Guilt

Originally posted by Nordlys
Even though it looks a lot like German, it doesn't make much sense if you read it as German. I think he's speaking in tongues.

Right, maybe his German is shoddy and my translator is working just fine. 🙂

Originally posted by Nordlys
Even though it looks a lot like German, it doesn't make much sense if you read it as German. I think he's speaking in tongues.

In linguette?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Would you mind continuing this discussion in English? My German to English translator is too shoddy to be able to decipher your arguments clearly. I've been making rough guesses up until now.

ja würde ich mich kümmern, zu Englisch zu schalten, da mein Übersetzer die Praxis benötigt.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Right, maybe his German is shoddy and my translator is working just fine. 🙂

Most likely both your translators are shoddy. 😉 I liked his translation of "hail", though.

(Edit: Try what your translator does with this: Wahrscheinlich taugen eure Übersetzer beide nichts. Aber Froschstampfs Übersetzung von "hail" als "hageln" war lustig!)

Originally posted by Nordlys
Most likely both your translators are shoddy. 😉 I liked his translation of "hail", though.

(Edit: Try what your translator does with this: Wahrscheinlich taugen eure Übersetzer beide nichts. Aber Froschstampfs Übersetzung von "hail" als "hageln" war lustig!)

das Endergebnis ist, daß nur twentyfour von fiftyfive Bishops Abfall Pauls in das Evangelium wählte, und es sei denn mein Gedächtnis fehlerhaft ist, unterrichtete Christ das Evangelium in Galiläa, oops, das zwei Gründe ist, Unterricht Pauls zu vermuten.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]eah—this could turn into one of our long, brain-draining affairs. (Not sure I’ve fully recovered from the last one! 😉 )

Yes, let's observe some moderation this time around. 🙂

(1) Is your claim here that that is the one decision in which our ability is not impeded in any way by original sin? From either seeing the choice clearly, or Christ, for whatever reason, is said to be 'forgivable'. In fact, quite the opposite.

[/b]I believe that is borne out by scripture, yes.

Well, I’m going to have to think about that one... I have no doubt that scripture can be interpreted toward that conclusion. But, basically, I suspect it is a kind of “easy out.”

Without a doubt, they will not be saved. I can think of no biblical instance where outright rejection of Jesus Christ, for whatever reason, is said to be 'forgivable'. In fact, quite the opposite.

Well, here I have a problem. And that is that there is something impeding their ability to understand and accept—cultural conditioning, in my example. The power of such conditioning from childhood can be profound. I see little (if any) difference between this case an being impeded by inherited sin.

If the Holy Spirit can open the mind of a person under conditions of (4)(a), why not (4)(b)? (And I think it has been pretty well-established by psychologists and cognitive researchers that the unconscious mind can very well override a person’s ability to reason and make a conscious decision.)

______________________________________

>> Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Now, I have no doubt that you can contextualize this verse (and do it cogently); and as a matter of fact, I guess you have, so that those who speak against Jesus as the Christ are not forgiven (unless they change their tune before they die anyway). I will simply assert that it is this verse that is basic, and needs to contextualize the others. (I am simplifying, because you know my position from our prior debate, and that it is not quite that simple.)

With regard to your responses to (3) and (4)(a), you know me: The Spirit blows where it will. 🙂 And I basically only contextualize that by God’s essence (and the essence of God’s holiness and righteousness) being agape.

_________________________________________

It strikes me that our understandings of faith are also very different. I once said to you (way back) that my faith is unconditional. I don’t think you ever quite got that. It is not conditioned by any belief-content at all: it is an existential stance (that I have found, against all my own argument, as well as that of others) to be inescapable. It is a confidence (especially about my ultimate fate) that permits (even demands) an openness to reasonable possibility. I don’t talk about it much, because I realize that it itself is non-reasonable, and hence difficult to articulate. It isn’t a belief (or even an expectation of some desired outcome), nor an adherence to a doctrine: it is an attitude. Even if there is no God—or, at least, the kind of God-as-a-supernatural-person ascribed to by most theists—that existential faith remains in the face of the cosmos. You would likely not call that faith at all—or, at best, a misdirected faith or a pseudo-faith; certainly not a Biblical faith (though I think it is).

(BTW, in a quick search on the word “faith”, I found Mark 2:5, where Jesus pronounced the forgiveness of sins to the paralytic man—based on the faith of his friend, not his.)

Originally posted by Nordlys
Most likely both your translators are shoddy. 😉 I liked his translation of "hail", though.

(Edit: Try what your translator does with this: Wahrscheinlich taugen eure Übersetzer beide nichts. Aber Froschstampfs Übersetzung von "hail" als "hageln" war lustig!)

Probably your translators are not suited both to anything. But Froschstampfs translation of "hail" as "hail" were merry

ist das Ende genug?

Originally posted by frogstomp
ja würde ich mich kümmern, zu Englisch zu schalten, da mein Übersetzer die Praxis benötigt.

O.K., aber ich können nicht garantieren, daß ich überhaupt verstehe dich werde.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Probably your translators are not suited both to anything. But Froschstampfs translation of "hail" as "hail" were merry

ist das Ende genug?

desde que ninguém compreende a mensagem simples de Christ, porque parecem preferir o lixo complicado de Paul, eu pude também falar uma língua extrangeira como esta.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
O.K., aber ich können nicht garantieren, daß ich überhaupt verstehe dich werde.

Hölle,, kann ich nicht garantieren, daß ich verstehe, was ich sage, wann ich Deutsches schreibe

Originally posted by frogstomp
desde que ninguém compreende a mensagem simples de Christ, porque parecem preferir o lixo complicado de Paul, eu pude também falar uma língua extrangeira como esta.

The deepest simplicity can give rise to the most unfathomable complexity. This seems to be evident in nature, so why not in God's word? Christ's simple message can be found everywhere in Paul's writings. What exactly do you consider garbage enunciated by Paul?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The deepest simplicity can give rise to the most unfathomable complexity. This seems to be evident in nature, so why not in God's word? Christ's simple message can be found everywhere in Paul's writings. What exactly do you consider garbage enunciated by Paul?

einfach gesetzt, ist der Glaube und die Arbeiten von Paul, nicht, was Christ unterrichtete. und BTW, das ist, was den Geist wie ein unsicheres Wesen scheinen läßt.

Originally posted by frogstomp
einfach gesetzt, ist der Glaube und die Arbeiten von Paul, nicht, was Christ unterrichtete. und BTW, das ist, was den Geist wie ein unsicheres Wesen scheinen läßt.

Your first sentence makes sense (and I agree with it). But I have no idea what you are trying to say with the second one. "That is what makes the spirit seem like an uncertain/insecure being"? 😕

Originally posted by Nordlys
Your first sentence makes sense (and I agree with it). But I have no idea what you are trying to say with the second one. "That is what makes the spirit seem like an uncertain/insecure being"? 😕

Ich bin traurig, aber die Leute, die suchen, daß Antwort es findet, die, die nicht, gut werden sie nicht.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm not sure about the "wrested the keys of hell and death from Satan" part. What I am aware of is that God the Father raised Jesus from the grave. Perhaps you are right, but I can't think of any scriptural evidence for support of that claim.

Also, I believe scripture is clear that God offers much more than just "his love and fellowship" to t or, peace, joy, etc.

What intellectual conflict caused you to leave the faith?

My point was to establish that I have a pretty fine understanding of what you have been saying. I'm pretty sure you're not going to throw out a twist on your side of the aisle that I haven't heard somewhere before.

To understand where LJ comes from when he talks about your god being a tyrant and not offering a real choice, but rather a coerced choice, you have to step back from your position a bit. Implicit in your argument is the idea that God did not indeed for things to be as there are (plainly Fallen). All actions taken by him up to the Fall were made with the sole purpose in mind of maintaining a perfect Creation. He did not want to violate our free will though so he let us screw it up. Then he offered his free gift of salvation which comes with other bonuses (love, fellowship, and other things some of which you listed). He seems like a swell chap, and we are just selfish rubes not to see it.

A typical skeptic's perspective would say, "Hey! Wait a second."
Your God is supposed be all-powerful and all-knowing. Believers often say that he is "outside of time," a phrase which I think is meaningless, but suffice to say that he has perfect foresight. Given that he has these awesome powers, it is logical to question one of the implicit assumptions in your case. Namely, Is it true that God did not intend for Creation to be this way? Surely the answer must be, "No!" for if he did not intend it then it would not have happened.

How so? Well you see we as humans face uncertainty. As a simple example, if you flip a fair coin, you can't say what will turn up. You can only assign a probability to either event (heads or tails). Now we encounter far more complicated uncertainty everyday of our lives. Many of our choices have consequences which we could never have forecasted. God however does not face uncertainty. He can perfectly forecast the outcome arising from any choice he makes. With this in mind, we can consider how a skeptic might view your God.

Before Creation there is just God and the Void. God decides to create something. Now given that he is omnipotent and omniscient any logically possible type of Creation was at his disposal (he knows each one and can create any one). Note that this is an extraordinarily weak restriction. Nearly anything is feasible for him. Remember as well that he faces no uncertainty. He knows how to make every possible Creation, and he knows exactly how each Creation will play out from the moment of its birth onward. So even before God selected the Creation that we are in and part of, he knew precisely where, when, and how the Fall would occur. He knew that he would have rules which required a person to live a blameless physical life to enter Heaven. He knew that he would shut out all those who did not serve him on Earth (even though it would make sense to permit them to repent after death). He knew that he would require innocent blood to redeem them and that he would give us Jesus to be sacrificed. He knew every single horror and tragedy that would transpire. He knew every person that would spend eternity in torment and everyone that would spend it in bliss. He knew all these things and an infinite number more about this particular Creation before he spoke anything into existence, and with that perfect foresight, he chose an action that would lead to every single one of these events.

Now he could have chosen a different Creation. Perhaps one just like our own but with the exception that there would be no Halocaust because Hitler would die during birth, or perhaps one with no child rape. He could have chosen an infinite number of other Creations, but he didn't. He chose this one. He desired this one. Everything happens first and foremost because God willed it to be so. This must be the Creation that maximizes his utility. Simple choice theory tells us it must be so (unless your God is irrational (i.e. crazy))

Thus, your God seems a tyrant. Why play such a silly game? Why choose to design a Creation that fails so badly? How could a loving God design a person that he knows will spend eternity in torment? Such things are unnecessary for him. Why demand love from your Creation? Why must he threaten those who do not serve him with hellfire? I should think that truly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god could do considerably better than this.

From a believer's POV these questions are often answered by taking something about God's choices as given. He must punish us because we are sinful and sin cannot be in the presence of God. He had to give us a choice to love him or reject him or else there would be no free will.

But a skeptic says, "Why can sin not be in the presence of God? Why must we have free will? And if it is true that we must, why must it be over that choice?" You see the skeptic realizes that God wrote all the rules. There are no constraints on his choices that aren't self-imposed. Everything that occurs is exactly because God preferred it to this way over any other logically possible way.