Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

Ah yes, I suppose the usual strawman had to come out. I have never ever seen anyone argue that God's foreknowledge CAUSES our actions. Yet every time it is pointed out that foreknowledge requires that the futures fixed the old strawman is trotted out.The argumen attributed to Boethius fails to deal with the real issue. If God can know the future AND is capable of acting on that knowledge prior to events actually happening (as WE would see it) the problems remain. How it is percieved by God is not truly relevant (although an "eternal present" is certainly a questionable idea).

Nor did I say you or anyone in this forum did. I was summarising the link I posted, so technically Boethius set up the strawman. Maybe it wasn't a strawman back in his time? Maybe it isn't a strawman at all. All it seems to be saying is that since God's foreknowledge doesn't cause the event then the event must be caused by something else. If He has foreseen it what can He do about? It has to happen. Which is why I said "I don't think Boethius was making the argument robinrohan thought he was"

Hmm, I'm sure I responded to this critique. Did it get deleted? I heard you loud and clear. I also responded. You asked a question, then answered it yourself. You took the answer to your own question and then said "[I'm saving myself from God]...[a]nd not for living a bad life, but for not worshipping him."Since that was entirely contradictory to what I was saying I addressed it. The first issue was that you were saving yourself from God. I questioned that, its a valid objection to your statement I believe. Do you think otherwise?I then went on to say, that you are doomed to sin. Regardless of the manner of your life, something out of your control has doomed you (Romans 5 - note verse 19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."). Totally unfair situation, and God isn't happy about it either. He came up with an idea...a loophole if you will that will allow you back into paradise. The problem is, you have to accept Christ, and if you aren't inclined to do that, God can't help you. (Romans 6 covers this, especially towards the end verse 17 "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (The Gospel, I assume))I thus addressed the entirety of your statement. Please accept my apologies if you think I was quoting you out of context (For those who aren't paying attention, but are now curious as to what we're talking about, it was Message 115 which I responded with Message 120).I didn't intend to make out like you were saying something you weren't intending to say. I was under the impression that I "had responded to what [you] actually intended to communicate". Apparantly I didn't. In the subsequent posts have I managed to respond to what you actually intended to communicate? If not, perhaps you can rephrase it, it clearly isn't getting through to me for some reason. At what point is a God who is trying to save your soul from damnation a God who is placing people in harm's way? Skipping over the fact that God put a lot of people in harm's way, including his most faithful subjects (ie Job). The God I characterized at no point intimidated anyone into worshipping him. The God I was characterizing sees mankind in a lot of trouble, and has tried to get as much of mankind out of that trouble as he can.If I somehow characterized a different God I made a mistake. Please point me to it, so I can make a suitable retraction.Incidentally, if my post was deleted, could whoever did it give me some help with it to make it non-deletable. It is possible that I hit preview and then closed the window in a fit of being distracted by the missus. In which case I'm a moron.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 02-June-2005 09:46 PM

I don't think we have freewill to be honest, at least no freewill to the extent that there are "unlimited choices" that we can choose from. In other words, I think we have the capacity to chose between a very limited and finte set of paths in life.These limits do not remove our ability to make choices per se. But it does limit the amount of choices we can make, thus undermining some of the basic tenents of what some would call free-will.To expand on this further and apply it to God, I think God knew in advance that there's bascially only a few choices that one can make in any situation. It's true that he apparently knows in advance which choices we will make, but this doesn't mean that he made us choose them.Look at it this way. If I dig a large ditch and explain to everyone that this is to be employed for a cistern, I'd probably warn people of the cistern and explain how it can be very dangerous to people who play around it. I'd probably even put a sign up saying, "Warning! Stay Away! This is a dangerous area!" I would probably even place certain workers there to warn others and even keep them away from the dangerous pit.If others see the pit, choose to ignore this warning, walk past the workers and inevitably fall into the pit and become injured, is this considered my fault?Coming back to the "limited scope" of the supposed notions of free-will, we see there is really only two possible events possibel to happen: either they will fall in the pit or else they won't fall in the pit.Having said this, there's still other variations that can spin off from these two possible happenings.For example, if the person doesn't fall in the pit, there could be many reasons why this is so. In one instance it might be due to the fact that they didn't even know about the pit and just never went anywhere near it. In another instance it might be that they did almost fall in, back that they grapped ahold of something before falling or maybe one of the workers caught them at the last minute. Yet, in another instance, it might be because they had the skill and ingenuity to make a covering or bridge that could support their weight.On the other hand, if the person does fall into the pit, there could be many reasons why this is so. In one instance it might be due to the fact that they just charged the pit out of curiousity and had the physical power to knock their way past the workers (thus falling headlong in). In another instance it might be that they did almost get around it, but then slipped on the side and fell in anyway. Yet, in another instance, it might be because they lacked the skill and ingenuity to make a covering or bridge that could support their weight -- and their support broke when trying to cross over for whatever reason.No matter which way you look at it, you will either:A) fall in the pit.orB) not fall in the pit.There's really no other options, but you certainly have the free-will necessary to chose within these "specific parameters" which ultimate destiny you will partake in -- unless, of course, someone picks you up and throws you into the pit (but that's another issue entirely ).Consequently, if one is blind and deaf, then they cannot be fully blamed for falling into the pit in most cases -- in fact, the workers watching the pit on the other hand might be more prone to blaim in this regard.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-02-2005 05:43 PM

I'm not a conservative Christian. I'm not even a Christian.I was just putting forth a doctrine I had read about, which was interesting to me. I wanted to see what others thought about it.I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that.But I do feel I am correct in my interpretation of Boethius.

I was going on the assumption that how it is perceived by God is the reality. Our version of it is not the reality. Our version is a distortion, and so we come up with ideas of "unfairness."I agree that "eternal present" is odd, to say the least.But if God were in time he would also have to be in space ("space-time"), which also seems odd. If He were in space He would be corporeal, which does not seem quite right.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-02-2005 05:03 PM

Well, it is hard to see how any intelligence could operate as God is supposed to do in an "Eternal Present". Without some sort of personal timeline it is hard to see how a being could think or act. Arguably it would suggest that God would be incapable of acting on foreknowledge which would solve the problem but since this is practically the same as God lacking foreknowledge it makes the argument academic at best.

This raises questions about the missus and what she sees in you anyway (), but about deleted posts, only moderators have the power to delete posts, and almost no posts are ever deleted here. Deletions are always apparent because they leave gaps in the message numbers. Even if the last message of a thread is deleted, the number is not reused. Since there are no gaps in the message number sequence in this thread, no messages have been deleted.Aren't you playing devils advocate? I don't know that that's fair to the Christians, because at least from my point of view you keep setting up sitting ducks like this one: Sounds like a cruel God to me. Then there's this one: If I worship God then God won't damn me? In effect he's saying, "Pay me obeisance or risk my wrath." This is a merciful and loving God to you?--Percy

quote:

---

The choice is real, because right now, she can believe.

---

Have you tried to stop believing in Jesus and God like I asked?Were you able to be a hardcore Athiest for one hour?Was it easy?

Just for the record, when I suggested that one could make an effort to believe, I didn't mean believe some nebulous thing you just make up about God, I meant believe something specific: believe, for instance, something specific that Jesus said; believe what is written in some part of the Bible. Belief, according to the Bible, is a matter of taking a person at his/her word, not doing some kind of mental acrobatics without props or a net.

Faith, but this leads us back to the question of how do we know who to believe. What if I chose to believe Mohammed instead of the Bible or maybe John Smith?

Hehe, it also implies I may be a moron, but I'm cunning, since I manage to convince her to hang about despite my shortcomings Anyway, thanks for the deletion advice. I thought the msg numbers might provide a clue, which is why I realized I might just not have posted it somehow. I find that the best way to understand your opponents or a contrary opinion is to argue from their position. I have actually changed my opinion on several important issues by doing this, and I find its one of the best ways to challenge my own beliefs, as well as the beliefs of others. It might not be fair to the Christians, but I'm trying to be fair. The something that was out of your control wasn't God's doing though. It was Eve then Adam's doing. So it was cruel and selfish of them to distrust God and kicked out of paradise. I was struggling however, to try and justify how God wouldn't be cruel to set up a system where a Fall was possible. I think I managed it.God created man. He wanted man to obey him...after all God gave man a great gift - a soul and a body, its only fair that it come with stipulations. God was perfectly capable of creating a man that was forced to obey him. God decided that forced obedience is not obedience at all. God gave man Free Will, and presented man with the opportunity to defy his word by giving him breakable terms and conditions. He made it clear that punishment for breaking those terms and disobeying God would be harsh.Man subsequently disobeys God, and God has to enact the harsh punishment and cast man out of paradise so that he can live with his new children, sin and death.When mankind was ready to hear the New Testament and the method of salvation, and the instructions on how to be let back into paradise he sent His only begotten Son to the earth to teach it, and live it. This He did. I suppose this means that God timed it so that the maximum number of people possible that could be saved, will be saved.Merciful, no? He wasn't forced to let us back into paradise, he wasn't forced to send His son to die for our sin so that we might have eternal life. He did anyway. Not so much 'risk my wrath' as pay the price of your inherited sin (which is the wrath of God (John 3:36 (the wrath of God abideth on him, I read abideth as meaning "to remain on". He is angry at your disobedience, but he will forgive you if call upon Him))). It's your choice as whether you want to return to paradise or live in sin. God has given you the choice...he hasn't forced you against your will to Obey Him and bow down to Him.I leave you with verses nine and ten of Chapter 5 from 1 Thessalonians:
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

quote:

---

Just for the record, when I suggested that one could make an effort to believe, I didn't mean believe some nebulous thing you just make up about God, I meant believe something specific: believe, for instance, something specific that Jesus said; believe what is written in some part of the Bible.

---

Oh, I believe in a lot of what is in the Bible.Some parts of the Bible are wonderful and quite moving.I just don't believe it is the word of God.

Actually, as I suggested earlier on this topic, the whole idea of belief as necessary to salvation is pretty exclusively a Biblical concept. I don't know that Mohammed even made any statements that are a matter of belief. The Koran is mostly a set of instructions to obey, not propositions to believe -- "believe in the Last Day" is the only exhortation to belief that I can think of, and it's not an exhortation to take somebody at his word, just a general exhortation to believe in a concept.Jesus, on the other hand -- and in fact the Bible as a whole -- make statements of a revelatory nature very frequently, matters that one is explicitly invited to believe on his/their authority. In fact you are exhorted to belief in many places in the Bible: Put "believe" into the Concordance search line at Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible -- that will show many exhortations to believe what God said, or Moses said, or many others said, and certainly what Jesus and his disciples say. Jesus says that not believing His disciples is not believing Him. Always the emphasis is on believing persons {edit: believing what people say}, taking them at their word. Quite the opposite of what so many here at EvC do with the word of God.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-03-2005 10:51 AM

Faith, I think your premise is wrong. While the bible of course talks about faith and belief, it certainly is chock full of instructions to obey. Your faith or belief determines which set of instructions you chose to follow. Some think that Jesus' instructions are the important ones, others think that John Smith or Mohammed should be heeded.And, of course, if you end up chosing to follow the wrong set of instructions, the punishment (or lack of reward) will be quite harsh and permanent.