luvluv

Bill:

Seems to me you are speaking as a Catholic or a Calvinist. Just who is being heretical is unclear to me at this point. What you are suggesting simply cannot be inferred from any of the original documents of Christianity (i.e. the New Testament) while what I am suggesting (that Jesus died so that we may choose to serve God) saturates the New Testament. (What the Lord, Lord passage suggests to me is that not everyone who claims to have a relationship with God actually has it on the basis of grace. Pharisees, as portrayed in the New Testament, would fit this criteria. And wasn't Jesus talking about knowing people by their fruits in that passage you quoted?)

It is true that we cannot be saved without God's grace, but it is pretty evident to me that God's grace operates on a whosoever will basis. I do not believe it is possible to choose God and have Him reject you. You'd have a hard time finding a non-Calvinist Protestant who would believe what you stated. Lots of the New Testament doesn't make any sense under your interpretation. Why offer someone the chance to be converted if it doesn't matter whether they accept that chance or not? If we don't have any say in the matter, what is the use of the Great Commision at all? I think that the latter interpretation of predestination is the heresy, and the notion that we can choose or reject salvation orthodox.

MrDarwin

luvluv, if you are suggesting (as I think you are) that I might die an atheist and still be saved, then your beliefs are rather at odds with those of some other Christians who come here. For example, I wonder if either Radorth or Magus would agree with you on this point?

luvluv

I don't know, MrDarwin, but the point is that neither I nor Radorth nor Magus knows for sure one way or the other. I don't know that you, in particular, will get a chance past this life, but I firmly believe that those who had no chance to believe by virtue of never having heard the gospel will get a chance beyond this life. I think some atheists who sincerly disbelieve might fall into this category, but I think sincere disbelief is a lot rarer than we suppose.

Marlowe

Mageth, you will never find me going to supernatural explanations as my spirituality is completely satisfied by the natural universe, which I thought I made clear in my last post. I also never said that any experience of the divine was externally existent. In fact, it is my belief that the divine is contained within - ourselves and all of existence. This is essentially the definition of pantheism. What I'm concerned about is that in our current philosophical state in the West, we only seem to care about things if they are externally existent. You seem to want to disprove people's spiritual experiences by saying they do not indicate anything externally existent, because if there was something externally existent it would be quantifiable and verifiable - but what if these experiences do not point to anything externally existent, but they are still vitally important? Not unlike love, which is likewise contained within, immeasurable and vitally important to the human condition.

[quote]I think what Marlowe was trying to say is that our spiritual perceptions are indistinguishable from our other sensory perceptions. They are phenomenae which are more or less identical to the perception of color or the smell of freshly baked cookies. Your imagination is a different phenomenon altogether. He did not say that religious perception is indistinguishable from imagination. He said it is indistinguishable from other modes of perception. Every other way in which our brain perceives the outside world is real, and when spiritual perception takes place, it is indistinguishable from our other ways of perceiving the outside world. Which seems to suggest that it is perceiving something real.[quote/]

Thanks for the nice words earlier in your post luvluv! (PS I'm a woman.)

Actually the question of the imagination comes up and is dealt with in Newberg and D'Aquili's research. It is true that stories are capable of lighting up parts of our brains that real experiences also light up. In fact, at one point it is stated that stories appear to engage all of the same neurological functions that real experiences do. Some will take this to downgrade religious experiences to "mere stories", but luvluv is right - if we're going to do that, eventually we have to downgrade all of our sensory experiences to chemical reactions. But I think the significant point here is that, if stories engage the same functions of our brains as reality - then something more is going on with stories than simple "imagination", which it seems Mageth is using to indicate pointless and/ or trivial neural firings in our brains. I believe the basic premise of Newberg and D'Aquili is that imagination, stories, religious experiences - all are vital functions that are as important as our rational faculties for comprehending and experiencing life. It's like - you can break down the taste of chocolate mousse on your tongue to its chemical reactions, but the experience of it is so much more. You can break down the religious experience to a bunch of neurons firing and dismiss it, but that'd be like saying you never need to taste chocolate mousse because it's just simple chemical reactions. That's a poor, flavorless life to live.

Mageth

Fear is merely a brain state. Fear can be simulated in a laboratory with chemicals. Does that mean that when you experience fear in the real world that there is nothing actually dangerous about? The very point Marlowe is trying to make (and making quite well) is that if the perception of the supernatural (or the spiritual, as Marlowe would say) is indistinguishable in your brain from the perception of any of your other senses, then ALL OF YOUR SENSES are vulnerable to the same criticisms you are levying against our spiritual perceptions.

Right, fear is a brain state, can be simulated, and there may in reality be something to be fearful about. Likewise, the sense of the "divine" is a brain state, can be simulated, and in reality there may be something to feel "the divine" about. But that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that that "something" is an extant supernatural realm or being. A more mundane, naturalistic "something" that generates this "divine sense" is a possibility, and is far more probable IMO (I said "no doubt" earlier, I believe; I'd like to qualify that more on the terms of "highly probable", as I don't like absolute statements, and regret making that one).

Right. You have faith in your philosophy, and I have faith in mine.

Okay, but I don't claim to have "faith in my philosophy". Relying on emprical evidence and the scientific method doesn't require "faith." Further, in arguing that science might discover that the pendelum swings in the supernatural direction, as you do below, you're exhibiting "faith" in my "philosophy."

Unless, of course, it swings in the supernaturalistic direction.

I think someone has alluded to this before, but if it does, then this might possibly lead to the development of a "divine detector." If the "supernatural" can be detected physically by a device or by our brain (as you and Marlowe appear to be claiming it might well be), then, IMO, we are, by definition, no longer dealing with the supernatural.

I think what Marlowe was trying to say is that our spiritual perceptions are indistinguishable from our other sensory perceptions. They are phenomenae which are more or less identical to the perception of color or the smell of freshly baked cookies. Your imagination is a different phenomenon altogether. He did not say that religious perception is indistinguishable from imagination. He said it is indistinguishable from other modes of perception. Every other way in which our brain perceives the outside world is real, and when spiritual perception takes place, it is indistinguishable from our other ways of perceiving the outside world. Which seems to suggest that it is perceiving something real.

Which, to me, seems to suggest that it's "perceiving" something in, or about, our outside natural world, not in or about a supernatural world. Of significance, but admiteddly not proof, is that all other brain functions we've studied have followed this path.

We have yet to develop any kind of instrument or test to detect the supernatural. One might argue that, by defininion, such an instrument can't be developed. In any case, we have no scientifically verifiable, empirical evidence that the "supernatural" or the "divine" actually exist. Unless we obtain such, then science could never reach the conclusion that the brain includes an antenna capable of detecting the divine.

Yours and Marlowe's arguments are close to going along the rather circular line of "The divine exists, therefore the brain is detecting the divine, therefore the divine exists."

Magus55

double post

Magus55

I agree in that those who have never heard the gospel won't be held accountable. God will judge them based on if they made any attempt to seek something above him because God says the truth is known. Just alot of them deny it or are decieved.


Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It is not my place to make the decision of where you will go since only God knows your heart and true motives. However, we know you have heard of the Gospel and how to be saved, yet atheists blatantly reject it - you can't claim you don't believe in God and not know what the term God means or who Jesus is based on the Bible. You all have knowledge of the gospel but choose to reject it. Based on that understanding, one could conclude atheists probably aren't saved - doesn't mean they can't be saved though - you have a chance to be saved as long as you're alive. But i won't say any of you specifically aren't saved, only that Atheists have heard the Gospel ( Christians tell you about it all the time) and blatantly reject it as fantasy, myth, and lies and you probably don't fall into the category of not being held accountable.

Bill Snedden

Calvinism....Blech! Calvinism implies pre-destination and outward signs of election, with the corollary that the non-elect will necessarily be distinguishable from the elect by their actions. Not at all what I'm talking about.

Predestination itself is the unavoidable result of God's foreknowledge and to some extent must be acknowledged by any Christian theology that uphold's God's character as timeless and omnipotent.

I was raised Roman Catholic, so that is the viewpoint I know best. But it really doesn't matter, you prove my point by your own words. In point of fact, I'd bet that most Christians haven't really thought this through enough to realize that it is an ineluctable conclusion derived from their soteriological stance and the relationship of creature to creator.

What does it mean to say that "...not everyone who claims to have a relationship with God actually has it on the basis of grace"? Doesn't that go to say that it's not possible to know absolutely that one is saved? Doesn't this then suggest that one might be doing exactly what one believes is necessary, but that in fact it simply wasn't the right path? That in fact, the "choice" is not really yours, but God's?

How can one "choose" to have a relationship with God "based on grace" if grace comes from God and God alone? That's like saying that I can "choose" to be in a loving relationship with my wife even if she decides to hate me.

Relationships are always a "two-way street." But in this relationship, God holds all the cards. Our choice is essentially redundant.

This would seem to imply that the "act" of "choosing" to follow God (to "accept" his grace) somehow makes him beholden to us; that he "owes" us salvation for deigning to accept him. That doesn't sound very orthodox to me!

Regardless of whether or not any will be rejected, it is still within God's power to reject. There is a difference between saying, "no one will be rejected" and "it is not possible to be rejected." It would seem to me that orthodox Christianity would hold the former, not the latter.

I think you're quite right that not many non-Calvinist would agree with me, but I think that's because they really haven't thought it through enough.

Now, as to why the Great Commission, etc. I'll go WAY out on a limb and say that it could be due to some kind of a "clash" between pre- and post-Pauline soteriologies. That as early Christian communities were reading, writing, and figuring out their new beliefs, the works-based soteriology of Jewish tradition seemed to conflict with the faith-based soteriology of writers like Paul. Elements of both ended up getting included in the final documentation, but without really being harmonized. Thus there still remains a good deal of soteriological confusion.

Even if this were to be completely wrong-headed (and it very well may be), the Great Commission is really nothing more than "preach the news of salvation!" Whether or not there really is anything definite that one can do to earn it, it's still pretty good news! Nothing wrong with wanting to get that out...

Now, I don't claim to be any kind of biblical scholar, but this is my simplistic analysis of what seems to my rather naive understanding as at least one possibility. There are certainly others.

Regardless of all that, I simply don't see how it's possible to say on the one hand, "faith, not works", and on the other hand, "you must believe (or "follow" or "accept")!" The former suggests that there is nothing one can do to earn salvation, the latter that belief gains salvation; the two are clearly in conflict. As "faith, not works" is orthodox Christian soteriology, it follows that belief (or acceptance, or following) must be immaterial.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Jobar

luvluv:
*Every other way in which our brain perceives the outside world is real*, and when spiritual perception takes place, it is indistinguishable from our other ways of perceiving the outside world.

Surely you jest. Do you include visual and aural hallucinations, optical illusions, fever dreams, drug experiences, and the stars you see when you bang your head on something? Our brains perceive lots of things that seem real but aren't. We cross-check our sensory experiences with other senses, and with commonsense, and with communication with other people. Our senses and brains are fallible but correctible- you can't simply treat every perception as equally real.

Magus:
you can't claim you don't believe in God and not know what the term God means or who Jesus is

[John Wayne] Wanna bet, l'il pilgrim? [/John Wayne]

Philosoft

"Christianity says" a lot of different things. Your argument makes a mockery of the complexity of thought and "free will." It's not a "very simple act" and it's not a mere "choice." It doesn't even matter because an omnipotent God is in total control of the process. If, upon judgement (a Godly action, by the by) some supernatural force causes the soul to go one place or the other, the impetus for that force must be God.

No. No. No. I made it clear I'm talking about the juxtaposition of mercy and justice with respect to the single decision of the eternal destination of a soul. God can be as alternaltely merciful and just as he wants during the measly 80 years we spend on Earth, it has no bearing on my argument.