God's arbitrary behaviour!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

<snip for brevity>


> >Matthew Bell

> >This is incorrect. It is knowledge and understanding, but not in the sense

you

> >interpret it. It is knowledge of ourselves and understanding of what we are

> >before God. Such is brought about by the conviction of God's Holy Spirit

> >working in the individual's life, regardless of their intellect, knowledge

or

> >familiarity with the Scriptural revelation of God to man.

> 

> Ray:

> So we have "God's Holy Spirit working in the individual's life". We are

> right back where we started then. Why is he successful in one and not

> another? Is it because he is not very effective? Or is it that one is evil

> and the other not? I could go through my previous litany again about how

> they got that way. It's either that or God is sometimes effective and

> sometimes not. Which way would you like it?


Matthew Bell
No we have the conviction by the Holy Spirit working in the individual's life.

>From an Arminian perspective success or the lack of is dependant on how the

individual responds to that conviction, God not forcing any to accept his Son
as their Lord and Saviour. From the Calvinistic perspective the Holy Spirit is
always effective in those who are effectually called. This is known as the
doctrine of irresistable grace. In this God  calls those predestinated to
eternal life and they respond. Those not called are left in their 'dead'
position.


>>>Ray:

>>>Certainly no one who was well informed and not insane

>>>would choose eternal punishment over eternal happiness.

>>>Does that appeal to your sense of justice, only the smart

>>>ones are saved? Just letting God choose would be as

>>>just.

> >

> >Matthew Bell

> >So you are saying above than no errantist on this list is well informed or

> >sane, since that is precisely the choice they have made. Those who are saved

> >are those who are called and respond positively to such.

> >> 

> Ray:

> Can you see how you beg the question here? 


Matthew Bell
No, I can't. If you think there is a fallacy in the above, don't just name it,
explain why it is such. It will save us both time.


>Ray

> I certainly have made no such

> decision nor do I think anyone else here would say they had. The only

> decision I have made is that there has been no authoritative requirement

> that I make such a decision. I will be happy to state here and now that I

> would prefer eternal bliss to eternal punishment. If there is a God and he

> wants me to make such a decision by doing something then let him tell me

> about it.


Matthew Bell
He has told you about it. You do not recognise such, through having made your
own god to suit your own ego and worldview or through not being effectually
called. 
 

> Ray

> He just needs to make it clear and not hide this supposed

> requirement in a theological opinion derived from some obscure writings. You

> might think that collection of anonymous writings referred to as the New

> Testament is an authority, but I do not. That my friend is not making any

> momentous decision about choosing God or hell. It is simply a logical

> position based on the evidence. When God shows up somewhere, please let me

> know where he is. 


Matthew Bell
It is God, not you who sets the criteria for how he reveals Himself to mankind.
If you find such insufficient or unconvincing then remain in your present
situation and 'kick against the pricks'. 

> 

> >>Ray:

> >> If it is because the saved are "good" and the others "bad", then my

question

> >> is how did the good get good and the bad get bad? Was it genetics or

> >> upbringing and circumstances (or a combination), or was one just "good" or

> >> "bad" because God made him that way? Do any of these options appeal to

your

> >> sense of justice? Just letting God choose would be as just.

> >

> >Matthew Bell

> >In themselves, none are good. Through Adam we are all sinners. That is the

> >Biblical record of how we all got bad.

> 

> Ray:

> I knew you would say we are not saved by our "goodness". But the scenario

> you described about God's Holy Spirit working in the person's life means

> either it is arbitrary (he gets the job done with X and not Y) or it is

> based on the person's "goodness". You just cannot avoid that dichotomy.


Matthew Bell
Already explained above.
 

> Ray

> The idea that "Through Adam we all sinned" is another example of arbitrary

> injustice. How can I possibly be held responsible for what someone else did

> thousands of years ago? Again, this is the kind of nonsense that assures me

> that your bible could not possibly be the product of a just God. Please note

> that I am not choosing evil in that opinion, just avoiding craziness.


Matthew Bell
I did not say, 'Through Adam we all sinned', but 'through Adam we are all
sinners'. You are not held responsible for what Adam did, but you are born what
you are, i.e. a sinner becuase of the choice Adam made. 

> 

> >>Ray: 

> >> Is it just luck? You told Till you had made your choice and he had made

his

> >> and you just have to live with the circumstances. If you don't think you

are

> >> better informed or a "better" person than he is, then you have essentially

> >> thrown it into the luck bin. You pays your money and takes your chances.

> >> Does this appeal to your sense of justice? Just letting God choose would

be

> >> as just.

> >

> >Matthew Bell

> >It is not a case of 'just having to live with the circumstances'. Farrell

Till

> >has made his choice, as I have. We are equally convinced that our choice is

the

> >correct one.

> 

> Ray:

> You and he have only made an intellectual decision about evidence. He thinks

> the evidence is lousy and you think it is so wonderful you are willing to

> make your whole life revolve around what you think it says.


Matthew Bell
And Farrell Till's life doesn't revolve around what he think it says? Get real.

> 

> >> Ray:

> >> The plain truth is that God's making the decision arbitrarily is as just

as

> >> would be any "decision" by us if Christianity is true. This is because we

> >> have absolutely no information that Christianity is true. Embracing it

> >> therefore would be a sham.

> >

> >Matthew Bell

> >When viewed with such an ignornat understanding of what Christianity is, as

> >demonstrated by your above statements, then yes, I would not embrace such a

> >system. Christianity is of course poles apart from your definition.

> 

> Ray:

> I haven't defined Christianity. I have only made a judgement that the

> evidence for its authority is lacking. If you want to get into ad hominem's,

> I think your understanding of my argument displays incredible ignorance.


Matthew Bell
I haven't seen much 'argument' in your threads, only a display of theological
ignorance.

> >> 

> >> >>Ray: 

> >> >> You seem to be a decent type person Matt, would you run the universe

like

> >> >> that if you were in charge? Doesn't God's arbitrary behavior do

violence

> >to

> >> >> your sense of justice? To use Till's expression; if not, why not?

> >> >

> >> >Matthew Bell:

> >> >No, I would not run the universe like that. I would not tolerate that

which

> >God

> >> >does. 

> >> >

> >> Ray:

> >> We agree here as do others who have already agreed with this statement.

The

> >> daily death of thousands of innocent children of starvation and other

> >> diseases around the world would be one of the things I would eliminate if

I

> >> were God. Actually, I probably would just not have invented the microbes

> >> that cause the diseases to begin with. People born as idiots or horribly

> >> deformed would be another thing I wouldn't have chosen to create.

> >

> >Matthew Bell

> >I suggest you study some Christian theology on the origins of such and the

> >'problems' of suffering. At present I do not have the necessary time to

engage

> >in a protracted dialogue on such.

> 

> Ray:

> So we will talk down to me (again). Just read a little on it, get above your

> ignorance of the subject and it will all fall in place. It turns out that I

> am well aware of the verbal contortions Christian theologians have gone

> through trying to explain how a merciful God could be so unmerciful. I have

> possibly read as much on that as you have (possibly more), as I once was a

> Christian and it bothered me so much I read everything I could on it. As you

> can see, I wasn't satisfied with the rationalizations.


Matthew Bell
So because you, the fount of all wisdom were not satisfied with the
'rationalisations' everyone should follow suit? I think you should deal with
your ego before trying to 'find' God.

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: Affirming the virgin birth.
• Next message: God's arbitrary behaviour!
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]