Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
You don't have to give me the history on the exclusion principle. But I will give you an A on that reply. It was very good : )
You claim never to make a "'bone-headed statement," never a mistake? Where on earth do you get this confidence from, if you do not recognize a criterion of truth outside of yourself?
On the contrary, I am constantly making mistakes. I used to have a placard on my desk. "Make my day, prove me wrong." It isn't what I don't know that worries me it is what I think is right, but is really wrong that worries me. To paraphrase someone.
For that reason, I find all your statements "bone-headed!"
Then you will be thrilled to know that I consider evidence outside of myself to be the criterion of truth.
Now back to you Betty, do you have any evidence outside of yourself, to back up your belief in God?
What now???
I await your evidence, outside of yourself. Now do you see how this is played? Simple really.
LOL!
No, I don't believe that at all. I think you are deadly serious, and you don't love anyone or anything at all beyond yourself. The existentialist term for this is "alienation."
I am sorry you feel that way. I used to not fear my death at all, but now I do because of the hurt it would cause those who love me. Ironic isn't it?
Do you have the capacity to understand what I am trying to say?
Prove to me/us where he has said such things. Both you and Cronos have been chasing PNSN from thread to thread with your accusations yet I have not once seen anything he has posted stating what you accuse him of. It sure sounds like hypocrisy to complain and blame "Christians" fighting amongst themselves for ones loss of faith, and then participate in the very same things.
Well said. I doubt the person you addressed this to, understands the depth of it, unfortunately.
The "evidence, outside of myself," is the way I (a sinner) try to live my life.
I'm not all that concerned about "what I don't know" (though I continue to seek) because I recognize that all is in God's hands (so to speak). He knows; His knowledge is Absolute; and His Will eternally prevails "on earth as it is in heaven." My job here on earth is to understand His Will to the (limited) extent I can, and do it — for love of Him and His Logos, His Truth, by His Grace....
I do see the worrisome problem of the thing that one thinks is "right" might actually turn out to be "wrong." But since God is the touchstone, the criterion of Truth, it seems the closer one is to Him, the better one knows what the "right" is.
Just some thoughts....
So, do you admit what you hold as true could be wrong, too?
Again james - see you still quibble on your terminology. Were you to bother to read Romans as I earlier indicated, you will find there that there is a universal witness of God - some call it general revelation. Since that knowledge is recorded in our scriptures, it is known to us as well as to that individual in the jungle who's never encountered anyone else. That is in the bible james.
They are "saved" by following that "inner voice" that they cannot name as Jesus
Show us your conclusion from scripture james - not your personal book of second opinions.
If these people are "saved" in such a manner, then of what use are the scriptures? Couldn't everyone be "saved" by "hearing" that "inner voice" and obeying it, instead of reading the texts handed down by mere men, and obeying the dictates therein - thus being forced to have faith in the accuracy of the conveyance from deity to prophets to men, before they can have faith in the deity, instead of direct telepathy from the deity itself, as these tribals did, thus being able to have faith in deity alone without the pre-condition that they have faith in what men have told them about the deity?
Sigh, since you want to entertain the prospect of a God in your construct, then you are going to have to accept a few other items.
1. Absent your documented "inner voice" scripture passage - your first condition is false. And I am not worried about this condition changing any time soon - your strawman here doesn't exist scripturally.
2. The condition of sin (a particularly hard concept for most atheists) is a condition of SEPARATION from God - a condition under which all exist. Adam and Eve (your original 'tribals') did relate directly with God - their sin separated that open communication. Your scenario is puny compared to that which God has laid out in the bible.
3. God chose his prophets to convey his message to mankind in a way they could understand. Since God chose to have his communications with man recorded in such a manner - God being God is able to preserve those communications, and that is what the faith is based upon. There is no "pre-condition" james, what is required is the initial recognition that the individual has sin in their life and that it has separated them from God.
4. But God didn't stop there james, He came down as God the Son - Jesus to once again deal with the sin issue personally. He validated what the OT recorded and his followers documented his actions and teachings.
Faith in a deity alone doesn't bring salvation james. Since you are attacking Christianity, at least spare the platitudes in that regard. Even within Christianity it is not faith that brings salvation - but is it God's grace extended to us through the sacrifice of Jesus. And for those who have heard, we have a name to associate with it - Jesus. And if your 'tribal' individual is saved outside of traditional methods of knowing Jesus - his salvation is still founded upon that same sacrifice. And example - People are not lost because they have not heard. They are lost because they are sinners. We die because of disease, not because of ignorance of the proper cure (Boa and Moody, 1982)
Atheists like you are so narrow minded when it comes to the grace of God revealed in the bible (and you have the nerve to call us narrow minded) when coming up with your little constructs. The bible tells us that who so ever seeks after God in truth will find him - that includes your individual tribesman james.
In your case, absence of response is evidence of an inability to respond. Care to try a second time?
Yet you will be quick to bleat -PROVE IT TO ME - seen if from you time and again. I'm glad it is God that is all knowing - to rely upon atheists only show their weaknesses.
Oh, but then is some one else using your account? You seem to be the one repeating the question and making claims about salvation ("saving" business). Care to try again?
When we are young, we rarely fear our own death. It's a question that never comes up.
Later in life, sooner or later, the question becomes urgent. We seek to understand it, often in terms relating to the loss experienced by our loved ones. But this is not to face the question of death squarely — rather it is to deflect the question to others' experience, so that we do not have to engage the problem directly, to ask: What happens to me when I die? Which is the same sort of question as, Where was I before I was born?
Plato was fond of saying that all of philosophy is but preparation for death. Sounds pretty screwy by modern standards, I'm sure. Still, there's much going on there, beneath the surface level of the statement. Or so it seems to me.
Do I have the capacity to understand what you are trying to say? You tell me, LG.
Just restatement of previous points james. You indicate whole people groups, scripture/ Christianity refers to individuals. The rest of you bleat has been dealt with.
Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
There is no "pre-condition" james, what is required is the initial recognition that the individual has sin in their life and that it has separated them from God.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity. This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
This where it started, when I asked Betty Boop:
1. What is the mode of salvation for, say the stillborn infant, of a member of a tribe that has not yet heard of your religion? Is it damned?
2. What is the mode of salvation for those born mentally deficient? Are they damned?
3. As we know now, mammalian cloning is a reality. If you were cloned with a muscle cell of yours, and brought to life through the application of known science, would this clone have a soul? What is its mode of salvation? How would it affect your very own?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713145/posts?page=1940#1940
Since God chose to have his communications with man recorded in such a manner - God being God is able to preserve those communications, and that is what the faith is based upon.
Supply scripture to support your construct james - you may learn something in the process. Fundamental point no. 1 - they are not 'saved' because they are ignorant of God, they are not saved because they sin. It is sufficient to inform then that they are in need of a savior. At such point, as they seek after the truth of God, God has promised in scripture he will be found by them. The exact mechanism for the development of that final step is not spelled out. What is spelled out is that God will reach out to those who reach out to him.
Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
The koran doesn't stand the scrutiny on a daily basis as the Bible does. INteresting to note that atheists spend their time attacking Christianity and not islam.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity.
Oh really - so very confident of you james - you've become all knowing now? The same statement could be made of atheism I suppose. The point of the issue is that I arrived at this conclusion from multiple avenues of investigation. But the fundamental point is that atheists like you can't handle Jesus, can't handle textural criticism, can't handle the externals of the development of the church, can't handle the resurrection. It isn't a great wonder that many Christian apologists are former atheists who challenged these claims james. But since you can't read my mind in-spite of all your bravado, you statement is still invalid.
This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
I wouldn't be a Christian today if it wasn't for the LIVES I witnessed in those who eventually brought me to the bible james. I further wouldn't be a Christian if it wasn't for the supernatural calling by God on my life leading me to him and out of a family situation that was counter to such an endeavor.
When balanced against all the evidences james, the bible wasn't necessary to judge me of my sins - I knew them well enough on my own to recognize my badness. What the bible does provide is a communication record on how to know God and when put to the test - historically, contextually, internally, externally, textural critically and experientially I found it to be reinforced on every level.
Your presupposition (learned from someone else's teachings) is that there is no god - therefore there can be no inspired writings from same god. Mine is focused on Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Is there a degree of faith in that - yes - but not from just the bible - but from the results of that event. Nothing else - not even atheism's bleats - can adequately explain that event in a logical, substantive manner.
And you are asking because I used the word "seems?" In your reasoning, "seems" is not equal to "certainty." Therefore, I'm on shaky ground. :^)
But how can I, an image of God, tell you "with certainty" what God knows and thinks? For me to do that would be to commit what the philosophers call a major category error.
What I know of God comes through vision of two types: (1) eye sight (not of God directly of course, but of the things He has made) and (2) inner sight. It's difficult to explain this, but William Blake captured this idea exceptionally well when he said, "We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye." Human cognition depends on both kinds of vision in order to arrive at Truth.
As Saint Paul testified, it is both the visible and the invisible things of God which unfailingly testify of Him, so we have "no excuse"....
But that doesn't mean that we know, or can know, what God knows — with total certainty. To make statements regarding "certainty" respecting God is to reduce God down to the size of our cognitive apparatus. When that happens, we're not talking about God anymore.
Capice?
Fine - 1 and 2 are easy - since it requires the ability to make a conscience decision to repent and accept Jesus, the stillborn (anywhere in the world) and those mentally impaired are not damned - very easy case to make from the bible.
A clone would be more difficult now wouldn’t it. What is more scary is how clones will be treated (primarily by atheists) than their actual presence in society. Yet there is a form of cloning - twins - that shows that yes, both would be in need of salvation, since both developed into humans. So too, if a complete human was cloned - that person would be equivalent to a twin, a human, still in need of salvation and protection from atheists who would want to treat them as something other than humans.
Fine - 1 and 2 are easy - since it requires the ability to make a conscience decision to repent and accept Jesus, the stillborn (anywhere in the world) and those mentally impaired are not damned - very easy case to make from the bible.
A clone would be more difficult now wouldn’t it. What is more scary is how clones will be treated (primarily by atheists) than their actual presence in society. Yet there is a form of cloning - twins - that shows that yes, both would be in need of salvation, since both developed into humans. So too, if a complete human was cloned - that person would be equivalent to a twin, a human, still in need of salvation and protection from atheists who would want to treat them as something other than humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.