Doubting Didymus

To explain: Tercel and I were having a rational debate on whether his beliefs concerning gods desire for worship are rational.

The reason people were critisizing Tercel was that Tercels ideas like the above quote, do not come from standard christianity, and we were wondering where they came from. I suggested that Tercel made his beliefs up based on wishful thinking, and the debate proceeded from there. I am not trying to tell Tercel what to believe, I am simply debating whether Tercel can support his beliefs rationally.

I disagree, I think my atheistic beliefs are the only possible beliefs for me, because they follow inherently from natural logical premises, most prominently from the neccessity of believing the unrestricted negative of any proposition unless there is some reason not to. I have no choice other than to be an atheist until there is evidence to the contrary. Tercel's beliefs are the same thing. He sees compelling evidence for the existence of god, and therefore he has NO CHOICE other than to believe in him. The debate, therefore, is about whether god can be logically evidenced.

bd-from-kg

Tercel:

Your post was about 3600 words. My reply was about 2600 words. I guess you object only to other people’s long posts.

Well, let’s see what your “position on salvation” is. Originally you said:

That seems pretty clear. God doesn’t care whether we believe He exists; He only cares about what we do, and in particular how we treat other people. Since God’s decision whether to grant salvation to each person is presumably based on the things He cares about, so that this is clearly a “salvation through works alone” position.

Later you confirmed this in several ways. For example:

The implication here is twofold: that you do not believe that God cares about our beliefs, and that belief in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation.

And this:

Again, the implication is that that you believe that there are no consequences to belief or unbelief - in particular, with respect to whether you would wind up in Heaven or Hell. In other words, a believer and an unbeliever who lead lives of comparable virtue will end up in the same place.

You also agreed that the passages from John and Romans that I quoted at least seemed on their face to contradict your position. It’s hard to see how this could be so unless your position is salvation by works alone.

Finally, after citing a passage from Matthew you commented:

The argument here is that, according to Matthew at least, Jesus taught that how one treats one’s fellow humans is the only thing that will have any bearing on our salvation; belief simply does not enter into it.

On the other hand, you commented:

As I pointed out, this leaves out the part about God’s grace coming, not just through Jesus Christ, but through faith in Jesus Christ. But from your other comments I gather that you meant only that works cannot make one worthy of salvation; rather, God will decide whether to bestow His grace based solely on works.

Yet again:

Now taken alone this could mean that belief could affect one’s nature in a mysterious, metaphysical sense which could not be detected, even in principle, by any conceivable observation of experiment. (For example, it might include being “justified before God” or the like.) But this would be completely inconsistent with your earlier statements: If certain beliefs were an integral component of the faith needed for salvation, it could not be true that “God doesn’t give two figs about whether people believe he exists” and that He “only cares about what your attitude to other people is and about making you a better person”. He would also care about whether you had this faith, independently of His caring about how it affected your behavior.

Now let’s see whether this position is consistent with Eastern Orthodox teachings. Here’s the paragraph on “Faith and Works” from the St. Pachomius Library <a href="http://ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/believe.html" target="_blank">I Believe...: A Short Exposition of Orthodox Doctrine</a>.

Now I'm not a professional theologian, but this sounds a lot more like my description of the traditional, orthodox doctrine than your “salvation by works” position. It says that faith in Jesus Christ is essential to salvation, that “true” good works flow from such faith; that any “works” that do not flow from faith are not “true” good works no matter how they might appear so to mortal eyes.

It’s true, of course, that faith means considerably more than an abstract belief in the existence of God. But belief in the existence of God is an integral component of faith. Indeed, according to Christian doctrine faith is a gift from God, which we will be given only if we ask Him for it. But how can we ask Him for it unless we believe in His existence? So an abstract belief in His existence is an essential first step in the process leading to salvation. If God desires our salvation, how can He not care whether we’ve taken this essential first step?

I also find nothing to suggest that Eastern Orthodox churches teach that those who reject the Gospel in this life are given a “second chance” in the next.

No. It’s that this is precisely how you think about this sort of thing: start with a position, then locate verses that support it.

Well, yes, you certainly did give that impression. Not only did you say that Paul was very probably a universalist (which is such a gross misreading of Paul that it seems incomprehensible that anyone who is not a universalist could possibly believe it), but you also said:

How does this make sense if all are not eventually saved? Those in Hell for all eternity will not be “under the command of the Father” or “brought back to God”, and Christ will not have “victory over all things” if some souls reject Him unequivocally and eternally. And how does consigning some souls to eternal torment constitute “giving to those who do not deserve it” or “being loving and kind to all”?

It would be difficult to find any position that is not shared by anyone at all, but your stand, taking all in all, is a pretty lonely one. Not only do we have the positions discussed above, but you also hold that the Bible is interesting and worthy of consideration (like lots of other books – e.g., Tristram Shandy), but nothing more.

But if belief in this life is not relevant, what was the point of the Great Commission? Why are Christians charged with spreading the Good News to all nations and peoples? What, indeed, was the point of Jesus’ ministry? Why didn’t He just get straight to the point and get Himself crucified immediately? And for that matter, what was the point of that?

And if God is going to reveal Himself to us eventually, and if we will then have a chance to decide whether to accept Him after we are vouchsafed this certain knowledge, why doesn’t He do so now, in this life? Why be so coy? Why play peek-a-boo with us? Which gets us back to the original point of this thread.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

randomsyllable

Ahh, my apologies for my confusion - let me reply then in my own manner. I feel the debate is fruitless as rationality has never been a prerequisite for faith and has, in fact, been discouraged as a trait which poses a threat to acceptance. Just mho, doubtless incorrect ;p


Granted my choice of the word "choice" was fallacious and easily misinterpreted. I was attempting to illustrate the concept in terms of acceptence. One can choose to accept what you (and I) take as fact, or one may choose to ignore professed rationality.

An (admittedly biased) analogy would be that each morning I awake with my eyes still closed and varying inclination to get out of bed. I can chose to open my eyes and aries, or I can chose to continue lying there, holding to the vestiges of sleep.

(see above for my relevant conlucion for the results of a rational debate ;p)

...I'm nonsensical - sue me ;p


-random

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: randomsyllable ]</p>

Tercel

Guys sorry for the delay, but they'll be a bit more delay as I'm currently involved in two other threads with very large posts which I need to think deeply about to do them justice and I can only write so fast.

Doubting Didymus:
<strong>"Christian Supernatural Experiences are evidence that god exists."

In fact, if I may, I propose a formal debate on this topic.</strong>
Absolutely not: at least not in the next month or so. -I don't have that kind of time.
And I'm not entirely sure I understand the topic. How can the debate consist of anything more than you saying that all religion's experiences are equally valid and hence since they can't all be valid they must be all wrong, and me saying that Christian's ones are more valid?

bd-from-kg:
You're view of my position seems to be completely messed up. No I do NOT hold the position that works save. I told you I hold the Eastern Orthodox position and if you'd actually done your homework that would have explained what my position was, and I see nothing in that quote which disagrees with me in the slightest.
My view is that our nature saves. Not what we believe, not what we do, but what we are.

Doubting Didymus

Many of the faithful believe this, it is true, but (as you say) it is pointless to discuss anything with someone who does not value rationality. Tercel, however, claims that his beliefs are supported by logic and rational thinking.

There is another option: to argue for the logical truth of theism, which Tercel advocates. Tercel is a believer in logic. One of his most interesting points so far is that christian spiritual experiences should be considered evidence of god. This is an argument worthy of analysis and debate. The difference in 'acceptance', therefore, is between what Tercel and I consider reliable evidence, not between our logic.

The debate would be much more involved, we could discuss the criteria for accepting and regecting miracles, the possible naturalistic causes, and the reasons we each have for considering some miracles more valid than others, among other things. However, if you do not have time I will not insist.

Also, until your argument work-in-progress is completed, we cannot continue this current conversation. I am satisfied that you do, after all, value true logic as a formative influence on your beliefs, and will suspend discussion of your actual arguments until I see them. Until then, you have my respect for being an inclusive, non-judgemental, rational theist.

Tristan Scott

I suspect a Christian would say that you only opened your mind to God and that you must open your heart to him. Whatever that means.

This idea of being able to recognize the signs of god reminds me of a joke my wife (a Xian) told me:

A Christian is fishing and his boat capsizes, throwing him in the water. Another boat happens by and throws him a line. "No thanks" he says, "God will save me!" As he is beginning to drown a helicopter flies overhead and lowers a line. "No thanks" he sputters, "God will save me." Well he drowns, and when he gets to heaven he goes to God and says, "Why didn't you save me?" God replies, "Who the hell do you think sent the boat and the helicopter?"

randomsyllable

Cool, thanks for taking the time to clarify.
(Yes, I realise this post has no real point ;p)

ishalon

Don't forget the experiences of UFOs, Allah, Hindu gods, [other gods], chi, and the universe on the other side of your mirror.

lcb

i ran your q. by a missionary i know. here is his answer. Go on a medical missionary volunteer trip, help the doctors save dying children and heal their cleft palates and watch their parents when you carry their children out to them....then pray your prayer again and you will get your answer...the answer in part is "obedience first, then the miracles"

Vorkosigan

By all means, go watch a medical missionary. And wonder why the gods made so many beautiful people only to kill them with terrible, painful lingering diseases that one would not wish on one's worst enemy, and that medical missionaries cannot cure.