Same old binary choices they impose, when the real world cannot always accommodate them.
On another thread about a certain Alabama governor mentioning in his inaugural speech that only those who share his particular faith are his "brothers and sisters," or something to that effect, many commentators agreed with the person and echoed the same sentiment. So I asked them, what is a dead child, the children who haven't heard of the gospels or anything like that that could have forced them to decide, what are they to do? Where do they go after death?
One of them replies back saying that the "whoever shall believe..." part also mentions the word, 'family' and hence they are covered. So I asked again, what are orphans to do, if they die before they hear of the bipolar choice that's available to them. Guess what the reply was? That he or she is doomed.
I wonder if these people who believe in such choices have ever heard of such a case as a parasitic twin. It is, basically, the remains of an incomplete foetus attached to a fully developed one. It is rather disturbing to witness.
Sometimes, the parasitic twin develops with most appendages and organs, and is alive. Other times, only the limbs form, or only the torso, or sometimes only the head, with functional brains and eyes. But most times, it's only a set of arms, a hip and a set of legs, if even those. So the question to these paragons of moral self-righteousness is as follows: What means do they have to achieve "salvation"? Surely they must be covered, shouldn't they?
While they are at it, I also wanted to ask this question about why a deity would need to use prophets and other special people. What good does it do, if a man's faith in a deity can only come after he has faith in the words of his fellow men? There is no way anyone can believe in a deity unless he or she has heard of it from another human (with the exception of direct divine intervention, perhaps). So, why is this flaw in the design of "salvation" present, that faith in God can only come after faith in mere men? It would have been so much simpler for a deity to merely telepathically communicate with all humanity the way it supposedly did with certain "prophets" and such a mode wouldn't have lead humanity to rely on other humans and scraps of ancient writings, for its "salvation".
They can take as much time as they want, but I do not expect an answer for any of the above, because they don't really have any.
Because you are in the process of perishing, there isn’t an answer which could be written to which you would not disagree and choose to argue, whether you comprehend or not, just to be the contrarian. You see, the answer is tied to the sovereignty of The Creator, do as The Creator sees fit, not as it would fit with any of a various human value systems. A turtle lays perhaps a hundred eggs in the sand on a beach, yet there may pass several generations before even a single descendant from that mother trutel comes to the beach to lay eggs. The rest live and die without seeming to have a purpose, other than to live. Most of the hatchlings never reach sexual maturity because they are consumed by larger animals. Is that economy an offense to you? ... it is related to one of the great questions I have for when I see my Savior face to face. But I do not have any influence upon how The Creator arranged His Creation. Somehow, I think you want to argue with someone you profess to not believe exists. I don’t want to arguye with you. I’m offering my thoughts on the way outside chance that your soul is not entirely dead.
Thank you so very much, James C. Bennett, for so helpfully laying out the problem of God as you see it.
For all that I'm a name on the ping list of persons who couldn't possibly have anything to say in response to the points you raise, I'll be very happy to take up your points one by one.
For openers: "There is no way anyone can believe in a deity unless he or she has heard of it from another human (with the exception of direct divine intervention, perhaps)." But I do not believe, on the basis of observation, evidence, and experience, that God is known only by means of human testimony. Indeed, even you left a "back door" escape hatch for that supposition, "divine intervention."
But what do you mean by "divine intervention?" Just asking, because that has indeed been part of my own direct experience of God. God gives visions to some. To others He gives the sense of His abiding Presence. In my case, I have been blessed along both these lines.... So for me, God is NOT an "hypothesis." He is REAL; He is THERE. And in some sense is in every where and every when.
So naturally, I entirely dispute your finding that knowledge of God is transmitted only man to man, as captured in ancient writings. And that somehow this constitutes a "flaw" in God's plan of salvation.
Which serves the purpose of delegitimating God; for how could God's plan of salvation be "flawed?" If it is, the flaw must be willed by God. And what sort of just and good Supreme Being would will such a flawed situation?
But the flaw isn't in the situation. It's in the way human minds grasp and analyze the situation.
God's self-revelation to us is not a human testimony. Also it is not fully captured in ancient writings. For God gave us four revelations: The ancient writings (the Holy Scriptures, His Word to us in human language); the "Book of Nature," or the Creation itself (which manifests His creative order); the Incarnation of His Holy Word, Jesus Christ (the most world-transforming event in human history); and the Grace of His Holy Spirit abiding with us.
That is, abiding with persons whose souls are open to God. Those who close their souls to God will not, of course, be in any position to evaluate the truth of any of the four divine revelations.
Or so it seems to me. JMHO FWIW.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and concerns, James C. Bennett!
Nonsense. A deity is a person. Additionally, the fact a person existed is not wiped out by their death.
Jesus was a person that showed up in the flesh and claimed to be God. The 4 Gospels contain quotes of Jesus, which can be examined and compared to other things said about Him and His Person. those quotes were written down by folks that knew Him in person.
"What good does it do, if a man's faith in a deity can only come after he has faith in the words of his fellow men?"
The quotes given in the 4 Gospels do not require the reader to have faith in the writers to know the person quoted, understand them and examine what's said for logical consistency.
"It would have been so much simpler for a deity to merely telepathically communicate with all humanity the way it supposedly did with certain "prophets" and such a mode wouldn't have lead humanity to rely on other humans and scraps of ancient writings, for its "salvation"."
Moses said, God gave Him the divorce laws to give to the people. God said, Moses gave them to the people, because their hearts were hard.
Re: The parasitic twin.
God said that the importance of such occurrences were to have the parents and others decide and comment on the matter. God said, that out of stones He could raise children of Abraham and He did. If the parents consider the parasitic twin their child, it will live. If they don't, God will likely judge them to be stones and keep the child. It's the same with the stone age person. God knows their heart. What He's looking for is the ones that claim to know Him and who testify about Him to expose themselves as fakes.
Such was covered in John 9. John 9 even illustrates where the "doctrine" of original sin comes from and what God thinks of it.
When threats are invoked, that means they have nothing left. Their bluff didn't work and fear mongering becomes the last tool of choice, along with the "fail-proof" Pascal's Wager someone pulled out of the moth balls earlier on.
But I understand that "men of cloth" are bound by their own conviction as "spiritual physicians" to warn you, so I don't take it personally.
