Can a person choose to believe in god?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 27 2007, 08:14 AM) [snapback]381658[/snapback]</div>

Very funny! The doctrine they are referring to is taught to Catholic converts as well, and has its roots in Romans 2:12 in the Christian Scriptures, IIRC. Conservative evangelicals use that scripture, along with the idea that 'the law' is an impossible standard to meet, to say that you cannot be judged by the law and have salvation. Like most Christian doctrine, it is "synthetic" in that it is synthesized from different passages, and therefore very much open to debate. But the concept that those who have not heard the Gospel are judged a different way is very much alive in most Christian traditions.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 27 2007, 08:14 AM) [snapback]381658[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm still strugging with one of the five points, and this is really the issue at hand in that one, the idea of limited atonement. "4 point Calvinists" don't believe that the atonement was limited only to those God choses, but that all the sins of the world were placed on Jesus. That is my view also. You may have been exposed to this flavor of Calvinism among the Congregationalists you knew.

The slam against "4 Point Calvinism" or "Amyraldism" is that it "sometimes leads to the idea that no one goes to hell" as one of my Lutheran friends tells me. Now there's a horrible thought.

The Wikipedia articles on Calvinism and
Amyraldism are actually pretty good now.

As far as the greater question of a totally deterministic world and hell, it is less of a concern to me that my theology sounds right and more of a concern that it is right.

As an analogy, let's say I studied electricity, and came to this conclusion:

Electricity is said to be a wonderful thing, and can heat and light our homes (as well as make our Prius get much better mileage). But people also tell me electricity is also a very destructive force, that burns and cripples and kills. How can you believe in electricity when it does so much damage? I will not believe in an electricity that is destructive.

(Like all analogies, this one fails at some point; the greater question of why a loving God could bear sending someone to hell isn't answered. For those like your friend, it is inconsistent with God's nature for hell to be populated, and she would be more comfortable with one of the "hell is empty" versions of 4 point Calvinism.)

 

Christianity has internalized the relativistic nature of human perception, and turned it into an ideology. Light can only be recognized where darkness exists.

So they demonize others, to feel superior;
Export misery, and by so doing 'recognize' their improved condition.
Offer hell for the sadistic, and heaven for the down-trodden

It is a sick, barbaric ideology, in as much as the polarities are synthetic, and all too often manufactured for the convenience of the institution.

OF COURSE schmika, fshagan, and wildkow want torture to be an american staple. They are christians to the bone.

 

Using logic it can be concluded that belief in God can ONLY be chosen. If you were to impartially look at the information available to decide if there was a God the only logical conclusion is NO. Or to be more precise, very highly unlikely, like any other imaginary figure would be, e.i., fairies, werewolves, etc. Therefore belief in God can only be a choice, not a reflection of reality.

You can argue that belief in God can be imposed to children by adults. In that case it would still be adults "choice".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 27 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]381773[/snapback]</div>

Or child abuse !!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jan 27 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]381766[/snapback]</div>

Well, I never said that, but I guess that doesn't matter here.

For those reading this, I do not sanction torture as an American staple; I believe it only makes sense to violate our ethics and standards in the "ticking bomb" type of example, with permission specifically granted at the highest level, rather than the impression given by my friend above.

I am a Christian, though, so if the reader is into irrational guilt by association, then I suppose you can pray for harm to come to me too.

Its just so sad that the left, once proud of their claim to the moral high ground, is so hate filled and bigoted now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 27 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]381658[/snapback]</div>

Funny you should ask...if I may be so bold...(oh, and I am an escaped Catholic...who follows Christ now)

I go to a pretty cool church, as churches go, when I am not helping out at other churches...check this out:

Pretty cool, huh?

http://www.barenakedtruthonsex.com/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 27 2007, 03:06 PM) [snapback]381765[/snapback]</div>

All doctrine in Christianity is a result of study, debate and compromise. The "problem" Christianity has is that its founder never wrote anything down, so we have only the writings of his followers, which sometimes conflict with each other, as opposed to a religion like Islam, where the founder's words are preserved. So we have to reason and debate, and adopt theories that we think apply the best to the spiritual reality we believe in.

So, here's one possible explanation of how the idea of "Limited Atonement" would come around: If Jesus died for all sin, what use is salvation? Their sins are forgiven, like a mega-Presidential pardon, past, present and future. And if that atonement doesn't really atone, why was the extra burden of the unbeliever's sin placed on Jesus? What kind of a father would do that to his son?

There's a certain "economy" in the idea that foreknowledge and predestination allowed God to put only the sins that needed to be atoned, or paid for, on the back of Jesus.

It is a much more common idea than you might think.

 

Just a postscript on the predestination vs. free will argument, Henry Neufeld has an excellent blog entry on it at http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=529

Neufeld describes himself thusly: "I am a passionate moderate Christian who is a member of a United Methodist congregation. I’m often called a liberal charismatic." He doesn't fit into the conservative political mode most of you hate so vehemently, so you might enjoy his musings on the subject, as they are not tainted by right wing political ideology.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 28 2007, 01:13 AM) [snapback]381850[/snapback]</div>

This is not meant as an attack. But, doesn't that mean that anything goes? Without experimentation and independent confirmation how do you know that any "theory" is right?

I say this just to emphasize that everything regarding religion is a construct, that is, made up by us.

This is not a problem by itself as many other aspects of life are "made up" and bring us joy, for example art or literature. However, religion makes specific claims about the universe and requires certain behaviors and attitudes that in modern times are not necessarily the most positive.

There is also this obnoxious capacity of being certain of things independently, and sometimes in spite of the facts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 27 2007, 10:15 PM) [snapback]381809[/snapback]</div>

blah blah. Who do you vote for ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 27 2007, 10:15 PM) [snapback]381809[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, Frank, but this sort of comment, especially coming right after we were congratulated for being so level-headed, isn't exactly helpful. This whole left/right thing really isn't conducive to polite and intelligent conversation in the first place. They're just labels that prevent us from hearing what the other person is saying.

 

I for one never had a choice. I was born with a brain that reasons in a certain way and that reasoning dictates my beliefs. I tried to change when I was young to fit in with most of the people around me, but my brain could never buy into it. I can’t say about anyone else but it would be nice to step into another’s shoes for this and many more reasons. But alas, that is not to be.

 

Bottom line: YES a person can choose to believe in GOD.

Heres one for the people that just love to analize everything..

Lets say I pray for someone to get a job, now they are not looking for a job nor have I told anyone what I prayed for. Poof the person has a job dropped in their lap.... Or I have a clunker for a car, and can not afford another car. I pray for the Lord to please provide me with another one, I start tithing (really cant afford to do that either) but poof I get a conciderable raise and now own a new prius.

explain away. <_< :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 28 2007, 09:55 PM) [snapback]382122[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you get your car, job, ect. Someone else wins the football game because god is on their side. Yet thousands of children starve in Africa or are killed and abused. I guess their needs were not as important as your new car. Or they did not pray as hard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 27 2007, 11:56 PM) [snapback]381885[/snapback]</div>

That's a good explanation of the scientific method, but how would you apply "experimentation and independent confirmation" to an area of study such as philosophy, political theory or theology? Not all areas of human inquiry are scientific in nature.

"Anything goes" is a bad way to describe it ... but I get your point. In a sense, you could propose any doctrine at all, but then something very close to the scientific method's "peer review" happens, where your doctrine is tested against the standards people have adopted; for most protestants, that includes if it is consistent with the Bible. There are numerous "systems" for intrepeting the Bible, of course, so your theory has to be pretty persuasive to gain any adherents.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 27 2007, 11:56 PM) [snapback]381885[/snapback]</div>

Well, all of us will either know the truth, or be lost to the ages, within 100 years. So then we will know for sure; until then all we can do is examine what is said and make up our minds. The freedom of seeking out God on your own ... what Blackstone called pursuing true happiness ... was one of the foundation stones of freedom.