Winning Souls for Christ

Originally posted by twhitehead
Finally you are admitting that Christianity is not the default position of man.

Huh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Huh?

You have claimed in the past that we are all theist by default. Now you say I was 'converted' in order to become Christian.

Originally posted by jaywill
I do not know the answer with [b]certainty to darvlay's hypothetical. [/b]

To be honest, I'm not fishing for any contradictions. I am just curious. It's fascinating to see how many different answers one gets for this question from the same theology.

Originally posted by darvlay
Thanks for the honest replies, guys.

I'm curious to know how our brethren in the Jehovah's Witnesses feel or if there are any Catholics who could chime in.

There's a Buddhist who could chime in. He seems to have done before, yet never got opinion, apart from Godspell quotes.

For the second time;

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world. The fear of wild animals; of not being able to find enough food; of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, and you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature and that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions, spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods, that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But Buddhists believe this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into, being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart, and He encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

The allusion here is that the gods created by latter thought dictators, and tax receivers, is deemed and reckoned as acceptable behaviour today by the same self-said receivers and taxers of that free thought from their god.

If their god was so fulfilling THEN they would be out preaching to humanity, and not preaching to their computer. Q.E.D.

-m.

Originally posted by darvlay
To be honest, I'm not fishing for any contradictions. I am just curious. It's fascinating to see how many different answers one gets for this question from the same theology.

====================================
To be honest, I'm not fishing for any contradictions. I am just curious. It's fascinating to see how many different answers one gets for this question from the same theology.
======================================

Understood. I am a bit wary and defensive on this forum.

Maybe, I'll comment further latter. If it gets people reading the Bible for themselves, I think it is still profitable to look at the matter honestly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have claimed in the past that we are all theist by default. Now you say I was 'converted' in order to become Christian.

I must have missed something in our previous conversations, but I thought you at one time said you'd had a profession of faith at an earlier age.


That notwithstanding, I still hold that the default position of man is a belief in God--- more of a question than the answer represented by Christianity.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Why would you assume Jaywill that the sheep referred to here did no know Christ?

==================================
Why would you assume Jaywill that the sheep referred to here did no know Christ?
===================================

Neither the sheep or the goats knew that their actions were being done to or in relationship in any way to Jesus Christ.

My opinion is that they knew about God but they did not know about "the Son of Man" (v.31).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I must have missed something in our previous conversations, but I thought you at one time said you'd had a profession of faith at an earlier age.


That notwithstanding, I still hold that the default position of man is a belief in God--- more of a question than the answer represented by Christianity.

No. The man who hold's no belief in a god of make believe, or a god in other's minds, simply furthers to improve humanity for the sake of well-being to other humans - not the well being of a created god.

Your concept of god is within you, instilled and indoctrinated. Unless, of course, you have had the opportunity to attempt to, or choose, otherwise. 😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I must have missed something in our previous conversations, but I thought you at one time said you'd had a profession of faith at an earlier age.


That notwithstanding, I still hold that the default position of man is a belief in God--- more of a question than the answer represented by Christianity.

Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in some loose sense) the weights of plausibility it should attach to each; therefore (correct) 'God-belief' is not the default position. Moreover, if it is not the default position to believe in the 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?

Originally posted by Agerg
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some [b]particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in ...[text shortened]... e 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?[/b]

If you could read 5 posts above yourself, you may have seen that this post you wrote above mine consists the same.

Originally posted by mikelom
If you could read 5 posts above yourself, you may have seen that this post you wrote above mine consists the same.

My apologies...didn't read that post.

Originally posted by Agerg
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some [b]particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in e 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?[/b]

===================================
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in some loose sense) the weights of plausibility it should attach to each; therefore (correct) 'God-belief' is not the default position. Moreover, if it is not the default position to believe in the 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?
===============================================

I don't know why you should be overwhelmed with infinite possibilities really.
No one is asking you to list your favorite rock band or best movie you ever saw.

Out of the possible thousands of claimants who said they were God, Who in human history would you vote for as the one who acted the most like God ?

I think you should have a short list. And the excuse of infinite possibilities, I think, is an artificial delimma.

The key phrase here is "who the most acted like God might be expected to act ?" in your perceptive opinion ?

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and wou "who the most acted like God might be expected to act ?" in your perceptive opinion ?

Are you claiming it is the default position of man to favour The Divine Comedy, or Monty python & the Holy Grail??? 😕 If not then your first rebuttal missed...as for the rest, I'd rather avoid lengthy dialogue with you given how the last one went :]

*edit* Out of courtesy, I cannot think of any god that has been described to me for which I can assign any value of plausibility that is higher than something I could whimsically dream up in my head (your god btw is absurd). I have no shortlist.

=================================
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in some loose sense) the weights of plausibility it should attach to each; therefore (correct) 'God-belief' is not the default position. Moreover, if it is not the default position to believe in the 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?
====================================

That is interesting. People should throw up their hands in dispair at the whole notion of God. And why ? Because the human brain doesn't have the capacity to hold all the possibile formulations of what "God" may be.

Any number of a trillion items within a range of 10 miles of where I am sitting may potentially be "God" so why bother to seek for God ?

Have you ever heard the song "There's a Hole in the Bucket, Dear Liza, dear Liza. There's hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole!" ?

It is a humorous take on a fella's ability to manufacture endless excuses not to do a simple job. Your complaint reminds me of that song.

Among voices in this world who even made a claim to be Deity, I think you can arrive at a short list of the voices who demonstrated DEEDS that at least made the claim to being God call for some serious consideration, if one is not too lazy.

Do you mean to imply that history's Jesus Christ is on the same level of plausibility with Julius Ceasar, Nero, or any of the Roman emporers who claimed to be God? Do you class any of the Egyptian pharoahs who claimed divinity for himself to be as plausible as Jesus Christ ?

I think you should be able to arrive at a short list of possibilities to be seriously considered. All may be false gods. But too many candidates, I think, is a false delimma.

Whether that candidate is "mine" or not "mine" is irrelevant.

Originally posted by jaywill
=================================
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would elimma.

Whether that candidate is "mine" or not "mine" is irrelevant.

The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. I assume, so long as you can meaningfully recall, you've never been an atheist.