Is the world...

[Free]

I would have thought the idea that God is the 'loving Father of all mankind' to be uncontentious. The New Testament is littered with references by Jesus to 'your Heavenly Father'. Two examples will suffice.
Luke 11:2 KJV The Lord's Prayer. Our Father, which art in Heaven.
Matthew 5:48 KJV The Beattitudes. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus did not seem to be worried one jot about who heard or read or recited His words, leading me to think they apply to everyone, not just Christians.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It is contentious because used wrongly, it gives the impression that all are saved regardless of what they believe. But the NT makes it clear that those who are actually saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, are those who are the true children of God.

 

[Free]

But here you describe exactly the kind of institutional discrimination I want to see an end to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Then you disagree with Scripture. Christians go by what the Bible says. Period. If God says something is a sin, it's a sin regardless of what culture thinks. Attempts to redefine clear commands and statements in the Bible to suit cultural ideology is what will incur God's wrath. It is to reveal that one does not think the Bible to be inspired by God nor authoritative. In which case, there is no reason to believe and follow any of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think, if you really are interested in this, not just objecting because evolution does not fit your Biblically-derived preconceptions, your best resource is Richard Dawkins. Start with 'the Selfish Gene', and take it from there. Once you've read, at least the majority of his books, you may like to tackle Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' and 'The Descent of Man'.

I'm gradually explaining that.

Pretty much, whatever new developments the evidence supports. The philosopher Karl Popper might answer, whatever advances in our thinking are consistent with reality and not so far disproven.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If evidence supports something or other, we would have to be fools not to accept it.
But, I wonder, did Karl Popper agree with every idea thrown at him till it was disproven?
Or are we supposed to believe something only when it IS proven?

And, I guess I'll never know what kind of changes you'd like to see in the Christian religion.
It would have been interesting...

 

[GodsGrace]

I would have thought the idea that God is the 'loving Father of all mankind' to be uncontentious. The New Testament is littered with references by Jesus to 'your Heavenly Father'. Two examples will suffice.
Luke 11:2 KJV The Lord's Prayer. Our Father, which art in Heaven.
Matthew 5:48 KJV The Beattitudes. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus did not seem to be worried one jot about who heard or read or recited His words, leading me to think they apply to everyone, not just Christians.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Jesus' words did apply to everyone.
Crowds were following Him and He was teaching them how to live as God Father would want them to.

 

[GodsGrace]

I really don't want to get into a debate about homosexuality. I've discussed it many times on other forums, and it does nothing but generate heat, not light.

But here you describe exactly the kind of institutional discrimination I want to see an end to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It's not Institutional Discrimination.
God's laws are absolute.
Without absolute moral values, a society falls into decadence and failure....
as we're experiencing right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is contentious because used wrongly, it gives the impression that all are saved regardless of what they believe. But the NT makes it clear that those who are actually saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, are those who are the true children of God.

What if someone never heard of Jesus?

 

[Christ_empowered]

wondering asks a valid question: what if an individual has never -heard- of Jesus?

The RCC, as one might expect, has some answers. If I recall correctly, God has His own system of measuring those who die completely ignorant of Jesus. Romans 2:15 and John 1:9 indicate some degree of Divine revelation even to the unconverted. I -do not- know all of the RCC interpretation, but it seems that those who die unconverted because of total ignorance of Jesus and also those who die unconverted because of things that thwarted any inclination they may have had towards conversion are judged and not entirely unable to enter Heaven. But...I'm a lapsed Presbyterian, if that. I may well be incorrect.

A -big- issue in the established church ("visible church," for those of us who skim The westminster confession, etc.) is lack of disciple-ing and what seems to be a lack of commitment to the cultivation of a Christian (in this case, Protestant) worldview. And yet...

While I do think it would be admirable if more churches in any and every town, usa (and other nations!) would do such things...

I cannot help but wonder if that's not what many (note: not -all- , maybe not even -most- , just...-many- ) modern Protestant churches are all about. Not to whine and moan about "throwing out The Gospel" and/or "gimme that old time religion!," etc., just...

nah. not happening. I read somewhere...ancient man saw his problems as spiritual in nature, dealing with sins and God (gods); modern man perceives such problems as "issues" to be resolved through some sort of therapeutic means. It is what it is...sociologists write and research extensively on secularization and related concepts ("disenchantment of the world" -- lean on "progress," not on tradition, religion, etc...along the way, lose a sense of the sacred, supernatural, etc.), and...yeah. not a sociologist, but what material I've skimmed on it seems to pretty much indicate...

lots of Christians are great at church and such, not so good with The Good News. Is this...the established church's "fault" ? Perhaps fulfillment of Scripture? Maybe even a (post)modern version of what's always been happening in churches (false teachers, false prophets, wheat -and- tares , false doctrines tickle their ears, deceive the -very elect- if possible, etc.) ?

So... I dunno. Personally, I try to somehow develop a more Christian worldview without over-elevating Scripture (devotionals are good...no expertise in putting things in sociohistorical perspective, so I try to stick to The Good News and applying fundamental Christian morality...Scripture is vital, but I never got anything out of it until after Jesus saved me...) and also keeping in mind: there does not seem to be -1- Christian worldview.

I took a class once in which the (I hope and imagine well-intentioned) author basically tried to elevate capitalism to the level of -the- Christian way to structure an economy. OK. but...?? Dorothy Day, Eugene V. Debs...other believers, other visions...

sorry to ramble. I think I just want to say...and would have said/typed by now, if not for my coffee intake...that believers cannot make the mistake CS Lewis points out, which is "putting God on the dock."

 

[Free]

What if someone never heard of Jesus?

Then, unless Jesus reveals himself to them, it would seem that they cannot be saved. Hence the need for believers to go into all the world. However, whatever happens to them, all we need to understand is that God will deal justly with them in the end.

 

[2ndRateMind]

How do you know that I don't believe in evolution due to my biblically derived preconceptions?
Are you aware that scientists also don't accept Darwin's theory of evolution?

I really have no desire to read Richard Dawkins. I've read one of his books and I have no desire to read any others.
Why do you believe HIM and not other scientists that disagree whole-heartedly with him?
Why make HIM be your hero?

I don't see any new developments to change my mind.
In fact, science is continually changing, but it seems to me that God remains the same.
I don't believe His nature has changed at all since the beginning of time.

And that is interesting too. Before the big bang there was no TIME.
Which is why science cannot get beyond that micro-second before the big bang.

Also, I don't quite understand if I'm speaking to a Christian that would like to see science accepted 100% - even what it's not sure about - or an atheist that is against all things about God.

Hmmm. If the book you read was the God Delusion, well done for getting through it. His biology is good, but his theology sucks. Which is probably not all that surprising in an atheist for whom, he admits, theology is a 'non-subject'. But the point is that his background, training and credentials are in biology, about which he knows a good deal. And evolution is a biological topic, not a theological one. Whatever theological implications it has are accidental, not deliberate.

That said, it does have theological implications. And they need to be resolved. Not by simply rejecting the Theory of Evolution, for which there is considerable objective evidence, because it contradicts Genesis, for which there is none, but by exploring the science, deciding what it tells us, and what it doesn't tell us, about God's world, and thereby by implication, about God.

It is quite true that science is continually changing, contnually uprating it's world view in the light of new evidence and better theories that account for that new evidence. But that is it's strength, not a weakness. God may not change, but our understanding of Him and His world certainly does. Or should, if we let it, and quit with the arrogant assumption that we already know everything there is to know about both.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

that believers cannot make the mistake CS Lewis points out, which is "putting God on the dock."

I have a lot of time for CS Lewis. But sometimes he goes places I cannot follow. I did actully buy that book, expecting a clearly reasoned account of man's nature, and God's, and reconciling the two, explaining why stuff that seems, subjectively, bad to us is perhaps not so bad, objectively, to God. I was disappointed. There was one short essay telling us that man should not put God on trial. Yet, from our perspective, it does seem to me that God has a lot to answer for. Clearly others do, also, and the topic has given rise to the entire field of Christian apologetics. The paradoxical question with which I began this thread: Is the world perfect because it's imperfect? and some of the answers to that question I attempted to supply, is my (very) small contribution to that field.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

It's not Institutional Discrimination.
God's laws are absolute.
Without absolute moral values, a society falls into decadence and failure....
as we're experiencing right now.

Well, my position, for what it's worth, on ethics, is this: God's Law is objective, and wholly ethically accurate. He wants us to be ethical, because He loves us, wants what's best for us, and an ethical life is the best way to live. Only thing is, He leaves us to work out what is ethical, and why it's ethical. It's an ongoing project for us. The Old Testament was an early first draft, superceded by Jesus' revelations recorded in the New Testament, and developed further by ethicists since. But, we still do not know what objective ethics are, or how we shall know we know, if and as and when we do. It's just one of life's big, and therefore interesting, questions, in that we do not have answers, and do not even know how to get at those answers.

Meanwhile, the best we can do is remain current with the ethical state of the art.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

If evidence supports something or other, we would have to be fools not to accept it.

Agreed.

But, I wonder, did Karl Popper agree with every idea thrown at him till it was disproven?
Or are we supposed to believe something only when it IS proven?

Popper was putting forward an idea about how science progresses. Contrary to the then current thinking among philosophers of science, that science makes progress by proving things, Popper pointed out that inductive arguments can never be proven, only disproven, and that this is the way science progresses, by gradually whittling away stuff as it is shown to be untrue. As Einstein put it, 'No amount of observations can ever prove me right. But it will take only one observation to prove me wrong'.

And, I guess I'll never know what kind of changes you'd like to see in the Christian religion.
It would have been interesting...

See my post Monday 9:19. for the overview.
And I'm still trying to explain why I think what I think, and deal with objections arising!

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Then you disagree with Scripture.

Sure do. In places. I said earlier I was a heretic. Get used to it.

Christians go by what the Bible says. Period. If God says something is a sin, it's a sin regardless of what culture thinks.

Indeed. I just doubt that what the Bible says and what God says are always entirely the same thing, which appears to be your assumption.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[eddif]

wondering asks a valid question: what if an individual has never -heard- of Jesus?

The RCC, as one might expect, has some answers. If I recall correctly, God has His own system of measuring those who die completely ignorant of Jesus. Romans 2:15 and John 1:9 indicate some degree of Divine revelation even to the unconverted. I -do not- know all of the RCC interpretation, but it seems that those who die unconverted because of total ignorance of Jesus and also those who die unconverted because of things that thwarted any inclination they may have had towards conversion are judged and not entirely unable to enter Heaven. But...I'm a lapsed Presbyterian, if that. I may well be incorrect.

A -big- issue in the established church ("visible church," for those of us who skim The westminster confession, etc.) is lack of disciple-ing and what seems to be a lack of commitment to the cultivation of a Christian (in this case, Protestant) worldview. And yet...

While I do think it would be admirable if more churches in any and every town, usa (and other nations!) would do such things...

I cannot help but wonder if that's not what many (note: not -all- , maybe not even -most- , just...-many- ) modern Protestant churches are all about. Not to whine and moan about "throwing out The Gospel" and/or "gimme that old time religion!," etc., just...

nah. not happening. I read somewhere...ancient man saw his problems as spiritual in nature, dealing with sins and God (gods); modern man perceives such problems as "issues" to be resolved through some sort of therapeutic means. It is what it is...sociologists write and research extensively on secularization and related concepts ("disenchantment of the world" -- lean on "progress," not on tradition, religion, etc...along the way, lose a sense of the sacred, supernatural, etc.), and...yeah. not a sociologist, but what material I've skimmed on it seems to pretty much indicate...

lots of Christians are great at church and such, not so good with The Good News. Is this...the established church's "fault" ? Perhaps fulfillment of Scripture? Maybe even a (post)modern version of what's always been happening in churches (false teachers, false prophets, wheat -and- tares , false doctrines tickle their ears, deceive the -very elect- if possible, etc.) ?

So... I dunno. Personally, I try to somehow develop a more Christian worldview without over-elevating Scripture (devotionals are good...no expertise in putting things in sociohistorical perspective, so I try to stick to The Good News and applying fundamental Christian morality...Scripture is vital, but I never got anything out of it until after Jesus saved me...) and also keeping in mind: there does not seem to be -1- Christian worldview.

I took a class once in which the (I hope and imagine well-intentioned) author basically tried to elevate capitalism to the level of -the- Christian way to structure an economy. OK. but...?? Dorothy Day, Eugene V. Debs...other believers, other visions...

sorry to ramble. I think I just want to say...and would have said/typed by now, if not for my coffee intake...that believers cannot make the mistake CS Lewis points out, which is "putting God on the dock."

Nice long ramble.
You might realize and consider
Romans 1:20 tells where the condemnation comes from.

The hidden (without excuse) exists from evidence in creation.

The forgiveness from condemnation comes through the work of Jesus. The forgiveness of sins is the good news the Gospel brings.

Jesus used parables so that he would not have to forgive. That is what the answer to (why parables).

By or through faith is not the issue IMHO. Our responsibility is to preach the gospel to Jew and gentile alike.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[2ndRateMind]

... what will incur God's wrath.

God's wrath? Been there. Done that. Got that T shirt. And came out the other side, intact and improved. You can't frighten me with it, any more.

It is to reveal that one does not think the Bible to be inspired by God nor authoritative. In which case, there is no reason to believe and follow any of it.

I've been called a cherry-picker, as if there was something wrong with believing stuff you think is true, and disbelieving stuff you don't. There is lots in the Gospels I like, and forms part of my world view, and lots in Genesis I don't, and doesn't. As I said earlier:

[we}are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was designed to control. [There should be] A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering asks a valid question: what if an individual has never -heard- of Jesus?

The RCC, as one might expect, has some answers. If I recall correctly, God has His own system of measuring those who die completely ignorant of Jesus. Romans 2:15 and John 1:9 indicate some degree of Divine revelation even to the unconverted. I -do not- know all of the RCC interpretation, but it seems that those who die unconverted because of total ignorance of Jesus and also those who die unconverted because of things that thwarted any inclination they may have had towards conversion are judged and not entirely unable to enter Heaven. But...I'm a lapsed Presbyterian, if that. I may well be incorrect.

I believe you've stated correct teachings.
If a person has never heard of Jesus he can still be saved.
Been saying this for quite some time now, but I get a lot of resistance.
I'm happy that God is our judge and not some Christians who have God locked up in a box.

And Protestants agree.

A -big- issue in the established church ("visible church," for those of us who skim The westminster confession, etc.) is lack of disciple-ing and what seems to be a lack of commitment to the cultivation of a Christian (in this case, Protestant) worldview. And yet...

While I do think it would be admirable if more churches in any and every town, usa (and other nations!) would do such things...

Agreed. Teaching is lacking in all churches these days.
It's almost as if they like to make teachings light and airy so as not to scare anyone off.

I cannot help but wonder if that's not what many (note: not -all- , maybe not even -most- , just...-many- ) modern Protestant churches are all about. Not to whine and moan about "throwing out The Gospel" and/or "gimme that old time religion!," etc., just...

nah. not happening. I read somewhere...ancient man saw his problems as spiritual in nature, dealing with sins and God (gods); modern man perceives such problems as "issues" to be resolved through some sort of therapeutic means. It is what it is...sociologists write and research extensively on secularization and related concepts ("disenchantment of the world" -- lean on "progress," not on tradition, religion, etc...along the way, lose a sense of the sacred, supernatural, etc.), and...yeah. not a sociologist, but what material I've skimmed on it seems to pretty much indicate...

Agreed.
Our problems are still spiritual in nature.
If this is not understood we will never make this progress you speak of and which we all dream about.
Our nature has not changed, and so our problems remain spiritual.

Funny, I was reading about how even psychology has finally realized it cannot do too much to change a person.
Something I've always known, as I'm sure many of us do understand that only reaching for a higher goal with the help of a higher being can help us at all. That being would be God.

lots of Christians are great at church and such, not so good with The Good News. Is this...the established church's "fault" ? Perhaps fulfillment of Scripture? Maybe even a (post)modern version of what's always been happening in churches (false teachers, false prophets, wheat -and- tares , false doctrines tickle their ears, deceive the -very elect- if possible, etc.) ?

So... I dunno. Personally, I try to somehow develop a more Christian worldview without over-elevating Scripture (devotionals are good...no expertise in putting things in sociohistorical perspective, so I try to stick to The Good News and applying fundamental Christian morality...Scripture is vital, but I never got anything out of it until after Jesus saved me...) and also keeping in mind: there does not seem to be -1- Christian worldview.

We do over emphasize scripture. As if God came down from heaven and wrote the bible.
I must be a heretic.

I like reading what Jesus taught the best.
Go straight to the source.
Not putting down the other writers...may it never be!
My faith depends on them.
But Jesus is the source which they had to interpret.

I took a class once in which the (I hope and imagine well-intentioned) author basically tried to elevate capitalism to the level of -the- Christian way to structure an economy. OK. but...?? Dorothy Day, Eugene V. Debs...other believers, other visions...

sorry to ramble. I think I just want to say...and would have said/typed by now, if not for my coffee intake...that believers cannot make the mistake CS Lewis points out, which is "putting God on the dock."

What does putting God on the dock mean?
Love CSLewis.
John Lennox knew him personally at Oxford.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then, unless Jesus reveals himself to them, it would seem that they cannot be saved. Hence the need for believers to go into all the world. However, whatever happens to them, all we need to understand is that God will deal justly with them in the end.

Believers are to go into all the world to teach Christianity, which Jesus believed to be the salvation of this sick world.
He believed that creating the Kingdom of God would solve many of man's problems.
Has He failed in His attempt?

It's nice to think that God will judge justly, but what solace does that bring?

I believe that through Jesus and His teachings we can know what God expects from us.
It doesn't need to be a mystery.

If a person has an awareness of God and wishes to live for Him, the NT teaches that this person can be saved.
Does Romans 1:19-20 mean nothing to us? Do we need to lock God up in a box some denomination or other made our of breakable cardboard?

Free God up. He loves His creation and wishes that all men be saved, but not all WANT to be saved.

Maybe Craig could explain it better...

 

[eddif]

God's wrath? Been there. Done that. Got that T shirt. And came out the other side, intact and improved. You can't frighten me with it, any more.

I've been called a cherry-picker, as if there was something wrong with believing stuff you think is true, and disbelieving stuff you don't. There is lots in the Gospels I like, and forms part of my world view, and lots in Genesis I don't, and doesn't. As I said earlier:



Best wishes, 2RM.

The bad news is that man‘s actions can incur the wrath of God.
Romans 1

The good news is God provides a way to escape the wrath.
John 3:16

Both the bad and good exist.

Which will we choose / continually choose.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Edward]

... perfect because it's imperfect? I sometimes like to consider this paradox. If the world was perfect, and had no imperfections, there would be nothing of any importance left to do. I think we would quickly grow bored.

Best wishes to you all. 2RM.

So you are bringing truth to the scriptures Brother.

1 Corinthians 2:9
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.../

So you have no clue. Neither do I. But one thing is Guarenteed, we wont be bored!

Ephesians 3:20
20 Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think.../NLT

There will be work to do in heaven. The way I understand it, our life on earth as a human is merely preperation for what is to come. Your job will be such that only you can do it. Your knowledge and expeirence uniquely qualifies you to have the specialized ability to do the job right and pleasing to the Lord.

As long as I'm not the plumber again, lol. Actually I don't think there will be plumbers in Heaven, because scripture says there will be no seas on the new earth. Just rivers of living water and fountains and stuff. And you know why? Because the seas are earths toilet, and the seas also hold many dead. So, no dead or no toilet means no plumbers!

 

[2ndRateMind]

It is contentious because used wrongly, it gives the impression that all are saved regardless of what they believe. But the NT makes it clear that those who are actually saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, are those who are the true children of God.

Hmmm. If I don't like the phrase 'true Christian', I like the phrase 'true children of God' even less. Who are those of other faiths, and none? His illegitimate, bastard children, to be bundled into the fiery furnace without ceremony and just as rapidly as possible? Sorry, but that sounds way too Nazi and really doesn't work for me, and I very much doubt it works for a good and just God, either. Nor do I like the implication of favouritism you and conventional Christianity seem comfortable with. Favouritism doesn't work in families, and it doesn't work in organisations or nations either (where it is known as corruption, nepotism or cronyism). Just who do you think God is? An omnipotent Trump?

Best wishes, 2RM.