Jesus is the law

[Guest]

I approach relationship with God as romantic


Who picks up the tab?

[Guest]

I approach relationship with God as romantic


Who picks up the tab?

[Guest]

Apparently this must have been an important question since i asked it twice.

[Guest]

Depends on who's holding the checkbook.

[Guest]

Emmet,

JC said:
"I do have one question I'd like you to answer, if you don't mind. You and I hold very different views on the nature of evidence but we both believe in a personal God. May I ask what evidence you use to support your view on this? I'd like to compare the evidence you have for the existence of God with textual evidence from the scriptures. In other words, you seem to accept the evidence for a personal God but reject the evidence for his written revelation, at least in part."

And you replied:
"Things seem to happen when I pray. Which, of course, does not prove a personal God; even when there appears to be rationality or even humor behind the apparent response, that could be a case of cosmic projection/personification on my part.

In fact, the whole thing could be a matter of projection."

So that's it, the basis for your belief in some fictive (product of the imagination) kind of God? You seem to be a man of considerable learning and have obviously worked hard at it; I'm wondering why you bother.

In an earlier post you said:
"If Jesus was faithful, then he would be a trustworthy person to admit into the world to come. But his trustworthiness could not eclipse the untrustworthiness of another person. Neither Jesus nor Moses nor God himself will make another person's choice for them, to be faithful or not; that choice is something each person must do for themselves. And in the end, God will know who is essentially trustworthy and who is not, and he will do what is necessary to properly sieve the citizenry of his new kingdom."

From your viewpoint, how do you know the following:

1. That there is a world to come?

2. That there is a kingdom in that world?

3. Whether any particular, or all persons, may enter into it.

What is the basis of your belief in any of this?

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your response.

So that's it, the basis for your belief in some fictive (product of the imagination) kind of God? You seem to be a man of considerable learning and have obviously worked hard at it; I'm wondering why you bother.

Below the material you quoted I refined my comment: first I had a chicken joke that I was fond of , which still had a serious point to it , checking the material you quoted; afterward I wrote "I approach relationship with God as romantic (in both the broad sense and the narrow); it is not about argumentation. Which is not to say that romantic relationships should not be submitted to rational critique - they must be so, as a safeguard - but they are not so much grounded in rationality."

As for the "fictive" God, I must acknowledge the possibility posed by the simple fact that my understanding of the world comes through the filter of my psyche. I cannot know that God exists, anymore than I can know that a wife loves me. The inner state of a wife's heart can be a profound mystery to a man (and vice versa). And even if I have a fully representative field of data available to me (which cannot be taken for granted), it is possible that I am misinterpreting that data to suit my own psychological drives. I have been conditioned (since early cognition, at the least, and perhaps even more fundamentally) to value relationship with God and with woman, and to seek personal fulfillment in such relationships.

So then, as with many mysterious things in life, we draw upon the romantic venue, which thrives upon psychological drives, and not upon rational argumentation. I love and hope, not because I know, but because I am structured to love and hope. Yet then again, as I wrote, even the romantic "must be [submitted to rational critique], as a safeguard." A holistic approach requires both ... and a non-holistic approach is foolhardy.

As to "why bother," my motives have evolved over time. In part, I enjoy the subject material, both personally and as a scholar. But to flog the horse, even the romantic "must be [submitted to rational critique], as a safeguard." This, too, makes learning worth the bother.

What is remarkable for me is how so many people who hinge their entire lives and their eternal prospects on their faith cannot be bothered to make fundamental investments in learning, e.g., studying the languages of their bible, so they can read what it actually says.

From your viewpoint, how do you know the following:

1. That there is a world to come?

2. That there is a kingdom in that world?

3. Whether any particular, or all persons, may enter into it.

What is the basis of your belief in any of this?

Strictly speaking, I cannot know any of these things - just as I cannot know that God exists.

But perhaps I may find it telling that you have posed no argument about the content of my theological proposal, diverting instead to epistemological issues? That content is undergirded by my observation of the present world and the problems in it: human choice is the pivotal factor in human sin; and without the resolution of human choice, there is no resolution to human sin. Now, it appears that God is not removing the human ability to exercise individual choice, so it appears that the resolution of human choice will necessarily depend upon individual exercise.

It is a major deficiency of much Christian dogma that it so severely neglects the resolution of human choice, focusing instead upon the resolution of human guilt, which is rather a lesser problem.

As for the language of the "kingdom," this is inherited from both Jewish and Christian tradition. It is a workable expression of the interrelationships posed by the dynamic of choice. Individual humans must submit/invest their choice under the leadership of God, and dissidence is not a tolerable option in the relational economy.

And as for who may or may not be admitted into the "kingdom," this may, as it turns out, comprise everyone or almost no one, depending upon their choices.

All of which depends upon the speculation that God will bring about a new world. This is a natural outgrowth of the thought that God desires better than the present condition of this world.


There's a start, anyway. Perhaps you will prod me further in some directions .


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

Thanks for your kind and patient response.

I believe in the three items I listed by faith, as I believe in most things in this life - based on testimony of those I find credible. Just as I believe Abraham Lincoln lived and was president. I have no way of knowing other than by faith.

You posed an interesting problem:

human choice is the pivotal factor in human sin; and without the resolution of human choice, there is no resolution to human sin. Now, it appears that God is not removing the human ability to exercise individual choice, so it appears that the resolution of human choice will necessarily depend upon individual exercise.

In my opinion, and by personal observation, I believe and have seen that Christianity has an answer to this dilemma. Christianity posits a new birth, the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Although free will is not overruled, the will itself is changed in a positive way. That this happens I have no doubt, having not only the testimony of scripture, but a wealth of observable changed lives.

I will cite only one example for now. A man who once worked for me had been a difficult man, a brawler if you will. He would go out of his way to pick a fight with those whom he looked upon with scorn. He became a Christian and the change was remarkable. He became a person who would speak no evil of those who mistreated him. When I mentioned an incident that had happened, he would barely acknowledge that he had been mistreated and quickly change the subject by finding something good to say about the other person. His will had been conformed to the will of Christ.

This does not mean that Christians become perfect, neither does it mean that non-Christians might not be better people in many cases than certain Christians. The issue is what was the person like "before and after", and is the person a sincere "apprentice" of Jesus?

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your response.

I believe in the three items I listed by faith, as I believe in most things in this life - based on testimony of those I find credible.

On what basis (or bases) do you find those who give their testimony to be credible?

In my opinion, and by personal observation, I believe and have seen that Christianity has an answer to this dilemma. Christianity posits a new birth, the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Although free will is not overruled, the will itself is changed in a positive way. That this happens I have no doubt, having not only the testimony of scripture, but a wealth of observable changed lives.

This is an interesting point. It seems difficult to ascertain whether the apparent change in will is a function of external intervention/"new creation" or a function of personal evolution/reorientation - or something synergistic.

Has your brawler changed because God made a surgical alteration to his will? Or is the will a black box that God refrains from altering internally? Rather, is the will massaged by increased exposure to the presence and/or celebration of God and his ways?

We can observe that people's lives/personalities/character can be transformed by a new romantic partner or a new mentor, or sometimes it is not a particular person, but an activity or interest that occasions such a transformation (e.g., a new passion for exercise or for some craftsmanship). In such cases, we would not ascribe the personal transformation to an external alteration of the will, but to external influence and/or the unlocking of something already latent in the individual themselves.

As you would likely admit, such transformations take place in secular settings and in false religions, too, so they cannot be taken as definitive proof of Christianity being the solution to the problem of free will. Beyond this, from a unitarian perspective, the fact that so many Christians cling obstinately to a blasphemous doctrine like the Trinity demonstrates that the faith does not preserve one from refusing the will of God; rather, by and large, it pivots upon opposition to God's will.


Shlamaa,
Emmet