Christians I have a question for you
Offline The Bible teaches that God chooses certain people to be saved.
Ephesians 1:4 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world."
Ok, before the creation of the world God chose who would be saved. Now, if he chose who would be saved that means no one has a say so in it, because he makes the decision.
That would mean that it's not our fault if we are not saved, correct? There's no other way around it.
Here's is a verse that contradicts God's sovereignty over people being saved or not.
Mathew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
Here, Jesus is saying that he has longed to gather the people but they were not willing. In this verse, it is their fault they are not saved.
In Ephesians it is God's fault.
This is a contradiction as I see it. Do you have anything to say?
- Login to post comments
It seems that christians have been made speechless; no response yet.
LOL
Yes - there is a contradiction but as we know, Jesus takes precedence over other biblical writers so sinners are screwed.
Interestingly, your muslim also believes that god has pre-chosen those who will get to paradise and the rest he has cast into the fire.
The only way to short circuit this pre-booking arrangment for entry into paradise is to kill an infidel.
It's a fundamental of this faith that makes me look at muslims in a very particular way.
Islam hijacked a lot of the OT for reproduction in the Koran so it's more than possible that this belief rolled over from your reference.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Ephesians 1 places no limits on the number who were called. All are called to holiness. In the cited verse from Matthew, Jesus is merely lamenting the fact that some have fialed to heed that call.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
This is the doctrine of predestination, which is predominantly a Calvinist idea. There are other ideas and interpretations.
For example, some Christians endorse open theism, which is the idea that not even God knows the future. Textual support usually includes passages in Genesis and Exodus, where God, in an anthropomorphized context, changes his demeanor.
Another view is the view (I believe it is Thomism) which says that we understand everything in a temporal context because that is how we experience reality. Therefore, our experience of God in this life will inevitably be limited by the way we experience reality and will not quite capture the actual what-it's-likeness of God. This is because God is not temporal. With God, there is no future or past. There is simply one eternal present moment. He doesn't really predestine people, so to speak. The idea is that he always knows who will be saved because he witnesses it in the context of eternity, not in a linear time.
Yes, that's predestination.
According to Calvinism, we freely choose to break the law of God and anyone who is saved by his grace is done so undeservingly. God is simply being merciful when he does it, which is actually the antithesis of fair.
But I think what you are getting at is that you want to say that it is not our fault that we break the law of God, which trades on a dichotomy between free will and God's foreknowledge/predestination.
It is pretty easy to reconcile God's foreknowledge with our free choices, since an omniscient being could predict outcomes with 100% certainty even in an indeterminate universe.
Reconciling free will with predestination is quite tricky. The only thing I can come up with is that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of what we will freely choose to do, though I wish I could come up with something better.
I'm not very good at exegesis. This is probably the most difficult issue within Christian theology. That doesn't mean there isn't an answer. I just don't have it right now.
Are you a Calvinist? With Calvinisim why try to be anything at all since all people and things are predestined no matter what they do?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I don't think so.
But if you believe that everything in the universe is physical, then I would presume that you also believe that we do not have free will (correct me if I misrepresented your position)?
Why do you try?
You are new here; I asked a question of someone with one post. I was trying to understand your position. I am a devout atheist, check the number of my posts. We all have free will, and free speach and freedom of choice. I support all of these ideals.
My choice is never to believe anything without proof. Your proof or anyones' proof is how I believe or disbelieve or flat out disreguard. Mostly, on the god question I disreguard.
What you, Jackson_cage have done is left a very ambiguous opinion on weather you are a theist or an atheist. So which is it?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I'm a theist.
Feel free to elaborate on your theisim. You can understand me by going to my home site (click my avatar) and click on the tracking block. Tell us about yourself. We strongly support free speach and diverse opinions; we disagree energeticly at time but no one has been banned for opinion;---threats and pissant insults yes--- but not an opinion or an argument.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
But anyway, let's chat.
What kind of atheist are you? Strong atheist? Weak atheist?
Hi.
I'll hop in on this and answer this question for myself.
I don't believe in a god because everyone claiming one exists has provided no compelling evidence of their claims.
I treat it the same way as I would anyone else making a fantastical claim. Skepticism.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Okay, so you lack belief in God.
I'm actually more interested in what you do believe, though. There are a million questions I could ask to engage you in this conversation. Or would you rather engage me first?
What do I believe about what? I can spend all day talking about myself.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Okay.
What do you believe about the human mind? What is it? Where is it? Is it material?
It is in your body. It is a system of electrical charges, mostly centered in different areas of your brain. Yes it is material, just like any other computer. It is simply biological.
That is why companies like IBM have been working on biological computers for years, because there are benefits like the mass storage capability that DNA strands have.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Okay.
What is your evidence for this?
The entire field of neural engineering? Not to mention almost all behavioral modifying medications are based on this knowledge.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Please explain how these are evidence that the mind is a system of electrical charges centered on different areas of the brain.
Just citing them is not convincing. You said you do not believe things without sufficient evidence (paraphrasing). So I would expect that you could articulate in great detail how these fit your criteria.
Am I trying to convince you of something? I thought you wanted to know what I believed, not why I believed it.
Well, alright. I'll play for a bit. You really should spent 8 years on this if you want to understand it beyond the basics, though.
I wouldn't be the person to teach you either. I'm not a big fan of teaching, and I am a business major, not medicine or engineering.
The area of the brain you are interested in is the telencephalon. Here.
http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/bltelenceph.htm
This is the conclusion from studies across many different fields, not limited to neuroscience or humans. Aside from marked personality changes aligned with damage to that area of the brain, neural implants that show electrical activity, and hosts of other medical studies done over the last 100 years showing that it is the center for personality, and that the studies are testable and verifiable, as well as the pharmacuedical industry basing their medications for behavioral control on limiting or increasing electrical activity in regions of the brain, you are right there is no compelling evidence. None at all. The brain must have nothing to do with the mind. Aside from changes to the brain completely changing the person's personality, likes, dislikes, motivations, aggression, memories, learning capability, etc.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH7-4DBS6G9-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1070412784&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=adea4b474eb05090fe6ef04273672556
Basically, it is unreasonable to think otherwise. It would undermine most of our medical knowledge. Neurosurgeons wouldn't have a career, not to mention all the industries based around this knowledge.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I wanted to know both.
I'm not asking you to teach me. I'm asking you to present your compelling evidence for your statement that the mind is what you say it is.
I'm not seeing any evidence that the mind is equivalent to any of these things. I'm only seeing evidence that physical interaction with the brain affects what we may call mental events, much like messing with a TV antenna affects the picture on a screen. I already believe that there is a correlation between the mind and the body. That's not the issue. The issue is the nature of the mind.
Furthermore, you are merely making assertions and citing "studies" people have done and you can't tell me a single thing about the studies, which leads me to believe that you do not even know anything about them. You simply know that the studies have been done. You are simply appealing to the authority of neural scientists and drawing conclusions that they do not even make (correct me if I'm wrong, has any one neural scientist ever actually presented a peer reviewed publication which CONCLUDED that the mind is equivalent to the nervous system?)
What I'm demonstrating is that you, like most atheists, are inconsistent. You apply a rigorous standard to God that you do not apply to other areas. For example, why is what you've just presented anymore compelling (which is subjective anyway) than the studies of logicians and theologians in regard to the existence of God? It isn't.
Furthermore, I don't really think it is an issue of the evidence. It seems to be more of an issue of what you want to believe. Your signature says, "Theism is why we can't have nice things." It doesn't appear that you want it to be true, therefore any evidence presented for the existence of God is not going to be compelling to you.
I could easily link you to different apologetic websites or talk about numerous "studies" done by theologians without going into the actual details of the studies, which is exactly what you did when I asked you to present evidence that the mind is a physical entity. I doubt you would be convinced and you would definitely take me to task if I just said, "I can't teach you this stuff. Go study it for 8 years."
Theologians...? LOL.
Well, I apologize if believing in the scientific method as a way to filter out useless things offends you. I have no problem making an appeal to authority if that authority is the entire medical establishment.
By the way, the AMA IS peer reviewed.
I am not inconsistent. If you show me peer reviewed scientific evidence of a god, or the scientific community accepting, building on, and working with that as the basis, with evidence proving it as the accepted model, then I will give it the credibility it deserves.
You are equating things that are on entirely different spectrums.
Basically, the problem with your argument is this:
One is trying to understand things by experimentation and trying to understand how things work.
The other is trying to insert something with no evidence, because someone said so.
One is testable.
The other is not.
By equating the two you fail. I'm not going to bother pointing out every failure you make, I am simply answering your question. Theologians can't be reviewed with anything but other theologians, and maybe philosophy, because there will always be someone that believes in some kind of crazy nonsense. Logic is debating validity of arguments. You can make a valid, and incorrect argument. You can argue the possibility of anything. It doesn't make it real, it is still only arguing the possibility.
Since you cannot prove a negative, theology will always exist as long as someone is out there making wild claims of invisible gods they claim can't be tested.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Don't apologize.
I never questioned the usefulness of the scientific method.
Neither do I. If a doctor prescribes a pill for me, I trust his authority that the pill will help me. I don't take it into a lab and test it.
The issue is rationality. If I cite someone else's say-so as proof that a certain claim is true, I have presented nonsense.
I've asked you to present evidence that the mind is a physical entity as you've described it and you've cited neurological studies which, as I understand it, have nothing to do with philosophy of mind.
The nature of the mind is not something you verify with the scientific method.
Where did I claim otherwise? I asked for a peer reviewed publication which states that the mind is equivalent to the nervous system.
You didn't mention scientific evidence. You said compelling evidence.
Are you saying that any evidence with does not comport with the scientific method is not compelling?
What are you talking about? Neural scientists are not trying to discover what the mind is. They are studying the nervous system and how it interacts with the rest
of the body. To say that the nervous system IS the mind is a conclusion that they've never made. You just inserted that based on your own presuppositions.
The nature of the mind is not a scientific question.
Define what you mean by mind then, because it seems you mean something different than I do.
I define it as perception, thought, memory, emotion, will, imagination, and all other cognitive processes.
I'm not a big fan of these word games. Clarify your argument please.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
This is something I would disagree with.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I'll post this since it seems your trolling got this last post of yours deleted.
This is convenient of you to say. I would suggest you do exactly what you prescribe. I noticed you did not respond to the points I have made about theology and logic, or pointing out your claim that the study of the mind is unscientific.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
How unpleasant for you to be denied the right to appeal to research by an idiot like jackson the numbat. You could hear the 'we have a soul' locomotive chuffing into town from about 5 miles away.
Perhaps the most annoying part of a person debating in this manner is that it does not involve them bringing to the table any scientific or medical proof of any kind but just ripping you a new one.
Nice work jackson - come back soon and I'll be glad to reciprocate.
BTW, my father died slowly over ten years with dementia and I can assure the dubious, that diseases of the brain are diseases of the mind.
Oh - and he was a fire and brimstone evangelist whose dementia left him without a personality or any knowledge of the lord at all. He died an atheist infant.
Though I do recall about 3 years into his dementia in a moment of clarity he asked mum: "Why is god punishing me..."
Anyway, if you have the balls to return serve Jackson, with actual proof that involves something other than bullying, please give me references to any medical research that supports your contention that everything about us
does not reside in the space between our ears. And if you're just going to spout dogma, go stick your head in a barrel.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Why don't you dig in and enlighten us on the philosophy of the mind and the nature of the mind, as you understand it, by a process that is not scientific.
I can hardly wait.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Guys like jackson seriously give me an enormous headache, I really don't think blind theists like this even read their own sentences.
"Living without religion is a luxury"
The hilarious part is, every area of the mind is covered by a scientific field. If it isn't neuroscience, it is psychology. If not that, psychiatry.
I think it is interesting that somehow he deemed the mind "unscientific", and convinced himself that science cannot answer any questions about it.
I was curious what his definition of "the mind" was, but he gave up when I asked and refused to clarify. So basically, it was word games and then run away.
Oh, and troll Eloise with 4-5 topics. This seems to be a trend of something that pops up every now and then, with a different girl on the site being this person's target. Someone has an obsession with this forum, I think.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
yeah, I couldn't actually see where he was going with anything. I'm known by family and friends to make good analogies for things and I think I have one for jackson.
Ever see Dude Where's my Car?
well if you have I think of jackson as the chinese "and then and then" lady at the drive through.
"Living without religion is a luxury"
Damnit, I missed him. Theists who play at semantics are one of my specialities. Ah well, you did a good job rending his delusions.
As for the OP, I'm beginning to wonder exactly what you are. If atheist, apparently poe. If christian, of no denomination I'm aware of. Jew? Islamic? Wiccan? Greek? Agnostic?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.