Can a person choose to believe in god?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 28 2007, 07:36 AM) [snapback]381921[/snapback]</div>

True, and its a good theory as far as it goes. We are assuming here that the idea of original sin is valid, but some liberal theologians do not believe in original sin. Some also don't believe that the death of Jesus was necessary from an atonement standpoint. So who believes in original sin and the Atonement? Conservatives who look to the Bible as their primary source of guidance on faith and practice.

There are numerous scriptures that deal with the death of Jesus, and the "sins of the world" put upon him, and hint at the idea of original sin coming to Man by the actions of Adam. So the argument is between people trying to reconcile those verses and ideas from the same viewpoint ... that the scriptures are "God breathed" and true with the sometimes unsettling qualification that they are "properly understood". Someone who does not have that conservative view may not care much about the debate.

From my standpoint, I find the idea of "free will" to not exist in the sense we understand those words. I don't make a practice of quoting scripture, because you get into the "dualing quotes" type of posts, and without a systematic theology will never come to a conclusion. But there are numerous examples in the Bible that you are probably familiar with ... God "hardening" Pharoh's heart so the Pharoh will not release Moses and therefore trigger plauges against him (and you get the feeling that had God not intervened, Pharoh may have said "Oh please, just leave.")

The other concept I've toyed with is the Hebrew idea that God is responsible for all things, good and evil, because He allows them. Therefore, in a de-facto sense, He is the author of all things. This is nowhere more of a problem than when you consider the "problem of pain" (or in your case, consigning creatures to hell).

Since God can override free will by force of his personality, but chooses not to, and people go to hell over what has to seem to most people to be a technicality ("You didn't say the sinner's prayer ... to hell with you!"). Is there really any difference between a God that allows people to go to hell when He can easily prevent it, or one that sets it up so that certain people will go to heaven and other's won't? The end result is the same.

My problem with free will is that eternal life is based on a technicality. If a person says a few words, they are in. But what happens if a truck hits them before the finish the "sinner's prayer"? Do they go to hell? Well no, we would say that God would know the person would finish the sentence if it wasn't for that truck. So what if the person decided to say the prayer that night, but is killed before he even starts to utter the sentence? Does he go to hell? No, we would say that God would know his heart, and let him in on that basis. So how far back do we go? We believe that God knows who will be saved from before time, so is it just Him peering into the future, or does he hold some responsibility for His knowledge?

With either predestination or free will, God is making the choice.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 28 2007, 07:36 AM) [snapback]381921[/snapback]</div>

This is the model for all in Christianity ... not the specific conclusions your friend came to, but the fact that she sought out a theology that reconciled all the information she has about the nature of God and other things she values, like scripture, if it applies in her case.

Her reason that it "pleases God, so we do good things" is ecompassed in the "P" of the Calvinist's five points, the Perserverence of the saints. Your friend has a passion for pleasing God, and I think in her case you would recognize that it is a good thing for her (and those around her). She is doing it because of an internal need to do those things, a need that is cultivated by her beliefs. This point provides a check against the idea of "cheap grace" that allows you to sin all week, then simply ask forgiveness on Sunday.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 29 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]382254[/snapback]</div>

To my knowledge, the Golden Rule is not universal at all. All of the other rules purported to be equal to it fall far short ... for unlike rules like the Law of Three-fold Return that the pagans hold, the Golden Rule does not admonish people that they will be treated as they treat others (or three times worse), nor does it say "what comes around goes around." Instead, the Golden Rule requires us to proactively DO for others as we would like done to us ... it is a call to action, not a passive warning about dire circumstances if we are not nice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jan 29 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]382406[/snapback]</div>

Ah, again, the ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we'll get another "good job!" from the moderators. It is, after all, such a perfect example of my assertion that what passes for debate on the left is so often nothing more than coarse language and personal insults.

If you can't think of something intelligent to say, call the person a poo-poo head.

I just want to know, what other kind of sewage is there other than "debased sewage?" Is a turd by any other name still a turd? I so wanted to be a good turd, and not a debased one ... perhaps a varnished turd. Or one that has been waxed and polished. Please, EricGo, may I be a good turd and not a debased one?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 29 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]382572[/snapback]</div>

No, it does not make it okay. of course not. But if you are meant to get hit by that drunk bastard, then die, so be it. YOU can't do anything to change that. When it's your time, it's your time.


YOU can choose not to drive drunk, and therefore take the risk away from killing someone. But again, that is your choice. The person you may have avoided hitting in your drunken rampage might still die that night fron another drunk driver. Again, your choice has nothing to do with weather it's time for that person to die.


I sometimes wish I had a expiration date stamped on me, so I could know what date I will die, so I can try and finish what I have to before then.

Foolish, I know.

Now, Daniel, I'm still waiting for the apology about your blanket statement that those who are believers were brainwashed.

How about that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 30 2007, 12:21 AM) [snapback]382666[/snapback]</div>

I've seen quite a lot of well-reasoned and polite discussion here, certain posts notwithstanding. Personally, I feel it's unfair to paint all people with left leaning political views with the same brush based on one one person who's not playing nice. Yes, there are those on the left whose debate style is as you describe. Just as there are those on the right who do the same thing. Neither side has a monopoly on reasoned debate nor on acting like horses asses. By saying things like "what passes for debate on the left" and that the left is "hate filled and bigoted", you are, unfortunately, guilty of making an ad hominem attack on anyone with left leaning views.

This whole discussion has been very interesting. I lean toward the atheistic side of things, but I'm finding the debate & information offered quite illuminating. It's sad that one of us (the one you're responding to) couldn't respect the civility of the discussion and had to inject venom into it, starting a tangent which I'm now guilty of perpetuating.

I'll crawl back into my corner now & enjoy the reasonable stuff and ignore the crap-ola.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jan 30 2007, 06:02 AM) [snapback]382710[/snapback]</div>

Proco,

Yes it is sad that WE paint all those who may have some leftist ideas and those who have a lean to the right agreance to be lumped into the same catagory when we are not.

I have to agree with some lefties ideas & same goes for the righties Im independent too bad the two parties cant just blend their ideas and cut out the ones that are boldy disagreed apon. But then I guess thing wouldnt get done, would they... :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 29 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]382573[/snapback]</div>

Just because the Bible recorded real life stories of people who lived in ancient times, including the mistakes they made, does not make it "advice". The Bible has always been very candid about the failings of sinful man, and also shows the consequences of their actions. All the things you listed above were offences that resulted in STONING. If you really need me to quote scripture and verse, I will. But, I think most people on here are smart enough to recognize that what you said is absolutely ludicris, so I don't think its necessary. Your remarks are like saying the police recommend rapes and murder because they record it in their police logs in the paper. :lol: Give me a break!

 

I'm kinda with Proco on this one. Daniel and fshagan seem content carrying on a civil debate, despite their differences. I don't expect to change anyone's mind with my views, nor is anyone likely to change mine, so I'll just sit back and read.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 30 2007, 08:27 AM) [snapback]382780[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with you here, Daniel. The brain is (sadly, in my opinion) wired for religion to varying degrees. Not any specific religion, just the concept in general. That's why the "choice" aspects of this discussion are flawed. Modern brain research is strongly suggesting this. Thus, for many people they aren't brainwashed... they're born with it. It's hardwired. For others (like us) it's not. PriusGuy is incorrect when he says there's a choice. You're either wired for it or not. I'm not. I would have to alter the chemistry/structure of my brain to "believe" like him. As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, they would have to be extremely dishonest with themselves to "believe" or to have faith. It's just not in their nature as it's not in mine.

Have the religious folks here read A Letter to a Christian Nation? If you have I'm curious to hear you comments/thoughts on it. I have come to many of the same conclusions as Sam Harris, the author, though he put many of them more succinctly.

As far as civility is concerned... I've enjoyed reading about people's thoughts here regardless of their POV with, of course, the exception that has already been mentioned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 29 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]382645[/snapback]</div>

True, "Darius the Mede has not yet been found by name in secular or archaeological sources. Thus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica asserts that this Darius is “a fictitious character.†But, some scholars have been more cautious. After all, critics once labeled Belshazzar “fictitious†as well. Undoubtedly, the case of Darius will prove similar. Already, cuneiform tablets have revealed that Cyrus the Persian did not assume the title “King of Babylon†immediately after the conquest. One researcher suggests: “Whoever bore the title of ‘King of Babylon’ was a vassal king under Cyrus, not Cyrus himself.†Could Darius have been the ruling name, or title, of a powerful Median official left in charge of Babylon? Some suggest that Darius may have been a man named Gubaru. Cyrus installed Gubaru as governor in Babylon, and secular records confirm that he ruled with considerable power. One cuneiform tablet says that he appointed subgovernors over Babylon. Interestingly, Daniel notes that Darius appointed 120 satraps to govern the kingdom of Babylon.—Daniel 6:1. In time, more direct evidence of the precise identity of this king may come to light. In any case, the seeming silence of archaeology in this regard is hardly grounds to label Darius “fictitious,†much less to dismiss the entire book of Daniel as fraudulent. It is far more reasonable to see Daniel’s account as eyewitness testimony that is more detailed than surviving secular records."

So, Daniel, if it wasn't Darius, who was it that immediately assumed the throne when Babulon fell? Why would you refuse to accept the word of an eyewitness, who was right there in Babylon? Because the Bible gives you MORE detail than surviving secular recordings you say its wrong, is that the way it works?

Hmmm...never heard that one, and I doubt I'd find anything if I'd research it. But, it actually sounds more like a Jewish superstition than an actual law. The salutation "O king, live forever" sounds like a very respectful greeting, and doesn't seem blasphemous to me at all. The ancient Jews were very aware of God's intentions for people to live forever, and many of the Bible's prophets repeated that promise. Do you have some authority you can quote to prove the assertion that there was such a prohibition in Daniel's time (6th century BCE)? It actually sounds to me like something more likely from Jesus' time, as he condemned them for making such traditions more important than the actual Law.

Daniel, I don't doubt that you can find some "authority" who will tell you whatever you want to hear, and I'm not going to get dragged into a debate purely based on differences in translation or perspective. If people *want* to believe the Bible contradicts itself, there are plenty of theories, hypotheses, and "experts" out there to give you the "proof" you want. Sure, you can give me the scriptures, I can do the research, present my evidence, but in the end you're still going to believe what you *want* to believe, aren't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 30 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]382868[/snapback]</div>

So what you are saying is that we are who we are because of our chemical makeup. That might explain a lot.

 

Hmmm... prophesy, to my knowledge hasn't named anything precisely. There's a lot of vague references that can be used to say a variety of things but I've never heard of anything being "predicted" that wasn't very much open to debate. If the bible said that "in the late 20th century it will become apparent that burning fossil fuels will contaminate the air that people breath and cause the planet's temperature to rise" or something similarly precise then you'd have a case. But it does not. And really, what's the point? Why are so many people obsessed with the Bible's prophecy? It strikes me as a lack of faith. It seems to be a striving for material proof. Getting wrapped up in trying to decipher the Bible seems to be a complete waste of time. Who cares if a town existed or not? As Daniel pointed out earlier that doesn't prove anything except that the Bible made a valid reference to a town/village. So does the Monkey Wrench Gang. It's fiction. How does that help me live my life? It doesn't. How does it help me live a morally responsible life? It doesn't. In fact, the Bible doesn't offer anything remotely revolutionary about living a morally responsible existence. It does offer some tidbits, but they tend to get lost in the wash of ancient Jewish history. 40% of the 10 commandments offer nothing but party line rhetoric.

How did you choose the Bible from the rest to be the truth? What metric did you use? How detailed was your analysis of other religions. Why did you reject them?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 30 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]382897[/snapback]</div>

MAAAYBE.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 29 2007, 10:56 PM) [snapback]382695[/snapback]</div>

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

The world today teems with millions of the beneficiaries of medical science, ergonomic science, airbags and just plain good education, ALL of which are the product of man rejecting outright the notion that he cannot be the master of his own fate. So far, man has succeeded spectacularly at sidestepping "what fate hath in store" and will continue to do so.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 30 2007, 12:00 AM) [snapback]382656[/snapback]</div>

Its would be interesting to see how they sidestep Paul's words:
“Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.†(Romans 5:12)
"For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21,22)

The Bible's principle of "an eye for an eye" is very clear, so what was needed to atone for Adam's sin needed to be a corresponding ransom. Adam was created "perfect", so none of his "imperfect" human offspring could supply the ransom. In a sense, Jesus stepped into Adam’s place in order to save us. By sacrificing, or giving up, his perfect life in flawless obedience to God, Jesus paid the price for Adam’s sin.
"Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times." (1 Tim 2:6)
In this respect, Christ acted as a High Priest in our behalf, presenting the value of his perfect human life to God in our behalf:
"For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us" (Hebrews 9:24)

It is noteworthy that "some translations render the Hebrew account to read that Jehovah “let [Pharaoh’s] heart wax bold†(Ro); “let [Pharaoh’s] heart become obstinate.†(NW) In support of such rendering, the appendix to Rotherham’s translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that “even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission.†Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives “caused the male children to live,†whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M. M. Kalisch, H. F. W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharaoh is that “God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart—spared him—gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all.â€â€”The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa 10:5-7.
Corroborating this understanding is the fact that the record definitely shows that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart.†(Ex 8:15, 32, KJ; “made his heart unresponsive,†NW) He thus exercised his own will and followed his own stubborn inclination, the results of which inclination Jehovah accurately foresaw and predicted. The repeated opportunities given him by Jehovah obliged Pharaoh to make decisions, and in doing so he became hardened in his attitude. (Compare Ec 8:11, 12.) As the apostle Paul shows by quoting Exodus 9:16, Jehovah allowed the matter to develop in this way to the full length of ten plagues in order to make manifest his own power and cause his name to be made known earth wide.—Ro 9:17, 18."

So, as you can see, it is simply a translation error/discrepancy. Its good to remember that these are DEAD languages, so it pays to do research and also see how other translations render it. But, the most important thing is that the answer MUST harmonize with the rest of the Bible. For example:
"When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.†For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone." (James 1:13)
God has NEVER made someone do bad things. The Bible continually says that he is "Holy", which tells us that he is incapable of wrongdoing or being corrupted. It is against his very nature to do anything wicked.

(All scriptures quoted above are from the New World Translation, unless otherwise noted.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 30 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]382924[/snapback]</div>

What's the basis for your objection? Brain research has exposed parts of the brain that seem to be centers for religious experience and regulation of the self. Manipulation of those regions can cause the dissolution of the "self" and the person experiences a god like experience where they feel connected to everything around them. There are people that have seizures which affect this region and the results are very interesting.

On another note, the arithmetic of sin is a strange concept to me. What precisely is meant by Adam being perfect? Obviously he wasn't. How did Jesus' death absolve the sin? What does that mean? This is something that has never made any sense to me. Why would a god design a universe where the only way to absolve sin is to kill his son? How did Jesus' death actually absolve anything?

Doesn't it seem very circular that we know that God is holy because he says so (via the Bible)? Where's the independent verification?

Killing off most of humanity in the great flood seems to be fairly wicked (or Sodom and Gomorrah). The concept of an eye for eye is pretty wicked. The slavery issue is another good example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 30 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]382908[/snapback]</div>

What? How can I be wrong? When you are slated to die, you do.

When you die, you - just - do.


You can prolong it. You can seek medical advice. You can stretch your life out forever on a machine, I suppose.

But if you get hit by the bus, and die right there, there is not one friggin' thing you can do to stop it.

How arrogant to think otherwise. So far as I know, not one person alive today, save those with death sentences, or those who choose suicide, know where or when they are going to die.

This is not a 'God' issue; it's just is.

Or do you know a way out of death? I would love to hear it. Seeing as I am dying of cancer. Any escape clause, is welcome.

 

I think that he's objecting to the deterministic undertone of the statement as you phrased it earlier. The way you've stated it here it's not deterministic just a simple statement of "eventually something's gonna get you". Those are two different things altogether.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Jan 30 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]382915[/snapback]</div>

Easy? It's very easy.

Paul was a man, who wrote what he thought he should write.

Now, that is how I could say you could easily sidestep those words...


The argument, that just because it's in the Bible, so it must be true, is vary narrow, and easy to disavow.

However, with independent thought, and research, one can find truth in the Bible's words. Just like any other well written book.


Faith in God does not mean faith in a book. There are cases of tribes in Africa that have found God with out any Bible to lead them...



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 30 2007, 06:06 PM) [snapback]382982[/snapback]</div>

Well, the basic tenet is, when it's time to go, it's time to go.

I find some things in life are fairly simple to get.


And perhaps that is too simplistic a view to have, but it works