Playing God - the afterlife

[Undone]

Why are we still guilty by birth and not guilty by choice?

I think that "born into sin" is more of a metaphor in Biblical language. We're given the choice of whether or not to sin, and we choose sin, just as Adam did. It's the same basic concept.

 

Some then counter that that's not a logical situation for God to place man into. Again though - I think the argument for free will has been explained almost exhaustively in this thread.

[knapplc]

It should be a pretty big red flag when something so fundamental to the bedrock of Christianity is explained exhaustively, yet holes can still so easily be poked into it.

[Undone]

A few points there.

 

One can/could argue (as I've attempted) to point out that your "holes" are not really holes at all. Intellectually, I believe you're obligated to agree that you might be wrong. Also, "easily be poked" is subjective. And I'm not trying to get under your skin with that, I honestly believe it deserves being pointed out.

 

Thirdly, it seems to me to stand to reason that if a creator God can exist, and he creates lesser beings, it's implied (and obviously just so happens to be espoused in the Biblical account, at least) that the lesser being's mental capacity is lesser than, not equal to, its creator. Surely the "created" is not on the same level of understanding as the "Ultimate, Un-Caused Cause." So if we don't completely understand why God did what He did, is that actually a major detractor? For many, it seems to be. But logically, it doesn't necessarily follow. The God of the Bible either exists or he doesn't.

 

Your response might be that you've used the Biblical story's (seemingly to you) incoherency as such proof. But it seems to me that that is a bit circular, given the proposition above.

 

Edit: I just now read your anecdotal post @92, knapp. You're a man of huge character.

[knapplc]

I am not the only one so obligated. I suppose you could see those holes as subjective, but then again, if they're valid points, it becomes less subjective and it comes down to what a person wants to believe.

 

I agree with the premise that a greater being's understanding would, most likely, be greater than that of the lesser being they created. But you must also admit, being objective, that said "greater being" has been noticeably absent these past two millennia, and that it's a possibility that said greater being's very existence is the result of a story created as many other cult-stories are created, honed over the centuries, and presented today as fact when it never was. And, conveniently, there are no ways to utterly refute that which cannot be seen, thanks to the passage of time.

[Landlord]

Why are we still guilty by birth and not guilty by choice?

I think that "born into sin" is more of a metaphor in Biblical language. We're given the choice of whether or not to sin, and we choose sin, just as Adam did. It's the same basic concept.

 

Some then counter that that's not a logical situation for God to place man into. Again though - I think the argument for free will has been explained almost exhaustively in this thread.

 

 

 

I don't agree with this at all, in fact. I know some don't believe in original sin but coming from a reformed background I think it's one of the un-arguable points of Scripture. We sin because are sinners, not the other way around. If, hypothetically speaking, we can choose not to sin, that raises a lot of tricky and ugly questions about the necessity of the virgin birth.

[Undone]

I am not the only one so obligated.

I personally agree with that statement.

 

But you must also admit, being objective, that said "greater being" has been noticeably absent these past two millennia, and that it's a possibility that said greater being's very existence is the result of a story created as many other cult-stories are created, honed over the centuries, and presented today as fact when it never was.

I'd have to point out again though that "noticeably absent" is subjective; it's a conclusion drawn individually from the available evidence.

 

And, conveniently, there are no ways to utterly refute that which cannot be seen, thanks to the passage of time.

A point which I'd like "Hard Atheists" to admit, for once. Not referring to you. To those pesky "hard atheists" that exclaim, "There is no god."

[Undone]

Why are we still guilty by birth and not guilty by choice?

I think that "born into sin" is more of a metaphor in Biblical language. We're given the choice of whether or not to sin, and we choose sin, just as Adam did. It's the same basic concept.

 

Some then counter that that's not a logical situation for God to place man into. Again though - I think the argument for free will has been explained almost exhaustively in this thread.

 

 

 

I don't agree with this at all, in fact. I know some don't believe in original sin but coming from a reformed background I think it's one of the un-arguable points of Scripture. We sin because are sinners, not the other way around. If, hypothetically speaking, we can choose not to sin, that raises a lot of tricky and ugly questions about the necessity of the virgin birth.

Yes - I'll retract that one, Landlord. "Metaphor" was not the terminology I should have gone for there.

 

That's important for me to clear up: I agree that I'm a sinner "by nature." And so does the church I attend.

[knapplc]

Noticeably absent is not subjective. I can no more show you God than you can show me God. If you've had him over to dinner, next time invite me because I'd like to meet him.

 

God is as present and visible, non-subjectively, as the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns and the tooth fairy. None of these are subjective things - they are not proven, therefore speculative (at best).

[Undone]

Noticeably absent, as in not physically seeing God or Christ? As in, Jesus came and did some Jesus-type stuff 2000 years ago, then skipped town, and promised to come back, but hasn't yet? Yes, they're noticeably absent by that definition. Especially when "noticeable" is narrowly literal - with my own little eye. But I do promise, you'd be towards the top of the list if Jesus comes for dinner.

 

But there's other evidence of the supernatural that can be argued as affirmation the Biblical account/truths that have been going on, too.

[knapplc]

The same evidence exists for Vishnu, however.

[Undone]

True, however, it seems of note (and positive enforcement) to the idea of a god, gods, or God that there's a seemingly widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experiences of the sort that are categorized as supernatural. We might use a metaphor that it's similar to a group of blind people (or perhaps people that are ignorant of what an elephant is) all touching an elephant and then describing what the elephant is in different ways.

 

I'd probably even recommend a book called "Eternity in their Hearts" for a similar, even if not perfect example of this with regards to Christianity. This is merely one resource.

[Undone]

And egads, man!! You've changed your avatar! Very cool.

[knapplc]

True, however, it seems of note (and positive enforcement) to the idea of a god, gods, or God that there's a seemingly widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experiences of the sort that are categorized as supernatural.

 

A rather easy-to-explain phenomenon when you consider the age at which these gods appeared. Mankind was little better than an animal, barely comprehending the environment in which he lived. He had no other explanation for earthquakes, lightning, etc, so he explaned them away via "god."

 

"God" is merely one of thousands of such gods. Longevity in belief can be attributed as much to persecution of the infidel as anything else.

[Landlord]

It was a question I saw on Reddit, of all places, and I thought it was intriguing. My criteria are much less stringent than God's, and I find that fascinating that the supreme being of love would make it so difficult for his children to get to heaven.

 

 

 

I still think it's remarkably simple, as evidenced by my first answer and as read in Scripture. Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 

Really, believe in Jesus and be free/saved/inherited/adopted/bound for heaven.

 

 

Or like the Bible says...don't just believe....do works and believe...then you get to go to live forever (no guarantee of heaven exists in the Bible for anyone).

 

 

 

Believing leads to works. Saying "I believe" truthfully and passionately is the same thing as saying "I believe and do works". And there is a guarantee of heaven for all sealed by the Holy Spirit, adopted into God's family.

[Junior]

They'd have to believe in me. And demonstrate that belief by loving me and loving others as themselves.

 

What if I'm a good person, never committed a crime so much as speeding. Ran a soup kitchen for the poor. But I didn't believe in God. I'm out?

 

What about a person who makes $20 million a year. He hordes wealth for himself, doesn't break laws, but doesn't help anyone else either beyond giving a token amount to charity. But he believes in God. Prays on the street corner for everyone to see. He's in?