Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As you have read, Emily was quite overwhelmed by her perceived inadequacy of her surroundings. In fact, so much so...she "panicked". To say that she was filled with anxiety would not be an exaggeration at all. But what did she do in her situation? She prayed! She called out to the Lord in the anxiousness of her heart.

People who find themselves in stressful situations handle them in a variety of ways. One way is to do something that is part of their daily routine, in essence to perform a ritual. This causes the body to produce various chemicals that have a calming effect (possibly a neurotransmitter). I would hazard a guess that prayer is part of Emily's daily routine. If so then prayer would have a calming effect.

Nicotine also has a calming effect. A round of cussing might also work. "Damned spiders."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Unconditional love and unconditional election are two opposite things. In unconditional love ALL are loved by God as they are, period.

In unconditional election, the majority of people are NOT loved by God, period. They are subject to predestination with the minority going to paradise and the majority to Hell.

Unconditional election is Calvinism at its worst. It did not catch on till the 4th century. Unconditional election is not something God dictated. It is a Calvinistic interpretation of various passages in the Bible . It portrays the worst qualities you can think of about God. An extreme sadist who creates people he has already chosen not to save. The ultimate hypocrite who does not hold himself to the same standards he expects us to follow.

Can Satan be any worse than unconditional election. No. So think about what you are following. This is why it is very important to understand the difference between what man says God says and what God says.

This is why Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you. Because if you know God within you, you will know unconditional election is the words of fools.

You will be VERY, VERY hard-pressed, Mr. Light, to find in scripture your peculiar spin on God's love whereby it teaches that God loves all on this planet in a distributive sense. That is your fantasy. Your touchy, feely pipe dream. It is not biblical.

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated".

Furthermore, look up the definition of "unconditional". Nowhere in that definition does it say unlimited in a quantitative sense. It is, however, unlimited - but in the qualitative sense, which scripture truly supports. God's love for his people -- his elect knows no bounds. It is indeed without limit.

Proof positive of the unlimited, qualitative nature of God's love can be found in one verse:

Prov 8:17a
17 "I love those who love me;
NASB

And your drinking buddy Jesus concurred!

John 14:21
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."
NASB

And again, Jesus said:

John 16:27
27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
NASB

And again, the apostle John wrote:

1 John 4:19
19 We love, because He FIRST loved us.
NASB

And all this is in agreement with Pauline doctrine:

Rom 8:28
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
NASB

Understand what Paul is NOT saying here: He's not saying that God causes all things to work for good for each and every person on planet earth.

And unlimited, qualitative nature of God's unconditional love can be seen in this central NT passage dealing with this subject:

Rom 8:31-39
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,

"For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NASB

Not a thing in this universe can separate an adopted child of God (his elect) from His love. Nothing. Nada. Zip. A true born again child of God is eternally secure forever in His eternal love.

I would also refer you to additional verses on the flip side of this doctrine along the lines of Rom 9:13 quoted above: See also Ps 5:5-6; Hos 9:15; Dan 12:2, etc.

To sum up, then -- God's love is at once conditional and unconditional. It is conditional in the quantitative sense but unconditional in the qualitative sense, thereby not violating the Law of Noncontradiction.

And I see you're still stuck on the "kingdom is within you" nonsense. Would that be the same kingdom that Christ also told the Pharisees would also be taken away from them?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Proof positive of the unlimited, qualitative nature of God's love can be found in one verse:

Prov 8:17a
17 "I love those who love me;
NASB

Yes...of course. God loves only those who love him...but man is expected to love and pray for even those who "hate and persecute" him. That makes a lot of sense, Mr. Boxcar. You are really converting a lot of "unbelievers" here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...of course. God loves only those who love him...but man is expected to love and pray for even those who "hate and persecute" him. That makes a lot of sense, Mr. Boxcar. You are really converting a lot of "unbelievers" here.

Yes, because by so doing, a believer may win a soul to Christ. Don't forget: Christ's church is a means to an end.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

People who find themselves in stressful situations handle them in a variety of ways. One way is to do something that is part of their daily routine, in essence to perform a ritual. This causes the body to produce various chemicals that have a calming effect (possibly a neurotransmitter). I would hazard a guess that prayer is part of Emily's daily routine. If so then prayer would have a calming effect.

Nicotine also has a calming effect. A round of cussing might also work. "Damned spiders."

I see. So Emily just happened by chance to handle stressful situation in the biblical way. That Phillipians 4 passage is just coinicidental, meaningless window dressing. So glad you straightened that out for me. I will shoot an email off immediately to her telling her to be thankful to the god Coincidence.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, because by so doing, a believer may win a soul to Christ. Don't forget: Christ's church is a means to an end.

IMO...God shouldn't be playing these "don't do as I do, do as I tell you" games. If God expects us to love those who hate us...then God should abide by the same standards. Otherwise...it's like the parent who tells his kid not to take drugs, while the parent grabs the cocaine needle at every opportunity.

As the man said, "I can't hear a word that you say...because your actions keep screaming loudly in my ear".

[boxcar]

Pirate and I recently had a discussion about Natural Law and my firm belief, that as important and even necessary Natural Law is, it is nonetheless inferior to God's revealed Law in his Word. Two of the reasons it is inferior is because Natural Law cannot reveal to any of us the spirit of God's law. And closely related to this is that it cannot reveal to us (inform us) how to love, which is the spirit of all God's law, as Jesus taught when he summed up what the greatest two commandments are.

Apart from going into a lot of detail about an exchange I had with a professing Christian, I will say that she was recently widowed, relatively speaking, and she confided in me that in her search for male "companionship", she had found some snowbird out of state who piqued her interest (and her with him as well, I suppose), so they agreed to an arrangement to get to know one another better by him wintering at her home here in South Florida. While it is likely that this would be an "innocent" arrangement, nonetheless as her brother in the Lord, I was compelled to caution her in love against going through with her plan, as innocent as it may be. After all, this is one of the important functions of the Body of Christ (Church) -- for the arm, for example, to inform the foot when it's about to take a misstep.

I reminded her of an important and exceedingly broad principle of Law that Paul taught the Thessalonians.

1 Thess 5:22
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
KJV

Another principle that came to mind was Phil 2:15 wherein Paul enjoined the Phillipians to prove themselves blameless, innocent and above reproach in a crooked and perverse generation".

Now...I knew that virtually all her neighbors and acquaintances knew she professed Christ as her Lord and Savior. Well what would these people think once they found out that this snowbird was "shacking up" with her for the winter? What would that do to her testimony? To the name of Christ? To the truth of the Gospel?

And these passages and many others I could cite find their ground in great, overarching, exceedingly broad principle of what I (and some others call) the Law of Love -- the two greatest commandments upon which all the others turn. This Law of Love requires us to be self-sacrificial. It requires us to esteem one another more than we do ourselves. It requires that our good never be spoken of as evil, etc., etc.

But Natural Law could never reveal these deeply profound and rich principles of expressions of love. Only God's Word can do this.

Oh...how did this woman receive my exhortation? Not well. She kept harping on her "need" for companionship, so she wasn't willing to make her "need" subordinate to the Law of Christ, his Gospel and her own Christian testimony, which she appeared ready to compromise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...God shouldn't be playing these "don't do as I do, do as I tell you" games. If God expects us to love those who hate us...then God should abide by the same standards. Otherwise...it's like the parent who tells his kid not to take drugs, while the parent grabs the cocaine needle at every opportunity.

As the man said, "I can't hear a word that you say...because your actions keep screaming loudly in my ear".

Your analogy fails miserably because God doesn't do drugs -- nor any sin for that matter.

We are to love our neighbor (even those who don't love us) because God first loved us -- when we weren't worthy of his love at all! God knows all men's hearts; we do not. And in God's infinite wisdom he has chosen to USE his covenant people (all of whom are not perfect by any means!) as the means to bring other sinners into a saving, covenant relationship with Him.

Moreover, what you conveniently overlook is the unconditional, qualitative nature of God's love. If we didn't love our unworthy enemies just as God loved his unworthy elect when they were in a state of enmity against him then we would not be emulating God.

Thirdly, Christians don't get to share in God's divine prerogatives. The cattle on a thousand hills are not ours. The heavens and the earth are not ours. We did not make them, etc. Nor are we law-givers, only God is, etc., etc. There are boundaries we should not cross because God is God and man is...well but the dust of earth created by Him.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The bible is not the source for natural law. God is the source for both natural law and biblical law as revealed in divine revelation. God's "natural law" is revealed intuitively in man, as a moral, personal, intelligent being, created in the image of his Creator who is also a moral, personal, intelligent being (cf. Rom 2:14-15) . Natural Law, as important as it is (especially in this fallen world) is inferior to Divine Law (revelation) because the former can be largely shaped by fallen, sinful cultures, this law largely being determined by "group think" (by consent of the majority, as it were); whereas Divine Law, as you have said, can be misinterpreted by fallen, sinful readers of scripture. But...bad interpretation does not change the fact that Divine Law itself is good, holy and perfect, and is clear and plain enough to where in can be understood and interpreted properly with help of God's grace...

Bringing God and "divine law" into the discussion of natural law is based on an assumption that God exists, and that a particular version of divine law is correct. So, essentially it's irrelevant. Or, as Hamilton Burger said many times to the judge when Perry Mason was usually toying with him, "Your honor, it's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial!"

Natural law has many aspects which can be readily observed, repeated and experienced by many people, regardless of their faith (or lack of it). Divine law does not share this characteristic, so I don't understand how it can be considered "superior" to another view. Since any law is open to interpretation, there are always problems with both natural and divine laws, and of course the potential for corruption. Having to rely on "God's grace" for interpretation doesn't provide any consistency or further the argument one way or the other.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is why the bible teaches that the Church has only ONE head -- Jesus Christ. He is the Chief Shepherd. Pastors and elders of a local congregation are under-shepherds. First and foremost, Christians are to submit themselves to Christ's authority and then to the authority of his under-shepherds only as their teaching and instruction is in agreement with the Chief Shepherd's. Does a ship have many captains? An aircraft, many pilots? An army, many generals? Likewise, Christ's church has only one Captain -- and his marching orders are in scripture for all to see!

Hmmm. Under-shepherds? Interesting term. I wonder where the Pope fits in this hierarchy?

Your view implies that all Christians must need to police their own, know scripture intimately, and be ready to commit mutiny if necessary. While I won't argue with that on face value, I would point out that it's in obvious conflict with other aspects of herd behavior.

Humans are pack animals, very cognizant of the hierarchy, and therefore the majority looks to the alpha animals for guidance. Again, your individual interpretation of the Bible does not translate across denominations, and we both know that many are taught to obey the under-shepherds....

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not true! For an worldview or philosophy to be self-defeating, it must violate the Law of Noncontradiction. In other words, it must be self-refuting, and biblical theism is not.

Even your skepticism (unfettered agnosticism) above is self-defeating since you cannot possibly believe that it's absolutely true -- the ultimate answer to life. You cannot say, for example, that God is unknown or unknowable because such a statement implies that you must know something about Him to make such a statement -- if we are to accept your unbridled agnosticism as meaningful. Therefore, your unlimited agnosticism is self-defeating because it refutes itself. On the other hand, if you say you know nothing about any deity, then your agnosticism reduces to an absolutely meaningless worldview. You would be a making a statement and basing your philosophy upon something about which you have absolutely no knowledge.

Well, the "Law" of Noncontradiction is hardly a law, and supposedly can't be proven one way or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of...roof_or_denial

My unfettered agnosticism will remain unfettered, until proven otherwise - and even then, it may remain unfettered, for reasons I'll explain.

You're correct that I cannot say that God is unknown or unknowable, but I can say I have a pretty good idea about Him, as defined by theists. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by unlimited agnosticism, but it's hardly refuted by the lack of logic in your argument. How can one derive a conclusion without the facts, observations or experience to back it up? I understand the binary view here (there is a God, there is not a God), but I can continue to straddle the fence, until the Second Coming OR the end of the Universe.

At the end of the day I'm quite comfortable with my view, and have no internal distress over it. I lean towards atheism, as the world makes more sense to me that way, though of course it (by definition) can never be proven. But I won't discount the popularity of people who do believe in the supernatural and have experiences to reinforce it. My view is that those experiences are almost always completely at the mental or perception level, and therefore it's more likely a chemical reaction that explains things, rather than a supernatural force.

As for my world view, there are flaws to taking either extreme. God exists, and then the argument begins about how to worship Him. God doesn't exist, so this existence has an expiration date.

I'd rather spend my time trying to improve the human condition, within the knowable planes we can influence, rather than dwell on practices that are futile. In this I see a far more meaningful existence versus those of zealots who feel obligated to constrain others with their dogma.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Bringing God and "divine law" into the discussion of natural law is based on an assumption that God exists, and that a particular version of divine law is correct. So, essentially it's irrelevant. Or, as Hamilton Burger said many times to the judge when Perry Mason was usually toying with him, "Your honor, it's incompetent, irrelvant and immaterial!"

Natural law has many aspects which can be readily observed, repeated and experienced by many people, regardless of their faith (or lack of it). Divine law does not share this characteristic, so I don't understand how it can be considered "superior" to another view. Since any law is open to interpretation, there are always problems with both natural and divine laws, and of course the potential for corruption. Having to rely on "God's grace" for interpretation doesn't provide any consistency or further the argument one way or the other.

You're quite right about my "assumption" that God exists. And least my assumption, unlike your agnosticism, is not a self-defeating one.

Secondly, it is inferior to revealed divine law because of reasons I have already stated, plus the fact that with Natural Law the more deeply profound "spirit" of Law can never be observed. Essentially, Natural Law cannot teach its observers the Law of Love and how to concretely and positively apply or expresses that love. This is its number one failing since Love is the ultimate expression of revealed divine law. The real life example I provided earlier speaks pointedly to the superiority of divine revealed Law. Natural Law can tell us what we ought not to do, as wrong behavior affects our conscience; but, generally, it fails in telling us what we ought to do. The Decalogue, for example, would not inform that Christian woman of the more profound, spiritual principles of law that apply to her situation; therefore, how much less Natural Law!? Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments", yet she did not love Christ as she ought in her situation because she was willing (the last time we spoke anyhow) to break the revealed Law of Christ by ignoring a spiritual principle of His law. Therefore, she was in a state of sin at that time.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So Emily just happened by chance to handle stressful situation in the biblical way.

Not by chance. I'd wager that she had been indoctrinated in the method. A Buddhist might have sung a chant. An autistic might have recited "Solomon Grundy".

Originally Posted by boxcar

That Phillipians 4 passage is just coincidental, meaningless window dressing.

Right. Although I would not have used the word coincidental.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I will shoot an email off immediately to her telling her to be thankful to the god Coincidence.

You do that. Great title for a book by the way.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Love does not have be inclusive to be unconditional. Unconditional Election does not mean God elects everyone to be saved or has to elect everyone to be be saved. All "unconditional" means is that the reason behind election is not found in the recipient of God's love but rather in God's sovereign purpose. The recipient of God's elective love does not have to meet any condition before receiving that love. Great example of this can be seen in Paul's conversion. What condition did Paul meet on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 that made him worthy of God's unconditional, elective love?

According to you God rejects half the world's population because they do not practice an Abrahamic religion. Rejection of the Muslims brings the total reject count up to 2/3. Rejection of the RCC brings it up to 5/6. Reject non_Calvinists and my SWAG is that God rejects 99.99% of the population. Statistics alone indicates that God is my enemy, his choice, not mine. Also, according to you, there's nothing I can do about it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Well, the "Law" of Noncontradiction is hardly a law, and supposedly can't be proven one way or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of...roof_or_denial

My unfettered agnosticism will remain unfettered, until proven otherwise - and even then, it may remain unfettered, for reasons I'll explain.

You're correct that I cannot say that God is unknown or unknowable, but I can say I have a pretty good idea about Him, as defined by theists. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by unlimited agnosticism, but it's hardly refuted by the lack of logic in your argument. How can one derive a conclusion without the facts, observations or experience to back it up? I understand the binary view here (there is a God, there is not a God), but I can continue to straddle the fence, until the Second Coming OR the end of the Universe.

At the end of the day I'm quite comfortable with my view, and have no internal distress over it. I lean towards atheism, as the world makes more sense to me that way, though of course it (by definition) can never be proven. But I won't discount the popularity of people who do believe in the supernatural and have experiences to reinforce it. My view is that those experiences are almost always completely at the mental or perception level, and therefore it's more likely a chemical reaction that explains things, rather than a supernatural force.

As for my world view, there are flaws to taking either extreme. God exists, and then the argument begins about how to worship Him. God doesn't exist, so this existence has an expiration date.

I'd rather spend my time trying to improve the human condition, within the knowable planes we can influence, rather than dwell on practices that are futile. In this I see a far more meaningful existence versus those of zealots who feel obligated to constrain others with their dogma.

Mr. Pirate, sir, to deny the validity of the laws of logic, you must use logic in your denial, and in so doing you affirm the validity of them.

While agnosticism violates the Law of Noncontradiction, this violation does not prove theism. It only proves that your agnosticism is self-contradictory (therefore, self-defeating); for A cannot at the same time and in the same sense be non-A. But your agnosticism implies this very contradiction. To say that God is unknown or unknowable implies that you know something about him in order for that statement to be rationale and taken seriously. It implies the very thing your agnosticism explicitly denies is possible, i.e. a true knowledge of something about God. But if you deny that you have a true knowledge of something about God in order to declare your agnosticism, then your agnosticism is nothing less than cognitive foolishness, masquerading as legitimate, sound philosophical thought.

Finally, to deny the validity of the laws of logic, most especially the "Big Three" -- the laws of Identity, Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle, is intellectual suicide in another sense -- it removes all ground for rational discussion and for that matter for all that we do! It reduces human beings to the level of irrational animals.

By the way, unlimited agnosticism is your brand of agnosticism. You are not a limited agnostic, which is biblical and what Christians are (1Cor 13:12).

I hope you will take the time to read the article for which I have provided the link.

http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch004.htm