berf asked, "How could God have ever 'proved Himself' to John until John was ready and willing to have God prove Himself??"

How could God have ever spoken a world into existence out of nothing at all?

How could God have ever persuaded animals to come to the ark two-by-two?

How could God have ever scrambled the mother language and thereby separated out the nations of the world?

How could God have ever raised up a people from a man and a woman in a tent in the desert?

How could God have ever parted the waters of the Red Sea to allow his people to cross dry-shod?

How could God have ever fed two million people plus livestock in the desert for 40 years?

How could God have ever made a virgin conceive and give birth?

How could God ever raise a man from the grave?

Should I go on?

-Mark

Mark,

Didn't happen. Your mind is not His mind. What you happen to believe is; "the leaven behind all heresy and the root of all false religion", is just something you, a man, happens to believe.

It's not up to me, or anyone else, to prove your assertion is incorrect, or concede it is correct; Any more than anyone is obligated in any way to prove Jerry's assertions are incorrect, or accept that they are.

If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.
Martin Luther

Mr. Luther is not my Lord.

Mark,

If I was to propose that it is man's tendency to believe that what he finds reasonable, is the truth, that lies at the root of all false religion, and that believing one can save themselves is but a symptom of that underlying propensity . . . Would you say there is zero chance that I had spoken rightly?

John,
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. . .

-Mark

Will you answer my question, Mark? Is it possible, to your mind, that the root of all false religion is man's tendency to believe that what he finds reasonable is the ultimate truth of a matter?

Could it be, to your mind, that believing one can save themselves, is but one form of self deception that can lead to false religion? Could there not be a false religion, which happened to include the belief that man cannot save himself?

Mark,

Yeah, you could go on forever, but what would be the point? I just indicated, as clearly as any two year old would and could understand that Berf does not seem to be disputing that God can do anything He pleases, but He doesn't choose to force Himself upon us so perhaps if the word could were replaced by would you shouldn't have a problem with what she said.

You come back with a million coulds, so what are you rattling on about?

Could there not be a false religion, which happened to include the belief that man cannot save himself?

Save himself from what, John?

-Mark

but He doesn't choose to force Himself upon us so perhaps if the word could were replaced by would you shouldn't have a problem with what she said.

It is precisely this notion that God is somehow limited in His options when it comes to dealing with His creatures that I take exception to. He is sovereign and not us - He can knock on the door, or break it down, as He sees fit. . .
If God has no sway with His creatures, then why do we appeal to Him when we pray for the salvation of souls? If He is unwilling or incapable of "forcing Himself" upon wayward hearts then why don't we direct our prayers, instead, to the individual hearts of each soul in question?

-Mark

P.S. Happy Lord's Day to you. . .

There are no limitations. Who's saying there are? What are you talking about?

Mark,

"Save himself from what, John?"

? . . . ? WTF ? Is this some sort of joke to you?


Look, it is simple straight forward logic; If the root of ALL false religion and heresy is~ "the notion that we have some part to contribute (however small) to our salvation" . . . Then, there can be NO heresy or false religion, if one merely accepts that we have no part to contribute to our salvation. No matter what a person that ascribed to the doctrine that we do not contribute in any way to our salvation might believe or say, it could not be heresy or false religion!

This, to my mind, is akin to Jerry's "graced" state, wherein a person has some special thoughts occur in their mind, and Presto! they are magically transformed into a divine being, completely in tune with absolute truth . . . beyond the potential for significant error. Heresy and false religious concepts or doctrines simply cannot enter their mind . . .


Now, Mark, I know you are not that silly, so why don't you drop the cryptic responses, and discuss this seriously?

Mark,

"It is precisely this notion that God is somehow limited in His options when it comes to dealing with His creatures that I take exception to."

And it is the notion that God is somehow limited in His options when it comes to creating His creatures, that I take exception to. Is God incapable of creating beings with some tiny degree of free will? . . some minuscule freedom to choose between one path and another, in at least some small but meaningful sense?

. . . and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof

I think He can create beings that have some "free will". What makes you think he can't (if that's your belief) ?

? . . . ? WTF ? Is this some sort of joke to you?

No, the glory of God is a matter of great gravity.

Now, Mark, I know you are not that silly, so why don't you drop the cryptic responses, and discuss this seriously?

Fair enough, how about you answer my straightforward question and we'll proceed from there, John.

If God has no sway with His creatures, then why do we appeal to Him when we pray for the salvation of souls? If He is unwilling or incapable of "forcing Himself" upon wayward hearts then why don't we direct our prayers, instead, to the individual hearts of each soul in question?

-Mark

Nope, you speak UNTRUTH . . . You have loaded that question in an obvious way; "If God has NO sway with His creatures . . "

I won't play such asinine games, about the Word.


You have pretty much trounced any notion I had, that you were not just farting around with this matter, as though it did not matter what we did . . .

The ALL of GOD includes the ALL of POTENTIAL ... (+) as well as (-) ... and ALL of THAT is permeated with the SPIRIT of GOD as the (=) ... (+=-) IS THE ALL ... and how we think of it, results in our INtentions withIN it, and being "made in the image of", we create our own and co-create our joint realities. The resulting totality of all of that created by creation is creation and the experience of GOD. IMnsHO.

"The ALL of GOD includes the ALL of POTENTIAL"

No, Jerry, it doesn't. It includes ONLY that which He actually does or allows, naturally. You can imagine whatever you like, but He does not act based on what a man imagines, generating universes to suit every personal preference or assumption. Some people imagined the world was flat it seems, but it remained a sphere. People imagined that the sun was revolving around the earth, but that potential did not impact the actual sun, it remained the center of mass in this region of space. Those "potentials" were just phantoms, that some people fantasized, not a real part of His actuality.

You can tell me that ain't true all you wish . . . I'll take you seriously if and when you can demonstrate your "creative" powers, slick ; )

From "slick" to "John" (All "whoring" aside): Your (God) has all of these rules, laws. and regulations ... mine (GOD) has no such thing, mine has no "fear" that mankind will do irreparable damage to creation, mine allows complete free will under the Golden Rule with Karmic accounting for Justice to prevail in the end at "Omega" ... thus all potentials are granted to be freely utilized by we, "made in the image of", as "mini-creators" in our own right.

You say that the world was not flat when people thought it was ... well, while they thought it so, that was their reality for all practical purposes ... and they acted accordingly.

When some brave soul began to think that it might not be and explored to find it was not, a new reality was realized ... for all practical purposes "created" ... as we think, so it is, for all practical purposes ... until we know it, we do not know it ... unless we are operating somewhere in between those polarized extremes, maybe guessing this and that in conjecture.

You John have created your own reality along the lines of how you describe your God and relate to just that ... amongst other things in whatever priority you so assign.

I have created for myself my GOD ... consisting of the those very few basic things that I call "qualities" that are Unconditional Love and Absolute Truth ... in my reality, everything else is relative to just that. At this time I would have it no other way.

"I have created for myself my GOD"

Believe me, Jer; it shows ; )

I saw that earlier and winced.

The major difference between us is that you guys just adopted someone else's God. Probably because of lack of faith in your abilities to create and lack of desire to have anything better. :-)

PS ... Slim is unaware, but he has also created his "no-god".

Hi Jerry,
Can you make me one of those all capitals GODS, too. Make mine out of silly putty, will you? Thanks!

-Mark

Jerry,

"The major difference between us is that you guys just adopted someone else's God."

No, I didn't, you just made that up. I asked whatever God might hear me, and He responded, in the real world. I couldn't believe what was happening, and had no real idea of Who this Being was at first. I had not studied the Book, and was unprepared for the kind of power this One had.

I had no interest whatsoever in a God I could make, for I knew I hadn't the slightest idea how to make even a bug.

Can you make a bug for me Jer ?

I don't want an all caps one, especially not all upper case and bold. I just want the kind that has the initial letter capitalized in a Verdana font and not larger than a 12 pointer. I want to be able to kick it around if it gets too bossy. Hope they haven't sold out of my style yet with all these people catching on, especially since they don't even know they've caught on.

Mark, sorry, I can only tell you how ... you have to do your own creating ...

John, I use what you have already told us Gatherites over the years to understand you ... it appears to me that your God is the "God of THE Book" ... correct me if I am wrong.

PS ... to John, no, I don't do bugs ... you do that, based upon one of your own articles.

As for creating though, we have the ability that GOD gave us to create and co-create ... the greatest co-creations will be the ones we do with GOD.

Jerry,

" . . . it appears to me that your God is the "God of THE Book" ... correct me if I am wrong."

You are correct. And He's the God of the sky, and the mountains, and the dawn, and the fingers that tap out these words. He's the God of all that is, and He does things, naturally. One of theose things He's done, is generate the incredible collection of writings we call the Bible (Biblios in Greek, the Book).


"I don't do bugs ... you do that, based upon one of your own articles."

Phantoms, Jerry, just illusions, conjured within the unspeakable complexity that is the human mind. Of course we dream, and everyone is familiar with the tendency the mind has to construct various facsimiles of reality, for various purposes. But those facsimiles are like chalk on a blackboard; real chalk, but not really the things draw with it. He works in flesh and blood, energy and time and order upon order upon order . . .

John, will you still pay allegiance to your God when it it becomes known that he is but a "concocted" God made up by god(s) of the era of Sumer ... as depicted in the Sumerian Tablets as deciphered by Zecharia Sitchen ?

PS ... that was a "hypothetical" question ... I already suspect your answer. :-)

(Just presenting some "other" related information ... no more unbelievable than the "gospels" as they exist) IMnsHO.

Jerry,

"John, will you still pay allegiance to your God when it it becomes known that he is but a "concocted" God . . "

Known to who? Do you imagine that there is a great committee of humans, that could declare some scratchings on some ancient clay tablets ultimate truth? How would they know those scratchings were anything more than the work of some men, jotting down some things some people thought up? Do you imagine that Mr. Sitchen is a god, that can speak with authority about what happened thousands of years ago, by going into a trance as he gazes at bricks? Do you imagine there is a "validity meter", that can provide a scientific measurement of the truth of a given statement or concept? How childish . . . like something out of a dream or science fiction novel. . .

No more "childish" than your own religion John ...

I have to say the whole idea does very much remind me of when I was a pre-schooler and we didn't have neighbors so my interaction with other children was limited until I started school. I made up imaginary friends to play games. A lot of people live their lives in their own worlds created by their own minds. Insane asylums are filled with them, but some do manage to function with ability to separate fact from fiction just barely enough to escape the confines of an institutional life. I've seen examples of this type all over the place on this site so there is a great demand for this product.

Just maybe everyone other than Slim here is insane ... those of us who claim a relationship to a god, God or GOD truly have little more to "prove" it than what is in our mind ... there is no unquestionable standard of proof on the subject ... thus one persons view is as good as another's ... we each have but our own impression of what it amounts to, even if taken from an institution and it's Book ... it is still a personal and subjective creation in our own mind.

If any see it as anything more than that ... that also is just their subjective opinion ... as is the view of the atheist that there is no such thing.

Be ye as a little child ... without the distractions of others ... and maybe you get it right.

"Just maybe everyone other than Slim here is insane..."

"...there is no unquestionable standard of proof on the subject"

"...thus one persons view is as good as another's"

"...we each have but our own impression of what it amounts to"

"it is still a personal and subjective creation in our own mind"

"Just maybe everyone other than Slim here is insane"

It certainly is worth repeating the idiocy of that in bold.

Just maybe birds swim and horses fly. Faith does not require proof, but if one has faith in the Word of God as the Word of God, there is but one nature to that faith in that one God, that being the God that is revealed in the Bible, not a billion and one different faiths created by a billion and one different people.

"While I'll concur that God's Word has many layers of meaning - I will not assent to the notion that He has been unclear. Any casual reading makes it quite clear as to Who He is, What He has done, who we are and what our predicament consists of and what its ultimate and only solution is. . ."

I am not saying that God is unclear at all, but absolutely not does any casual reading of the Word of God make it clear as to Whom He is to just anyone who reads it. If that were the case, then anyone who read any part of the Word of God would immediately know of His nature and would come to faith. Of course, you can assume that they're all morons, but that's not always the case either. There are plenty of the "stiff-necked" who have read all or portions of the Bible, and they are not convinced of the Lord's identity. It's not because the Lord has made it unclear but without faith, you may as well be reading a work of fiction. The openess of one's mind and heart to the Spirit of God is also the reason for relativity of understanding among believers. We can both read the same things, but your understanding or mine might be a deeper understanding depending on the intensity of Illunimation of either of us. "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

While these discussions above are good, they also show (me, at least) why God wants us to become like children - full of wonder, open, hungering.

Hi Marilyn,
If a child can get it right, it must be wonderful!

-Mark

I agree Marilyn. Adults make it far too complicated. But take heart - last year my then 91 year old Mother in Law gave her life to Jesus.

"If a child can get it right, it must be wonderful!"

"Adults make it far too complicated"

What is this "IT" you two speak of??

God and His wonderful free gift. Kids get it far easier than adults.

Dale, that's fantastic. The stats show that something like 85% of people who ever accept Christ do so before their 18th birthday.