Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

Mark Hamill

This thread is from an off-topic discussion that spun from the "Have we reached peak LGBT nonsense" thread.

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm asking some questions about this impartial onlooker. Your magic wand version, about which you have said nowt, has problems.

I said "hypothetical" so that would get away from whether or not an impartial onlooker is actually possible and just get to your method of justification to them. Responding with other examples of totally irrelevant hypothetical questions is just a diversion tactic, they have nothing to do with you answering my question.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've this irritating habit of jumping out of the boat you are sailing along with me in. You have the same problem as me - you are one of those "other" people. How can you tell. Well, our supposed impartial onlooker is going to decide that

And you have this irritating habit of just asking my question back to me. Answer my question first (seeing as I asked it first and all) and I will answer yours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what that means.

It means that you can say that all religions are about fundamentally different Gods or they are all just fundamentally different interpretations of the same God doesn't change my hypothetical. You still need to answer the question - How can you whose conviction is actually correctly placed?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or that..

Perhaps you meant to install an "other" before "being"?

No one is sure of themselves other than being sure of themselves. If you accept, for example, the finding of a scientific experiment, you (and I emphasis you) are stating something about your being sure of yourself that scientific experiments lead to solid knowledge or whatever.

You are the judge of all that you are sure of. Even if you farm out your confidence to others it is you who is deciding you are assured that they will correctly inform you. Suredness, for you, rests with no one but you. It's like sticky toffee paper - there's no way to prevent it ending up sticking to your own fingers

Apologies, I did mean to say "Is there anything, other than just being sure of yourself, that makes you so sure of yourself? "

My basis of using science and empiricism is not just based on me just being sure of myself. I will point to other aspects of these methods that go beyond just me being sure of myself. You may disagree about them being reliable or even existing, but they are part of what makes me sure. I am happy to discuss these aspects after you answer the question: What do you have beyond just being sure of yourself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The set up is that an impartial onlooker was going to decide. There's no point in me talking to you when my view holds that your view is blind to what I say.

The setup is me asking you how you are going to convince the onlooker. What would you say to them to convince them, I would like to know. Maybe I am "blind" to what you say and will never be able to agree with, but how is that potentiality any different to anything you post in this forum? Just answer the question.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because that would let you off the hook about the problem you face creating this impartial onlooker of yours. Which would return us immediately to the problem identified in your mere suggestion of the idea. That without an impartial onlooker, I'm left with you, a partial onlooker.

I will explain how I would do it and you can dispute my methods too, once you answer the question first. There is no hook, no need to be so defensive. You answer my question, I will answer it, and we can discuss about the effectiveness and implications of our respective methods.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Justification implies defence. I prefer your impartial onlooker who isn't looking for a justification but is assessing impartially.

In general, when a claim is made, supporting arguments are made to explain them. A justification is just another word for a supporting argument.
If you could be a little less defensive and answer the question, then maybe we could actually start this discussion?

antiskeptic

Hi Mark.

Busy off late but will attend in due course.

I haven't read the OP but will raise (or re-raise) a core issue. The impossibility (from my perspective) of your hypothetical and what it does to your proposition.

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

Adam would fit the bill. But he knew God so you might consider him biased?

If I were to say this impartial onlooker is a Christian (thus has relevamt ezperience of the spiritual) would you say he was impartial

In other words, the mere saying "hypothetical" isnt sufficient if the hypothetical is actually a nonsense.

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

Adam would fit the bill. But he knew God so you might consider him biased?

You've a bigger issue using Adam, the fictional nature undermines you far more.

You might as well say you plan to use Gandalf but because he carried the one ring you consider him bias also.

This would be as true and as believable to any impartial onlooker, ie: it wouldn't be.

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi Mark.

Busy off late but will attend in due course.

I haven't read the OP but will raise (or re-raise) a core issue. The impossibility (from my perspective) of your hypothetical and what it does to your proposition.

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

Adam would fit the bill. But he knew God so you might consider him biased?

If I were to say this impartial onlooker is a Christian (thus has relevamt ezperience of the spiritual) would you say he was impartial

In other words, the mere saying "hypothetical" isnt sufficient if the hypothetical is actually a nonsense.

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

Right how about this scenario then.

A couple have chosen to raise their child in isolation, away from the rest of the world.

They never once mention anything about any religion, good or bad to the child.

The child is normal in every way (including being born with a sinful nature if you insist!), average intelligence, and has been educated to a normal standard.

At the age of 18 that child asks their parents to see some on the world and at that time they encounter you.

You mention God and they ask you to explain God to them and you do.

They then ask you why you believe what you do.

What do you say?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

Hypothetically, one most certainly can - say, for example, one were to assume that up were the same as down. In such a hypothetical, down could be up and up could be down - crucially - at the same time.

How would you suggest to work through the logical consequence(s) of that?

.......

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

Even if you believe a child is born a sinner and in rebellion with your god, if the child has no knowledge of your god or any god then they will have a neutral worldview regardless of your belief system.

It is entirely possible to imagine a person who has never heard of any gods. This isnt saying that up is down.

It is the state of ALL children until they are told about gods. We are not born with an innate belief system.

Instead of arguing that you dont like the hypothetical, why not just answer the question and tell us how you would convince an impartial person that Christianty is true?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi Mark.

Busy off late but will attend in due course.

I haven't read the OP but will raise (or re-raise) a core issue. The impossibility (from my perspective) of your hypothetical and what it does to your proposition.

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

Adam would fit the bill. But he knew God so you might consider him biased?

If I were to say this impartial onlooker is a Christian (thus has relevamt ezperience of the spiritual) would you say he was impartial

In other words, the mere saying "hypothetical" isnt sufficient if the hypothetical is actually a nonsense.

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

A hypothetical doesn't actually have to be possible to work. Magic or nonsense doesn't come into it, it's just using a conceit. If you don't know and can't make a guess as to some onlooker's worldview, how would you argue your worldview to them? What are the first principles you would start from, knowing that there are other people also arguing their religious and non-religious world views? How would you stand out?

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi Mark.

Busy off late but will attend in due course.

I haven't read the OP but will raise (or re-raise) a core issue. The impossibility (from my perspective) of your hypothetical and what it does to your proposition.

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

Adam would fit the bill. But he knew God so you might consider him biased?

If I were to say this impartial onlooker is a Christian (thus has relevamt ezperience of the spiritual) would you say he was impartial

In other words, the mere saying "hypothetical" isnt sufficient if the hypothetical is actually a nonsense.

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

Right how about this scenario then.

A couple have chosen to raise their child in isolation, away from the rest of the world.

They never once mention anything about any religion, good or bad to the child.

The child is normal in every way (including being born with a sinful nature if you insist!), average intelligence, and has been educated to a normal standard.

At the age of 18 that child asks their parents to see some on the world and at that time they encounter you.

You mention God and they ask you to explain God to them and you do.

They then ask you why you believe what you do.

What do you say?

Mark has posited an impartial onlooker. He or she is the person doing the deciding.

Your hypothetical involves a person isolated from the rest of the world and educated to a normal standard. Some questions:

a) educated by whom and what worldview does this person have?

b) the person is assumed to have a sinful nature and is spiritual rebellion (everyone is spiritual in other words, but rebellion means an intrinsic antagonism to God). Hardly impartial

c) Another consequence of the sinful nature is that a person is blind. They literally lack one of their senses. Sure, they can listen to the argument I might make but they will utilise rationalist and empiricist tools in their attempt to assess and evaluate only, since they are the tools they have at their disposal. They don't have to be empiricists or rationalists, but their life experience to that point (assuming a normal education and exposure to the world, even if isolated from other than their educators). They aren't impartial because their equipping is weighted to one side: the tools they have.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hypothetically, down can't be up and up up at the same time. Hypothetical can't do that kind of magic

Hypothetically, one most certainly can - say, for example, one were to assume that up were the same as down. In such a hypothetical, down could be up and up could be down - crucially - at the same time.

How would you suggest to work through the logical consequence(s) of that?

Work through what? That

Anything can be hypothetical? Or the logical consequences of up being down at the same time?

On the latter I have mo interest. On the former it doesn't strike me as possible to say you can hypothetically have an impartial onlooker who is at the same time biased.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote:

A hypothetical doesn't actually have to be possible to work.

I understand that.

I'm asking you to flesh out your currently biased impartial onlooker.

If you don't know and can't make a guess as to some onlooker's worldview, how would you argue your worldview to them?

You can forget commoner garden man. His worldview (my worldview holds) is already a known quantity. He is either lost, seeking* or found. If talking to someone I didn't know (and if assuming the topic was God territory (or one of its subsets) I could tell fairly quickly whether they were lost, seeking or found (even if they didn't identify as Christian).

*seeking is a state were a person is simmering, as it were (where the point of salvation is reaching boiling point). They occupy a space where they can be both antagonistic but find themselves engaging, opening up. Salvation probably follows (it did for me and others. C.S Lewis' gives a personal account of it in Surprised by Joy)

The lost might very well approach like you do. They might hold to empirical and rational tools (for that is all they have).

The seeking would be tangibly different. They would be as a blind man but one seeking in the dark. They would be open, not so fazed by the kinds of 'obstacles' the firmly lost come hard up against. They would have something of another 'language' or appreciation with which to approach things

[Don't suppose this necessitates someone being 'spiritual'. I've known spiritual people who are as lost as they come)

The found would be fully engaged. They (assuming they hadn't heard of Christianity) would drink it like a thirsty man - it would all make sense to them. The haziness they had, the 'seeing, but as if through a glass darkly' would turn to fuller vision - like cleaning vaseline from their spectacles.

The person you require is this hypothetical impartial - who can't be biased like you outline below

What are the first principles you would start from, knowing that there are other people also arguing their religious and non-religious world views? How would you stand out?

The first thing to note is that you cannot reason a person to sight. Nor empiricise them there. Failing Christ arriving from the heavens, they will find a reason not to believe. Because they are constitutionally geared that way.

An apologetic, if aimed thus, is doomed. It has value in a secondary sense: to perhaps help stir waters being stirred spiritually. It is not, on itself going to alter anything.

I think you are looking at this as a rationalist/empiricist. You suppose all things can be understood by these means and (almost unconsciously) presume those the evaluation tools that must be deployed and are the best way to evaluate things. In so far as they go you are dead right - I use them all the time myself.

Hence the set up of this experiment: all sorts come to the rational/empirical table and operate according to those methods. The format is words, evidence, logic, reason, etc - thats how we often deal with matters


The problem is blindness to the form this particular information arrives in. Logic and reason have their place. But they need eyes opened. They need God to show up to reset the framework.

I wouldn't expect or aim to stand out. I don't suppose conviction (for that is what would occur were someone to plump for 'my presentation' ) would be the product of my presentation. They would be convinced because their eyes were opened by Him. My presentation might (what an honour) be a final piece in the jigsaw but thats all. Tops.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Work through what? That Anything can be hypothetical? Or the logical consequences of up being down at the same time?
On the latter I have mo interest. On the former it doesn't strike me as possible to say you can hypothetically have an impartial onlooker who is at the same time biased.

I mean that we should work through the logical consequences of assuming the hypothetical antithetical, in the specific case where the assumption is that we're working with a contingent truth (and therefore, a potentially false one), rather than a logical or necessary truth, which must be true under all circumstances (and which cannot be false, by definition).

In the case you've suggested, what would happen when we assume the antithetical - that the "upness" and "downness" of the logical direction were in fact the same? As they would indeed be, were we to be discussing a two-dimensional space where the ideas of "upness" and "downess" evaporate in the absence of a third-dimension which, for the sake of argument, we might declare "height" and measured in terms of "up" (positive) and "down" (negative).

How would the independent observer observe that which (s)he is not, with due respect to the contingency of the dimensionality, capable of assessing or indeed, plausibly asserting.

I think this might suggest that your argument has some holes which you should plug.

magicbastarder

probably taking the debate a little off-path, but how would someone religious convince a fence sitter that christianity was the right path, as opposed to buddhism, islam, judaism, etc.?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand that.

I'm asking you to flesh out your currently biased impartial onlooker.

It doesn't need to be fleshed out beyond the explanation of the conceit. To spend time doing so would be a waste of time.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The lost might very well approach like you do. They might hold to empirical and rational tools (for that is all they have).

The seeking would be tangibly different. They would be as a blind man but one seeking in the dark. They would be open, not so fazed by the kinds of 'obstacles' the firmly lost come hard up against. They would have something of another 'language' or appreciation with which to approach things

[Don't suppose this necessitates someone being 'spiritual'. I've known spiritual people who are as lost as they come)

The found would be fully engaged. They (assuming they hadn't heard of Christianity) would drink it like a thirsty man - it would all make sense to them. The haziness they had, the 'seeing, but as if through a glass darkly' would turn to fuller vision - like cleaning vaseline from their spectacles




The first thing to note is that you cannot reason a person to sight. Nor empiricise them there. Failing Christ arriving from the heavens, they will find a reason not to believe. Because they are constitutionally geared that way.

An apologetic, if aimed thus, is doomed. It has value in a secondary sense: to perhaps help stir waters being stirred spiritually. It is not, on itself going to alter anything.

I think you are looking at this as a rationalist/empiricist. You suppose all things can be understood by these means and (almost unconsciously) presume those the evaluation tools that must be deployed and are the best way to evaluate things. In so far as they go you are dead right - I use them all the time myself.

Hence the set up of this experiment: all sorts come to the rational/empirical table and operate according to those methods. The format is words, evidence, logic, reason, etc - thats how we often deal with matters


The problem is blindness to the form this particular information arrives in. Logic and reason have their place. But they need eyes opened. They need God to show up to reset the framework.

I wouldn't expect or aim to stand out. I don't suppose conviction (for that is what would occur were someone to plump for 'my presentation' ) would be the product of my presentation. They would be convinced because their eyes were opened by Him. My presentation might (what an honour) be a final piece in the jigsaw but thats all. Tops.

So your entire argument, the reason you have avoided my question for so long (and still avoid it as you still haven't said what you would actually say the onlooker) is that you can't convince someone of your worldview unless they are significantly on their way to believing it?

I kind of expected something like this, which is why I asked the second question, of how can you be so sure of your world view, given there are others of irreconcilably contradictory world views that also believe the same way about theirs?

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably taking the debate a little off-path, but how would someone religious convince a fence sitter that christianity was the right path, as opposed to buddhism, islam, judaism, etc.?

That is actually the basis of my hypothetical, I just made it a bit more abstract so that I couldn't be accused of giving science or empiricism special treatment (by implying they are above the question or have to be used to measure the response).

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark has posited an impartial onlooker. He or she is the person doing the deciding.

Your hypothetical involves a person isolated from the rest of the world and educated to a normal standard. Some questions:

a) educated by whom and what worldview does this person have?

b) the person is assumed to have a sinful nature and is spiritual rebellion (everyone is spiritual in other words, but rebellion means an intrinsic antagonism to God). Hardly impartial

c) Another consequence of the sinful nature is that a person is blind. They literally lack one of their senses. Sure, they can listen to the argument I might make but they will utilise rationalist and empiricist tools in their attempt to assess and evaluate only, since they are the tools they have at their disposal. They don't have to be empiricists or rationalists, but their life experience to that point (assuming a normal education and exposure to the world, even if isolated from other than their educators). They aren't impartial because their equipping is weighted to one side: the tools they have.

Sorry but you're just avoiding answering the question. Who did the educating is irrelevant to the topic.

You were the one who insisted everyone has a sinful nature, not me.

Since my view holds that all are born sinners and in rebellion with God, it is not possible to find anyone with a neutral world view.

For them to be neutral they woud have to lack a sinful nature.

If everyone is born sinful that would include you. Why then are you not also blind to God? Since we can assume that you are not whatever was convincing enough to convince you of his existence should also be enough to convince this hypothetical person.

You claim that since they will only use 'rationalist and empiricist tools' to assess your position. What other tools do you feel they lack and why can you not teach them these tools? If not is your position then that a rational person by definition cannot believe in God?

If God truly wants everyone to join his flock, why would the child not be born with the innate ability to understand the argument for God? You're effectively saying that this person through no fault of their own can never understand or believe in God and as such is condemned to an eternity in hell.

antiskeptic

Double post

antiskeptic

Iamthereign wrote:

Sorry but you're just avoiding answering the question.

I'm enquiring into to problems in your position. If you want to presume your position sound and beyond questioning, you're in the wrong place.

Who did the educating is irrelevant to the topic.

Its very relevant. The hand that rocks the cradle and all. Your supposing a normal education, yet normal education involves worldviews being inculcated. Teaching primary school kids in the UK that 2 mammies or 2 daddies is normal is both normal education and inculcation of a worldview. For instance.

You were the one who insisted everyone has a sinful nature, not me.

And Mark has to deal with the cards as they are dealt. What would you prefer, that his worldview (which insists no one has a sinful nature) inform his 'impartial onlooker'?

If everyone is born sinful that would include you. Why then are you not also blind to God?

I once was lost (was blind) but now I'm found (can see). See it as an additional feature to the already existent tools that folk have (an empirical and rational side for instance)

Since we can assume that you are not whatever was convincing enough to convince you of his existence should also be enough to convince this hypothetical person.

It would if they could read the evidence in the format it comes in. But if they haven't the operating system to run the program in language its written in then they'll just generate an error message. Does not compute.

You claim that since they will only use 'rationalist and empiricist tools' to assess your position. What other tools do you feel they lack and why can you not teach them these tools?

The tools aren't mine to grant. The tools (software, if you like) is installed by God. You want a Windows update? You go to Mikrosoft. Not me.

Which brings us to Mark's dilemma. If the person has the software they will know God exists and Mark's experiment ends: the impartial onlooker won't be impartial - they know God exists and competing views are doomed. If the person hasn't the software they won't be convinced by any argument since they are blind. Gobbelygook (which is unrecognized software) will always be gobbeldygook to them.

The question, as ever is whether its a software problem or an OS problem. I say OS, others say the software us gobbeldygook. Neither can demonstrate their position. Which is terminal for Marks experiment.

If not is your position then that a rational person by definition cannot believe in God?

Not with rationality alone they can't. Its not the primary software. Once the primary software is installed, rationality and empirical methods can be used to navigate the territory made accessible by the primary software. The primary software is harmonious with the rest of us.

If God truly wants everyone to join his flock, why would the child not be born with the innate ability to understand the argument for God? You're effectively saying that this person through no fault of their own can never understand or believe in God and as such is condemned to an eternity in hell.

A topic for another day. Suffice to say that there is a mechanism whereby everyone gets to have a choice for God or (maintain their as born condition) against God.

The usual course for choice is to set someone in the middle of a scales (impartial!), present the argument for both sides and they chose. This one os different: we start skewed against God and have the choice to remain that way or move over to God. No problem as long as the weight of argument for both options are balanced.

Its fair, its the same mechanism for everyone. But its His mechanism
Not ours. We (by virtue of our sinful nature from birth aren't capable of generating a truly impartial mechanism ourselves - how do blind people even know they are blind.

That's actually good news. No spin, no bending the game, no diving, no using influence, education, religion you were born into, wealth and power.

Just fair and square for all.

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably taking the debate a little off-path, but how would someone religious convince a fence sitter that christianity was the right path, as opposed to buddhism, islam, judaism, etc.?

Its a bit complicated (from my 'religious' perspective).

1. Christian salvation doesn't depend on your religious or non-religious persuasion (my post above says the mechanism is fair, which it couldn't be if the hand that rocked your cradle happened to be Muslim or athiest or Hindu).

I fully expect 'Christians', 'athiests', 'Muslims' etc will occupy both heaven and hell.

2. Since there are two protogonists (from my viewpoint, the one you're asking after): God and (necessary, as it happens, in order to enable a choice) Satan, you would expect all Satan's various strategies to have a common, antithetical-to-God characteristic. His output will have him as a common ancestor afterall.

The chief commonality amongst his chief facsimile involves the bending of an innate human area of activity: spirituality.

The trick is very simple and widespread in it's effect. It is that: good WORK determines your position before God/the energy/karma in this world and determines whether you have a 'positive afterlife outcome' (whether a bevvy of virgins or not coming back as an amoeba or not burning in a furnace for eternity). In other words: obey the various ordinances of the religion in question (go to mass on Sunday, go to confession, pray to the West, offer sacrifices, do penance, treat others (and animals and nature) the right way. And all will (or has a better chance of being) well.

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

And your behaviour has no 'weighing scales' influence on whether you are saved or not. John Newton (he wrote the words to Amazing Grace) was a slave ship operator (even post salvation). Sin can drive a man to God just as it can drive him to Hell so there is no point in advising folk to refrain from it as if it will affect their position before God or eternal destination.

The sin in itself isn't the issue, He's not a weighing scales God.

All the rest are weighing scale gods of one sort or another, coming as they do, straight from Satan's rectum.


Same rectum, same smell.

Good works is that smell. Even athiests (who have more to them than just their atheism) believe it.

My advice to a fence sitter? Go sniff. When you smell works (and you will), just move on.

pauldla

^^^

Oh there's a smell all right....

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

Any flavour of Christianity which avoids death (as in ceasing to exist at any subjective level in any shape or form) via an afterlife is exactly the same as the all the others you list. Carrot and stick religion in which you wager your lifelong adherence to the rules of a church against the promise of a joyous life eternal. Step out of line and that becomes eternal damnation. Paint me cynical, but something smells awfully fishy there to me.

If you're honestly looking for a system that does not have any afterlife, philosophical Taoism is probably a better bet. While there are no fixed beliefs in atheism, many atheists including myself belief that death is terminal and the closest you'll get to reincarnation is once again joining the nitrogen cycle. A Taoist might point out that you'd never actually left it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

Any flavour of Christianity which avoids death (as in ceasing to exist at any subjective level in any shape or form) via an afterlife is exactly the same as the all the others you list. Carrot and stick religion in which you wager your lifelong adherence to the rules of a church against the promise of a joyous life eternal. Step out of line and that becomes eternal damnation. Paint me cynical, but something smells awfully fishy there to me.

A good example of blindness in operation.

Whilst you will have heard a follow-the-rules version of Christianity on boards (usually from our more legalistic RC friends), you will also have heard of the kind I outlined in the post you are quoting.

Yet you trot out the same 'got to follow the rules' / 'step out of line' trope.

You've heard you are born hellbound by default? You no more avoid that by rule following or staying in line than a man freefalling from a skyscraper avoids hitting the ground by windmilling his arms.

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

So: no rule following alters anything before the moment of salvation and no rule following alters anything after the moment of salvation.

(Now you are likely to want to follow God's way after the moment of salvation, even as you regularily chose not to, but you don't have to. Your eternal destination is sealed irrespective of how you live thereafter


Could you square that with your 'follow the rules to gain' trope?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its a bit complicated (from my 'religious' perspective).

1. Christian salvation doesn't depend on your religious or non-religious persuasion (my post above says the mechanism is fair, which it couldn't be if the hand that rocked your cradle happened to be Muslim or athiest or Hindu).

I fully expect 'Christians', 'athiests', 'Muslims' etc will occupy both heaven and hell.

2. Since there are two protogonists (from my viewpoint, the one you're asking after): God and (necessary, as it happens, in order to enable a choice) Satan, you would expect all Satan's various strategies to have a common, antithetical-to-God characteristic. His output will have him as a common ancestor afterall.

The chief commonality amongst his chief facsimile involves the bending of an innate human area of activity: spirituality.

The trick is very simple and widespread in it's effect. It is that: good WORK determines your position before God/the energy/karma in this world and determines whether you have a 'positive afterlife outcome' (whether a bevvy of virgins or not coming back as an amoeba or not burning in a furnace for eternity). In other words: obey the various ordinances of the religion in question (go to mass on Sunday, go to confession, pray to the West, offer sacrifices, do penance, treat others (and animals and nature) the right way. And all will (or has a better chance of being) well.

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

And your behaviour has no 'weighing scales' influence on whether you are saved or not. John Newton (he wrote the words to Amazing Grace) was a slave ship operator (even post salvation). Sin can drive a man to God just as it can drive him to Hell so there is no point in advising folk to refrain from it as if it will affect their position before God or eternal destination.

The sin in itself isn't the issue, He's not a weighing scales God.

All the rest are weighing scale gods of one sort or another, coming as they do, straight from Satan's rectum.


Same rectum, same smell.

Good works is that smell. Even athiests (who have more to them than just their atheism) believe it.

My advice to a fence sitter? Go sniff. When you smell works (and you will), just move on.

Hold on. Are you now saying that doing good works is doing the works of Satan? Are you saying that God doesn't care what you do, that once he arbitrarily decides that you will be saved (by opening your eyes for you) then you can do what you like?

I'm not familiar with this interpretation of Christianity, is it your own or do you follow a branch of Christianity I have not heard of?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

All the rest are weighing scale gods of one sort or another, coming as they do, straight from Satan's rectum. Same rectum, same smell. Good works is that smell.

I've heard a lot of religious produce a lot of weird ideas over the years - ideas which strain, not just at the bounds of credulity, but at the bounds of imagination too.

But the sheer, brassy classlessness of this one takes comparison to a whole new level - less "an-alogy" and more "anal-ogy"?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you square that with your 'follow the rules to gain' trope?

Certainly. You have a list of sins you're not supposed to commit. You have a rule that should you commit a sin, you must repent or go to hell as illustrated in your previous post here. Repent for your sins and it's off to heaven, don't and your hell-bound. This is carrot and stick religion at its most basic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way DubInMeath. I haven't the foggiest as to the nature of your own sin, but I tell you this: unless you repent of it, you will go to Hell.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hold on. Are you now saying that doing good works is doing the works of Satan?

So far as I can understand antiskeptic's tortured prose, (s)he is claiming that the idea that one can curry favour with some deity by helping your fellow humans is so evil that it could only ever have issued from the poisonous, fetid folds of Satan's sphincter.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you saying that God doesn't care what you do, that once he arbitrarily decides that you will be saved (by opening your eyes for you) then you can do what you like? I'm not familiar with this interpretation of Christianity, is it your own or do you follow a branch of Christianity I have not heard of?

It's a standard, though hardline, protestant interpretation of christianity in which the idea of "good works" - itself not unrelated to the Ancient Egyptian idea of Maat - is not believed necessary to eternal life in the company of the deity. The hardline protestant view is that eternal life can be purchased from the deity at the low, low cost of simply convincing oneself that the deity offered it in the first place. The bible, predictably, supports both positions depending on which bit one believes and which bit one ignores.

Protestantism = belief that "saving" exists, plus acceptance of this belief
Catholicism = belief that "saving" exists, plus acceptance of this belief; plus "good works"; veneration of Mary; Vatican + priests are channel to god; transubstantiation; and so on.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

So far as I can understand antiskeptic's tortured prose, (s)he is claiming that the idea that one can curry favour with some deity by helping your fellow humans is so evil that it could only ever have issued from the poisonous, fetid folds of Satan's sphincter.

(un)Holy crap, easy on the curry, that's put me right off Indian food for a bit :pac:

Seanachai

antiskeptic wrote: »

A good example of blindness in operation.

Whilst you will have heard a follow-the-rules version of Christianity on boards (usually from our more legalistic RC friends), you will also have heard of the kind I outlined in the post you are quoting.

Yet you trot out the same 'got to follow the rules' / 'step out of line' trope.

You've heard you are born hellbound by default? You no more avoid that by rule following or staying in line than a man freefalling from a skyscraper avoids hitting the ground by windmilling his arms.

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

So: no rule following alters anything before the moment of salvation and no rule following alters anything after the moment of salvation.

(Now you are likely to want to follow God's way after the moment of salvation, even as you regularily chose not to, but you don't have to. Your eternal destination is sealed irrespective of how you live thereafter


Could you square that with your 'follow the rules to gain' trope?

Do people with limited mental capacity figure in this? If they can't consciously open themselves to realisation\salvation, then are they automatically just subsumed into this heaven, like a child who has to go along to a holiday resort because they have no choice?

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

So far as I can understand antiskeptic's tortured prose, (s)he is claiming that the idea that one can curry favour with some deity by helping your fellow humans is so evil that it could only ever have issued from the poisonous, fetid folds of Satan's sphincter.


It's a standard, though hardline, protestant interpretation of christianity in which the idea of "good works" - itself not unrelated to the Ancient Egyptian idea of Maat - is not believed necessary to eternal life in the company of the deity. The hardline protestant view is that eternal life can be purchased from the deity at the low, low cost of simply convincing oneself that the deity offered it in the first place. The bible, predictably, supports both positions depending on which bit one believes and which bit one ignores.

Protestantism = belief that "saving" exists, plus acceptance of this belief
Catholicism = belief that "saving" exists, plus acceptance of this belief; plus "good works"; veneration of Mary; Vatican + priests are channel to god; transubstantiation; and so on.

I vaguely remember something about Protestant religions believing in being saved by faith alone, but I have never heard it being put as antiskeptic puts it:

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

I always thought it was a point about good works without faith being worthless (i.e. don't be so proud about all of your works if your faith isn't sincere), not faith giving you carte blanche to do what you like with no sequences.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I vaguely remember something about Protestant religions believing in being saved by faith alone,[...]

The idea that one acquires eternal life in the company of the diety by simply believing that the deity made such an offer is called "Sola Fide" was one of the five solae which Luther proposed during the Reformation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I always thought it was a point about good works without faith being worthless (i.e. don't be so proud about all of your works if your faith isn't sincere), not faith giving you carte blanche to do what you like with no sequences.

Well, I suppose if "good works" don't get you into god's good books, then it's a theologically plausible corollary that "bad works" don't get you into god's bad books either.

Antiskeptic's idea is similar to the catholic notion that one can do whatever one wishes and so long as one genuinely repents of one's sins via confession, that god will forgive and forget them.

Has to be said thought that it's not exactly a recipe for pro-social behaviour towards one's fellow humans.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hold on. Are you now saying that doing good works is doing the works of Satan?

No

Are you saying that God doesn't care what you do, that once he arbitrarily decides that you will be saved (by opening your eyes for you) then you can do what you like?

1. I didn't say his saving a person was arbitrary. I said his saving a person wasn't based on their works.

2. I didn't say that God doesn't care what you do post salvation. Just that sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation.

The point was to illustrate smacls blindness, given that this has been oft mentioned to him yet he somehow still thinks works are involved in salvation.

(I'm not getting into how salvation is wrought or what is the position with sin post salvation. The point was to differentiate the myriad of works religions from a non works religion - given a poster asked for a differentiation).

You can note that differentiation yourself perhaps, to stop you threading into the same hole as smacl.

I'm not familiar with this interpretation of Christianity, is it your own or do you follow a branch of Christianity I have not heard of?

It seems to be a denomination created in your own head.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Certainly. You have a list of sins you're not supposed to commit.

Huh?

"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ (salvation)".

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight (i.e. be saved and go to heaven) by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin"

Your hellbound. Following the law won't alter that. The purpose of the law isn't that you follow it. You won't and can't follow it. The purpose of the law is to let you know you're a sinner.

It's part of the mechanism of salvation. Letting you know (e.g. via guilt and shame) you're a sinner.

Solving a problem requires you realise you have a problem. That's the purpose of the law.

You have a rule that should you commit a sin, you must repent or go to hell as illustrated in your previous post here.

Again, you are hellbound. There is no "should you" about it. You will sin. All day, every day.

I only repented of my sin 6 months or so after I was saved. So not sure your understanding is correct here. I turned to God because I had nowhere else to go. It wasn't that I was guilt stricken over my sin. Rather my sin had made my life a mess. I was "conscious of my sin" not as sin, but of the mess it produces.

Repent for your sins and it's off to heaven, don't and your hell-bound. This is carrot and stick religion at its most basic.

I didn't believe in God, heaven or hell before I was saved and for a time afterwards. So that part of your piece doesn't work very well. I prayed to an unbelieved in God because there was no one else to turn to.


The poster asked for something to differentiate. Works (every world religion, every sub-religion, and the understanding of just about every athiest on boards.ie

Versus No works.

That's a significant differentiation.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So far as I can understand antiskeptic's tortured prose, (s)he is claiming that the idea that one can curry favour with some deity by helping your fellow humans is so evil that it could only ever have issued from the poisonous, fetid folds of Satan's sphincter.

When the attempt at helping your fellow humans constitutes a work (i.e. getting on the right side of God for own benefit) then it has no value. By all means help your fellow man. It the motivation to do so comes from the heart (genuine empathy, genorosity, kindness = God characteristics) then it has value.

That value is it's forming a counterfoil to that within you which is selfish and greedy and cruel. It might create a dilemma: "I know what good is - it has a beauty. I also know what not good is within me - it's ugly."

Since you won't be able to extinguish the ugly by yourself you can do a few things:

- you can embrace the ugly and go south.
- you can sit on the fence. "I am wot I am"
- you can be disturbed by your inability to eradicate the ugly.

It's a standard, though hardline, protestant interpretation of christianity in which the idea of "good works" - itself not unrelated to the Ancient Egyptian idea of Maat- is not believed necessary to eternal life in the company of the deity.

Could you quote the bit which suggests this? Because the first couple of sentences contained this:

In the Duat, the Egyptian underworld, the hearts of the dead were said to be weighed against her single "Feather of Maʽat", symbolically representing the concept of Maat, in the Hall of Two Truths. This is why hearts were left in Egyptian mummies while their other organs were removed, as the heart (called "ib") was seen as part of the Egyptian soul. If the heart was found to be lighter or equal in weight to the feather of Maat, the deceased had led a virtuous life and would go on to Aaru

Sounds exactly like the weighing scales /works led life I was referring to as the basis of all religions bar one.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I always thought it was a point about good works without faith being worthless (i.e. don't be so proud about all of your works if your faith isn't sincere), not faith giving you carte blanche to do what you like with no sequences.

There are negative consequences. Just not damnation.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I didn't say his saving a person was arbitrary. I said his saving a person wasn't based on their works.

If God decides, without any respect to what someone does, to save that person then how is it not arbitrary?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. I didn't say that God doesn't care what you do post salvation. Just that sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation.

If sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation, then what form does god "caring" take?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Since there are two protogonists (from my viewpoint, the one you're asking after): God and (necessary, as it happens, in order to enable a choice) Satan, you would expect all Satan's various strategies to have a common, antithetical-to-God characteristic. His output will have him as a common ancestor afterall.

The chief commonality amongst his chief facsimile involves the bending of an innate human area of activity: spirituality.

The trick is very simple and widespread in it's effect. It is that: good WORK determines your position before God/the energy/karma in this world and determines whether you have a 'positive afterlife outcome' (whether a bevvy of virgins or not coming back as an amoeba or not burning in a furnace for eternity). In other words: obey the various ordinances of the religion in question (go to mass on Sunday, go to confession, pray to the West, offer sacrifices, do penance, treat others (and animals and nature) the right way. And all will (or has a better chance of being) well.

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

(To make sure this keeps at least partially on track) If I'm reading you right, your answer to the first question of this thread is that your worldview is the only one that doesn't prescribe people to follow rules to get into heaven. And you already admit that you don't expect this to convince many or even any others. So we are left with my second question, why does it convince you?

volchitsa

The idea that this child who was brought up with no knowledge of religion thereby becomes impervious to the very idea of God seems to run counter to the whole missionary aspect of Christianity.

I'm at a loss as to why Antiskeptic is so clearly unable to engage with that scenario to explain why he finds his religion convincing, just as missionaries have been doing for thousands of years, ie, what would he say to convert this young adult who is now asking questions.

Seems like a lot of twisting and turning.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Huh?

"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ (salvation)".

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight (i.e. be saved and go to heaven) by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin"

Your hellbound. Following the law won't alter that. The purpose of the law isn't that you follow it. You won't and can't follow it. The purpose of the law is to let you know you're a sinner.

It's part of the mechanism of salvation. Letting you know (e.g. via guilt and shame) you're a sinner.

Solving a problem requires you realise you have a problem. That's the purpose of the law.






Again, you are hellbound. There is no "should you" about it. You will sin. All day, every day.

I only repented of my sin 6 months or so after I was saved. So not sure your understanding is correct here. I turned to God because I had nowhere else to go. It wasn't that I was guilt stricken over my sin. Rather my sin had made my life a mess. I was "conscious of my sin" not as sin, but of the mess it produces.








I didn't believe in God, heaven or hell before I was saved and for a time afterwards. So that part of your piece doesn't work very well. I prayed to an unbelieved in God because there was no one else to turn to.


The poster asked for something to differentiate. Works (every world religion, every sub-religion, and the understanding of just about every athiest on boards.ie

Versus No works.

That's a significant differentiation.

Simple question for you so. In your view, if you are say an atheist, a homosexual, a drunk, an adulterer and/or a liar and do not repent, will you go to hell? If you repent, will you avoid that fate and perhaps go to heaven?

antiskeptic

IF you are one of the lost (whether religious or irreligious)

AND you don't repent (where failure to repent = resisting God's attempt to bring you to repentence)

THEN you will go to hell.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF you are one of the lost (whether religious or irreligious)

AND you don't repent (where failure to repent = resisting God's attempt to bring you to repentence)

THEN you will go to hell.

And if you do repent?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

And if you do repent?

I’ve a really faint memory of saying some repentance-related stuff when I was eight or ten. No idea what exactly it was at this remove, but I’m sure I meant it at the time and I suppose god would remember, wouldn’t (s)he?

Looks like eternity with protestant fundamentalists for me :eek:

antiskeptic

MarkHamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I didn't say his saving a person was arbitrary. I said his saving a person wasn't based on their works.

If God decides, without any respect to what someone does, to save that person then how is it not arbitrary?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. I didn't say that God doesn't care what you do post salvation. Just that sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation.

If sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation, then what form does god "caring" take?

Works can be defined as ' following, by act of a persons own will, the the prescribed/ believed to be prescribed ordinances of a system (or their own interpretation of a system) in order to obtain the reward associated with having followed them'.

Yet, you can have not 'worked' a jot in your life and be saved in a second. An athiest up to the point of salvation can't have worked, can they?

God works. He works by utilising the effects of your sin in your life. Sin brings pain (the stick unbelievers no nothing about). Pain's function is always to tell you that something is up.


He also, on the positive side (the carrot unbelievers know nothing about) works on the longing within you (if you long) for things to be as they ought to be: fair, equitable, joyous, worry free...

(If you've ever looked at all the locks we employ: our cars, our houses, our wheelie bins (a burglar once used them to scale our garden wall), our lock-ers, our bicycles, our smartphones, our bank accounts .. and yearned for a place where locks weren't required. Well, He works with that.)

If the pain becomes too great. If the longing becomes too unbearable. Then what?

-

On God's caring about a (now) child self/others harm?

You're probably more interested in the effect on the believing sinner than the effect on God. Right?

1. The first effect is the ordinary effect. Sin causes trouble. I, a believer, rob a bank I go to jail. I sleep with someone other than my wife I feel guilt and shame .. and if she finds out she might leave me. I drink to excess, I get fat or get cirrhosis of the liver. Normal, everyday stuff.

I say 'guilt, shame' above. I'd feel the same guilt and shame for cheating on my wife as an unbeliever who feels guilt and shame for cheating on his wife.

But I'd have an additional problem: my father. I'd have cheated on him as well.

(You'll know, if you watch football, the chagrin of a defender hoofing a dangerous crossed ball into his own net?

A believer sinning is like a defender, knowingly, willingly, hoofing a ball into their own net.)


When saved you realise there are two distinct and separate sides: good and evil. And that somehow, you've been transferred to the side of good.

A believer sinning is, effectively, taking a bribe from the other side to score an own goal.

Then again, I'm a sinner. That drug still flows through my veins. God knows this too .. and doesn't condemn

We might, for instance, know Nike scores zero on the scale of corporate responsibility. We nevertheless fall for the ad-men manipulation, the bribe referred to above, parking the inconvenient wider, ugly truth for the desire of the present.

As Robin Williams noted: we don't want Ms. Right. We want Ms. Right Now.

Tension thus:

- no condemnation from God. Just a father distraught at the self harm/harm to others.

-no peace when I rush headlong down the path of sin.

Nobelium

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

This is exactly the type of rubbish "saved" "Pastor" Billy Wright (aka King Rat), leader of the LVF used to preach when the LVF were busy murdering people.

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

This is exactly the type of rubbish "saved" "Pastor" Billy Wright (aka King Rat), leader of the LVF used to preach when the LVF were busy murdering people.

Then my last post is for you. The context of the post you quote is 'have to not sin/follow rules .. in order to be and remain saved.'

I.e. no works or rule following is involved in salvation.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

And if you do repent?

Saved.


You're presumably casting around for a rule to follow, a carrot and a stick?

Jesus told a man once "You must be born again" to which the man replied "How can a man be born again when he is old?" Jesus goes on to tell him that it is a work done by the Spirit (God).

Repentence is the same. God is the one who does the work. He parlays the effects of our evil desire and acts (which produces pain for us) and good desire and acts (which produce both pleasure and agony) in the attempt to drive us to the stage where we have no place to go for a solution but utterly on our knees before him.
That's repentance. Utter surrender of reliance on self direction.

The person themselves can't do anything (in the sense of wilful intent a.k.a. work) to produce that repentence. It might be facsimile repentence: a religious attempt genuine or otherwise.
There might be everyday 'repentance' for a wrong done (e.g. robindchs 10 year old 'repentance'). But this one, the one that saves, is wholesale, a from the bottom of your boots up, turning to (a perhaps unbelieved in at that point) God. A surrender of the rebellion.

Only God can bring about that 'defeat' for we will resist to the last the prospect of death of self.

(When all that the surrender and death of old self means is that we get born again ☺)

All the person can contribute by way of will is.. resistance. And if that resistance is sufficient then defeat won't happen, neither will the white flag be raised (repentance) and neither will salvation.

God will attempt to save. He won't force it.

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

Carrots and sticks are for donkeys, evangelists and bible bashers. Those who shout 'repent or go to hell' at anyone who has a contrary opinion to their own are by and large treated as nutters in this day and age. Where they're shouting it at the gay community, hateful nutters. This 'turn or burn' or 'get sanctified or get french fried' style of Christianity has long since had its day.

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion that any impartial onlooker that hadn't been raised in the bible belt would see through this carrot and stick religion for what it really is and reject it on that basis. A more moderate Christian emphasizing the more communal nature of their religion might make a better argument, but the reward of an afterlife for good behaviour is still a hard sell.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

Carrots and sticks are for donkeys, evangelists and bible bashers. Those who shout 'repent or go to hell' at anyone who has a contrary opinion to their own are by and large treated as nutters in this day and age. Where they're shouting it at the gay community, hateful nutters. This 'turn or burn' or 'get sanctified or get french fried' style of Christianity has long since had its day.

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion that any impartial onlooker that hadn't been raised in the bible belt would see through this carrot and stick religion for what it really is and reject it on that basis. A more moderate Christian emphasizing the more communal nature of their religion might make a better argument, but the reward of an afterlife for good behaviour is still a hard sell.

No rebuttal! Looks like we've established a substantial differentiation for our enquiry into same.

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

The idea that this child who was brought up with no knowledge of religion thereby becomes impervious to the very idea of God seems to run counter to the whole missionary aspect of Christianity.

The idea is that everyone is born antagonistic to God - whether they've heard of him or not.

The missionary heads off on the basis of that. He knows the default position from the get go.

I'm at a loss as to why Antiskeptic is so clearly unable to engage with that scenario to explain why he finds his religion convincing, just as missionaries have been doing for thousands of years, ie, what would he say to convert this young adult who is now asking questions.

Your confusing the attempt of a missionary to engage with a partial onlooker (the default antagonist) with the OP's suggestion that there can be an impartial onlooker to judge things.

The OP hasn't really progressed with the engineering drawings from which this impartial onlooker is to be constructed. He's suspended it from sky hooks and doesn't appear to be able to say to what the sky hooks are attached.

Seems like a lot of twisting and turning.

Arising out of your conflating two types of onlookers it would seem.

Nobelium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then my last post is for you. The context of the post you quote is 'have to not sin/follow rules .. in order to be and remain saved.'

I.e. no works or rule following is involved in salvation.

So as long as you believe God has declared you to be saved, you can rape rob and murder all you wish ?

Do you see the problem with your logic here and the manifesto of Pastor Billy Wright and the LVF ?

robindch

Here's the splendid Kenneth Copland speaking with a reporter a day or two back about his newest private jet. Kenneth is most certainly saved and I'd imagine that he believes that this guarantees him a seat at the high table with his god for all eternity. Not so sure what the deity might feel about that.

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1134509543612911617

realitykeeper

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

A Christian`s belief is based on faith, not proof. However we can hypothesize on whether or not there is a God who sacrificed his son for us. If it is true, we owe God and that debt needs to be repaid by being self sacrificing ourselves, in other words by loving God and each other.

Sure you can say we don`t know for certain that God exists because we don`t have empirical evidence but that is not a valid excuse if God`s sacrifice did happen. I mean suppose a building collapsed following an earthquake and the rescuers were not sure if there was anyone buried beneath the rubble, they would/should check just in case. If the rescuers don`t bother going to all the trouble of looking because there might be nobody there, that is not something they would be thanked for, especially not by anyone buried in the rubble.

Also, I think there are definite snippets of wisdom in the bible. After all, trust (faith) is better than mistrust and love is better than hate.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

The idea is that everyone is born antagonistic to God - whether they've heard of him or not.

The missionary heads off on the basis of that. He knows the default position from the get go.

Your confusing the attempt of a missionary to engage with a partial onlooker (the default antagonist) with the OP's suggestion that there can be an impartial onlooker to judge things.

The OP hasn't really progressed with the engineering drawings from which this impartial onlooker is to be constructed. He's suspended it from sky hooks and doesn't appear to be able to say to what the sky hooks are attached.

Arising out of your conflating two types of onlookers it would seem.

So basically you're saying that because the OP hasn't constructed a satisfactory hypothetical observer (satisfactory to you) for his question, you refuse to engage with the basic question which is perfectly clear from the thread title?

And you think that sort of silly pedantry will do anything other than discredit Christian belief and Christian believers in general? Really?