Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What must I do to be Born Again?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You know, if I were dealing with anyone else on this forum (okay, maybe not shunyadragon), i'd be fascinated how much of a song and dance you're putting on to avoid the simple question I put to you in post #198 and #208, but since this is your typical modus operandi on this forum, I just find it kinda pathetic. At any rate, I think your non-answering has pretty much told me what I was expecting.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
      You know, if I were dealing with anyone else on this forum (okay, maybe not shunyadragon), i'd be fascinated how much of a song and dance you're putting on to avoid the simple question I put to you in post #198 and #208, but since this is your typical modus operandi on this forum, I just find it kinda pathetic. At any rate, I think your non-answering has pretty much told me what I was expecting.
      I wasn't expecting you to feign exasperation so soon. This might be a record for you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by whag View Post
        I wasn't expecting you to feign exasperation so soon. This might be a record for you.
        Riiight, feigning it. As if exasperating me wasn't your goal when you found yourself stumped. Again whag, you might be fooling yourself, but you're certainly not fooling anyone else. Hate to break it to you, but you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RBerman
          That was the point of my second paragraph. I'm not sure how far I can go with "how" except to say that it's a universal human faculty independent from cognition.
          OK. Let's move from the "how" to the "what."


          Originally posted by RBerman
          More precisely, babies (even before being born) possess a spiritual dimension which may be inclined to either trust or mistrust God. As a spiritual interaction, it's not dependent on the physical sensorium or on cognitive faculties.
          First, you said babies didn't need awareness of the passion play (because it isn't reasonable to expect babies to know the mechanics of the atonement). Then, when I replied the same would hold true for them deciding their inclination to hate or love God (both require reasoning), you say it's divorced from cognition. The inclination to hate or love divorced from consciousness or cognition sounds like a coin flip. It pretends to describe the "what," but says nothing, essentially.

          Originally posted by RBerman
          That also makes it a world not amenable to analysis by our usual tools-- like the challenge of explaining color to a man born blind, only worse.
          We can handle it. =). We relatively recently discovered we are primates, and some of us took it well.

          If the human spirit chooses good or evil in the womb, we probably have the capacity to understand how this is done, at least in a comprehensibly analogous way. Are you sticking with the mom smell metaphor, or can you provide another?

          Comment


          • Obligatory love? Really? Wow - that's cold! I'm just as confused as you are, Whag. I've never even heard of obligatory love, and I was RAISED as a Christian!

            Now, perhaps what OB is trying to say is unconditional love...? That's the kind of love I've heard in the Christian religion, and that makes sense. Unconditional love is not exclusive to Christianity, though. So, perhaps transcendent, obligatory love is something new.

            NORM
            When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
              Obligatory love? Really? Wow - that's cold! I'm just as confused as you are, Whag. I've never even heard of obligatory love, and I was RAISED as a Christian!

              Now, perhaps what OB is trying to say is unconditional love...? That's the kind of love I've heard in the Christian religion, and that makes sense. Unconditional love is not exclusive to Christianity, though. So, perhaps transcendent, obligatory love is something new.

              NORM
              Also, remember this circles back to the compulsory love demand outlined in the redundant "free gift" apologetic.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by whag View Post
                Also, remember this circles back to the compulsory love demand outlined in the redundant "free gift" apologetic.
                Are Christians really that unaware of how creepy that sounds to most people?

                NORM
                When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                  Obligatory love? Really? Wow - that's cold! I'm just as confused as you are, Whag. I've never even heard of obligatory love, and I was RAISED as a Christian!

                  Now, perhaps what OB is trying to say is unconditional love...? That's the kind of love I've heard in the Christian religion, and that makes sense. Unconditional love is not exclusive to Christianity, though. So, perhaps transcendent, obligatory love is something new.

                  NORM
                  Huh? How did you get that out of anything you read? I never proposed that love actually was obligatory, nor have the questions I've asked been based on any sort of Christian perspective (I don't know how many times I have to tell you that).

                  When whag told me in post #197 that he felt no obligation to love his mother, I found that curious, because he's told us before that he's an atheist. Most atheists I know are materialists, and it didn't seem to me that his comment aligned with a materialist position on the concept of love. From a materialist's perspective love is nothing more than an evolutionarily advantageous neurobiological phenomenon. From the materialist's perspective, loving one's mother is in our nature. That's why I asked him in post #198 if he thought love was perhaps...non-physiological, transcendent even. It'd be a curious position for an atheist to hold, but who knows. He wouldn't answer that question. So then I made the question simpler in post #208 and asked him to just define what he thought love was. He wouldn't answer that either. When he realized that the questions sort of pushed him into a corner, he did his typical song and dance routine.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                    Huh? How did you get that out of anything you read? I never proposed that love actually was obligatory, nor have the questions I've asked been based on any sort of Christian perspective (I don't know how many times I have to tell you that).
                    He gets obligatory from that post you mentioned:

                    Originally posted by Whag
                    I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it.
                    So the context circles back to compulsory love of the "free gift," the topic of #197.

                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                    When whag told me in post #197 that he felt no obligation to love his mother, I found that curious, because he's told us before that he's an atheist. Most atheists I know are materialists, and it didn't seem to me that his comment aligned with a materialist position on the concept of love.
                    And then I told you there was no conflict. Maternal bonding isn't love in the way you are thinking.

                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                    From a materialist's perspective love is nothing more than an evolutionarily advantageous neurobiological phenomenon. From the materialist's perspective, loving one's mother is in our nature.
                    That doesn't oblige me to love my mom. It doesn't make your love for your mother obligatory. Please explain.

                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                    That's why I asked him in post #198 if he thought love was perhaps...non-physiological, transcendent even. It'd be a curious position for an atheist to hold, but who knows. He wouldn't answer that question.
                    No, you specifically asked a non sequiter (how does my voluntary love equate to supernatural love?). It contained the wrong use of "human condition" and was confusing. You refused to clarify what you meant, instead prattling on about your biology professors. I was stuck imagining a "compulsory love that transcends the human condition." What?

                    You needed to slow down like you promised. That requires actual writing and opening yourself up with examples of obligatory love. Remember, this goes back to compulsory love of the free gift.

                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                    So then I made the question simpler in post #208 and asked him to just define what he thought love was.
                    Before clarifying your question or giving any examples of obligatory love to help me understand, you asked another question that you later admitted was an attempt to expose a pickle between materialism and theism.

                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                    He wouldn't answer that either. When he realized that the questions sort of pushed him into a corner, he did his typical song and dance routine.
                    Yes, I didn't let you sidetrack with a new open-ended question that could have spanned pages and was admittedly meant to trap. You're not as clever as you think you are.

                    Comment


                    • In the end of this discussion, what good is it, if it does not lead to begin born from God? Do you even know what it means to believe Jesus is the Christ? The bottom line is unless God gives one this new birth, then one is toast. (Revelation 21:8.) And all this discussion is for not.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        In the end of this discussion, what good is it, if it does not lead to begin born from God? Do you even know what it means to believe Jesus is the Christ? The bottom line is unless God gives one this new birth, then one is toast. (Revelation 21:8.) And all this discussion is for not.
                        *naught

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          In the end of this discussion, what good is it, if it does not lead to begin born from God?
                          It could quite possibly free you from bondage to a rigid belief structure.

                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Do you even know what it means to believe Jesus is the Christ?
                          For over 30 years; yes.

                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          The bottom line is unless God gives one this new birth, then one is toast. (Revelation 21:8.) And all this discussion is for not.
                          Personally, I like French Toast. Sometimes even Texas Toast!

                          NORM
                          When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                          Comment


                          • If Christianity is true, I'm convinced that discussion and reasoning lead to the metaphor of new birth. 37818, please explain yourself.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              Where does the pederast end up, if not dining with Jesus, in your version of universalism? It sounds more like you are an inclusivist (some enjoy God's favor without faith) than a universalist (everyone, without exception, ultimately enjoys God's favor). And indeed, the Reformed Christian tradition has always had room for a limited inclusivism with regard to the mentally defective. See this example from the Westminster Confession (1646):
                              Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)
                              Is that the limit of God's ability to save those without explicit faith in the Reformed tradition? Would Billy Graham, a Southern Baptist, be considered a heretic?
                              Billy Graham: Guilty of Inclusivism

                              Billy Graham is, perhaps, the epitome of the evangelical identity.

                              Or, so we thought…

                              Like C.S. Lewis, Graham believes that those who do not hear of Christ may, indeed, be saved without explicitly confessing him as Lord.

                              In a 1997 interview with Robert Schuller, Graham said,

                              Billy Graham“I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. . . . [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.” (This statement starts at 1:18 in this video)

                              http://andygill.org/heretics-banned-evangelicalism/
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Is that the limit of God's ability to save those without explicit faith in the Reformed tradition? Would Billy Graham, a Southern Baptist, be considered a heretic?
                                Billy Graham: Guilty of Inclusivism

                                Billy Graham is, perhaps, the epitome of the evangelical identity.

                                Or, so we thought…

                                Like C.S. Lewis, Graham believes that those who do not hear of Christ may, indeed, be saved without explicitly confessing him as Lord.

                                In a 1997 interview with Robert Schuller, Graham said,

                                Billy Graham“I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. . . . [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.” (This statement starts at 1:18 in this video)

                                http://andygill.org/heretics-banned-evangelicalism/
                                That was going around Facebook this week. I cannot count myself as a Billy Graham fan, for this sort of reason. The very phase, "everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not..." strikes me as self-contradictory; I do not even know what it means to know something that I am never conscious of. Certainly God is calling people out of the Muslim world or the Buddhist world. The operative word there is out; that is, they are no longer of those worlds once they belong to Christ, even if they stay physically in those worlds. An inner sense of "needing something that you don't have" sounds like preparation evangelium rather than the sort of faith in Christ of which the Bible speaks.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X