Why you believe what you believe I

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Wellllllllllll now you're talking about John and that's another story. I really have to claim some cop out here because I don't wish to butt heads.

Bring it on! We can talk about John .

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Ah, but the hotseater may pose questions back to his/her questioner And the divinity of Jesus is in ALL the gospels, altho most clearly in John.

OK, I'll check back later to see how you reply. I know about the "I am" statements in John and the parallels to similar voice of God "I am" statements. But how is this reflected in the Synoptics?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally written in Matthew 14:25-27
During the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

Originally written in Mark 6:50
Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

In both of these scriptures, the actual Greek translation is not, "It is I." The actual Greek says, "I AM."

[Rían]

And another verse, Lief, is right in your sig! (well, kinda)

Matthew 16:15-17
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I'll be back sometime Friday

[Finrod Felagund]

Happy AMERICAN Thanksgiving...you mean...

Haha...enjoy the Turkey guys!

[Lief Erikson]

Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, is going to be insane. We're hosting a Thanksgiving party and have four people coming over, and all the work has been saved for the few hours of tomorrow before they arrive.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

your "absolute essentials" illustrate what i'm saying... you say "all people have sinned"... something which not even every sect of christianity, and certainly not judaism accepts as true

Any person of any sense whatsoever would believe it is true (that everyone has sinned), and I"m not interested in dealing with people without any sense Are you saying that you, or someone you know, has never done anything AT ALL wrong in thought, word or deed? Because then, and only then, would they be sinless.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

fair enough, but by that "logic" one could conclude that everything from vahalla to alternate universes exist... maybe, but impossible to prove, at least so far

The only thing I was objecting to, IIRC, was the idea that anything that cannot presently be seen doesn't exist. I would agree that one can't prove, in this world, that either God or heaven exists. However, IMO it is foolish to conclude they DON'T exist, or at least to conclude this without a great deal of thought first.

I think it is a dangerous and sad and, frankly, foolish thing to amputate the world and acknowledge only what can be seen and heard and smelled and touched and stuffed onto scales and into beakers filled with formaldahyde. The world is bigger and more beautiful than that - it is an insult to the higher things, like love and courage and compassion and kindness, to have this attitude, IMO.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Any person of any sense whatsoever would believe it is true (that everyone has sinned), and I"m not interested in dealing with people without any sense Are you saying that you, or someone you know, has never done anything AT ALL wrong in thought, word or deed? Because then, and only then, would they be sinless.

I agree. One thing I'm unclear about though, is the idea of original sin and the state of a newborn child. Would an infant be considered sinless or not?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only thing I was objecting to, IIRC, was the idea that anything that cannot presently be seen doesn't exist. I would agree that one can't prove, in this world, that either God or heaven exists. However, IMO it is foolish to conclude they DON'T exist, or at least to conclude this without a great deal of thought first.

I think it is a dangerous and sad and, frankly, foolish thing to amputate the world and acknowledge only what can be seen and heard and smelled and touched and stuffed onto scales and into beakers filled with formaldahyde. The world is bigger and more beautiful than that - it is an insult to the higher things, like love and courage and compassion and kindness, to have this attitude, IMO.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I may not agree with you on many accounts, but this is why I am not and could never be atheist...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I don't have a copy on hand. But Lucifer made some good points about God effectively choosing Lucifer's path for him. Lucifer was angry in one part because God made him the way he was--the all-powerful entity was the ultimate author of evil, the ultimate author of Satan. I think Milton intentionally made Lucifer a character that you could feel sorry for in some moments, while in this case offering the character of God to make a rebuttal, and explain to his listeners (the Son, and the Angels) his true intentions.

God is made out to be the one who is right, but I think Milton really explored the nature of the evil of Satan in such a way that allowed readers to sympathize with the demon.

Yes, I sympathized with Satan. It is a tragedy to choose evil, and a tragedy that a beautiful being such as Satan was ruined by his own choices. I don't think that God is the author of evil by any means, tho. It only means that God has given us free will, and this means that we may choose to do evil.

You can take that perspective. But it is also as good a weapon of fear as I have ever heard of.

But again, look at the goal and heart of God. If God, as our Creator, knows that our highest (and indeed) ONLY good is to be with Him, then I think it is "divine humility", as Lewis puts it, that God will even take us when we come to Him because of fear of the alternative.

If God wants us to have joy, why does God decide that some will never have joy? Why must some remain unrepentant forever? Why will some never be saved?

To use an old but wise saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you yourself illustrated this attitude when you said you'd rather be in Hell than Heaven if Heaven was run on terms you didn't like. Again, I don't LIKE the concept of Hell - I detest it! - yet I don't see how it can be otherwise, given our free will.

It is a choice available to everyone, yes. But one of the choices is Hell. So, I'm saying, that's really only one choice: Heaven. The other is not worth considering. That's what I mean by "no-brainer", essentially you don't have to think about it; you choose heaven--and a large motivation for this is fear of pain or non-existence.

See previous 2 answers.

Again, my point in arguing this is to illustrate my opinion that the Heaven/Hell choice model is not an ideal representation for the honor that Christianity has for free will. One is given the severest of penalties for making one choice, and the greatest of rewards for making the other. You would say that this is honoring free will because God allows people even to choose not to be with him. But the consequences for such a choice are absolutely horrendous, effectively forcing people to choose Heaven. Yes, some would choose Hell anyway, but as I have said, this would be for the sake of protest, or ignorance of consequence.

So how is this NOT honoring free will? All it illustrates to me is that God is doing everything He possibly CAN to love mankind and bring all to joy in Heaven.

Very well. But I don't see any other religions claiming that God drags people into Heaven against their choice--so how does this point illustrate Christianity's honor of free will vs. other faiths?

Well, I see it somewhat in your beliefs that all people WILL end up in heaven/nirvana. Your beliefs just don't seem to allow for the possibility of anyone choosing against God. And to me, this nullifies free will.

But religion is organized. There are no one-man religions out there. I think there's a LOT of people out there with unreligious worldviews. Philosophy, at least to the great philosophers, does not = religion. People can have worldviews based on ethics that do not reflect any religion. So how can all worldviews be religious? And have you ever heard it suggested that Heaven is whatever anyone wants it to be, by someone who considers himself religious?

I don't really bother with the popularly-held idea of "religions". I think what is important is what I call worldviews - the things that DRIVE the ethics. And yes, I've heard people suggest that Heaven is whatever they want it to be. Many of these people are atheists - they suggest that Heaven is what they want it to be - nonexistent!

Okay. The objections will still continue, though, as long as the objectors (and I don't refer to myself) are not addressed on mutual terms.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this

I don't think anyone chooses not to be healed, in the end.

I think that some might I passionately hope that everyone WILL choose to be healed, tho. Hell is an acknowledgement that there is a possibility that some MIGHT choose to not be healed. Not everyone wants healing, if healing will bring them to something they don't like, or if they want nothing to do with the only One that can heal them ...

I agree that love is a two-way street. I don't agree that the only other solution is to take away a person's free will. I think God allows us all to heal, before we are with Him in Heaven.

I think it is ABUNDANTLY clear that God DESIRES all to heal. I think it is NECESSARILY a POSSIBILITY, given the concept of free will, that all will NOT desire to be healed.

Anyway I think you have explained yourself well.

Thank you I've certainly used enough words! I wish I used them better.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree. One thing I'm unclear about though, is the idea of original sin and the state of a newborn child. Would an infant be considered sinless or not?

I wrote a post on this a few pages back - hang on and I'll try to find the link.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I may not agree with you on many accounts, but this is why I am not and could never be atheist...

You're welcome, and I'm SO glad you feel this way!! I don't know whether to laugh in disbelief or cry or get angry when I see people say things like courage and compassion are only mindless reflexes for the survival of the species. If that's true, then IMO, we're better off if the species goes extinct! (not that "better" even has any meaning, if these things are true...)

[Rían]

Here it is : here. Top of page 33, post 641.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I wrote a post on this a few pages back - hang on and I'll try to find the link.

Silly Amarie... ahem, Elemmire *furtive look* not looking back... I have to stop doing that.

You're welcome, and I'm SO glad you feel this way!! I don't know whether to laugh in disbelief or cry or get angry when I see people say things like courage and compassion are only mindless reflexes for the survival of the species. If that's true, then IMO, we're better off if the species goes extinct!

Yes. Myself, I have a too scientific an upbringing (my mother was a microbiologist or some such thing before my brother and I were born) to look at most religions without a bit of scepticism, but I have far less respect for the purely scientific outlook that discards everything and anything that cannot be proven using the five senses...

There's an Einstein quote (yes, I'm obsessed ) and I think you'll agree with at least half of it...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[edit] I checked out the link, thank you. so... non-denominational. Interesting. I used to attend a Methodist and a Presbyterian church, and was probably driven away in part due to the hypocricy encountered.

[Rían]

Yes, sadly, hypocrisy drives many people away from churches (or anything else hypocrisy is in, for that matter).

Interesting Einstein quote - thanks! I agree with the first half, and actually, I would say I agree with the second half to a large degree, if by "science" he means "truth-seeking".

But more tomorrow - I'm really fatigued tonight, and am hopeful of several hours of fun and thoughtful Moot time tomorrow *crosses fingers*

[Elemmírë]

Knowing Einstein, he very well might have.

Good night, and I'm looking forward to several hours tomorrow of avoiding homework and pretending I don't have to finish Anna Karenina by the next day... I think I had forgotten about that...

[Rían]

Oh, have you posted over on the reading threads in the Literature forum? Let me know what you think of Anna - I absolutely LOVED Bros. Karamazov! I still can't get thru Don Quixote, tho, even tho Arty loved it!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Rian, are you still answering questions! Because you missed my two out again!

[Rían]

Unless something unforeseen hits, I plan to hit pages 34 to 36 today - I should finally be able to get some Moot time - are your questions on those pages? If not, would you please re-ask me?

[Rían]

I just did a quick look - posts 576 and 670? IT looks like I missed 576 - sorry! It was a good question, too, IMO! I should be back on in a coupla hours

[Nurvingiel]

It's kind of ironic (maybe not ironic, maybe just interesting) that RÃ*an was drawn to the Methodist church she attends because they weren't hypocritical, and Elemmire was put off a Methodist church she attended because they were hypocritical (if that's what you're saying Ellie).

Just goes to show no denomination or group in any religion is uniform.

[/random observation]