Re: I feel like college is changing my friend
EDIT: Full post didn't go through before. Thank goodness my browser remembered what I'd typed...
[[wow]], lots to respond to. I've categorized by name and post for ease of reference...
Slender (#276): I don't mean this in a mean way at all, but you are probably at risk of giving incredible offense to both Muslims and Christians by suggesting that Muhammad is basically the Muslim version of Jesus. That said, the points of convergence (and divergence) between the two faiths are interesting—but way beyond the scope of this discussion.#
Draco (#269): Agreed. More harm has been done to the witness of the Christian church by "Christians" than by any other group. THere's a reason Jesus' harshest words were reserved for the religious leaders of His day...
Quanin (#270): To your two points:
1. To be honest, I can think of a lot worse things that so-called Christians have done, and was expecting one of those to be why you're turned off. What was it about this encounter that bothered you so much? Consider from the Christian's perspective: suppose I had been diagnosed with a fatal disease, and then I found a doctor who could cure it. Now I have the prospect of a long, healthy life. Then I'm walking along the street, and I encounter someone else with that same disease. Wouldn't it be appropriate of me to refer that person to the doctor who treated me? Wouldn't it be easier to find fault with someone who keeps this doctor's information to him or herself?
2. Your premise assumes that because we cannot know truth, there is no truth. But if the Christian conviction (or insert whatever other religious conviction you choose) is correct, then there is an absolute urgency to sharing that truth, and it does in fact matter. Your claim that it doesn't matter is only true if, in fact, none of these claims are true—in which case you're making a truth-claim as exclusive as any religion's. Moreover, you say that God isn't speaking. But for the Christian, God has spoken, and continues to speak through His written Word (the Bible) and His incarnate Word (Jesus). My wife described a meme to me this week, which featured the text: "Complaining that God doesn't speak, while your Bible closed, be like complaining you getting no texts when your phone off."
Nocturnus (#272): You speak of being convinced; this is the essence of faith. The Christian believes because they believe, and to the one who doesn't believe, there's no way of explaining that total confidence. Which is why we hold to the conviction that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and not something we can come to by human reason. I wish there was a way to transmit or convey the reality of that confidence, but for whatever reason, that's not the plan. Appreciate what you're saying here.
Trajectory (#274): You didn't address me specifically but I wanted to chime in on your question, as the topic of suffering is one of the most challenging questions for Christians, and is one that I have done a lot of thinking and reading about. The frustrating (but also in a strange way comforting) fact is that the Bible gives no easy answers. It doesn't try to put a pretty bow on this issue. The book of Job is the best example. But one important point is that those who receive mercy are no more or less deserving to receive it than those who don't. Paul makes this point in either Romans or Hebrews (I can look up the reference if anyone's interested), basically saying God shows mercy to whomever He chooses, with no constraints upon that choice. He uses the example of a potter and says it's a potter's right to make some vessels for honorable purposes, while others are made to be used and thrown away. So the answer Paul gives (and really the answer the book of Job gives too) isn't actually an answer, but rather a perspective shift as we remember we are creatures, and not the Creator. But I'm grateful that Scripture gives us a picture of a God who accepts our questioning, and desires for us to dialogue with Him about these things, and even complain to Him when He doesn't seem to be honoring His side of the bargain. Because as a sovereign being, He certainly doesn't owe us any explanation, or even an audience, so the fact He grants us the freedom to voice our complaints is pretty incredible.
(Aside: Great answer in #280, Nocturnus. I love your point about objective morality.)
Andy (#275): I actually want to disagree with your theology ever so slightly. You say "No living thing is created homosexual." But I would contend that, even if you posit that the Bible depicts homosexual activity as sinful, this doesn't mean no being is created homosexual, any more than it means no living being is created prideful, or lustful, or with a tendency toward greed, or with a propensity for anger, and so on. Is it a choice to act on any of these impulses? Of course it is. But are the impulses, which manifest themselves differently for different people, part of our fallen human nature? Absolutely. I love the quote from Rosaria Butterfield (who everyone should track down on Youtube if you have the chance) in return to the question: "How do you address the claim that homosexuals are born that way?" She answers, "What Christians have lost is the ability to say confidently that we are all born 'that way'—but everyone's 'that way' looks different." So I think the whole question of whether or not people are born gay is, from a theological perspective, actually a bit of a red herring.
CAE_Jones (#279): You're driving at a really interesting point here. In Semitic thinking especially, everything was ultimately God's responsibility. To be clear, God would never do evil—but the ancient Jewish people didn't have as much trouble locating the fact that evil happens within the plan of an all-good, all-sovereign God. Whenever the satan acts, His activity is ultimately incorporated into God's sovereign purpose. Regarding the question of free will versus divine sovereignty, this is definitely a mystery and a paradox, but one sister in Christ said something that I find fascinating: the Bible always talks about people outside of Christ as being slaves to sin, and Christ sets them free. If we take this metaphor seriously, we could conclude that only the person who is in Christ actually has "free" will. Freedom from (sin) but also freedom to (choose to act in ways that honor God). If that's the case, then the question of free will is moot because humanity's will is not free, but rather is enslaved to sin—which I think jives with the texts you're quoting. Obviously this is a very complex issue that books and dissertations have been written on, and I'm just scratching the surface. Thoughts?
Nocturnus (#281): Carrying this on...an interesting question, that gets us to the heart of what we mean by "free will": does God have free will? Can God choose to act contrary to His holy nature? The answer, I assume, is no. In which case, when we say "free will" we mean freedom to choose between different possible actions, but only wherein those actions are consistent with one's nature. Could there be a connection here to what I'm saying above, about the nature of humanity outside Christ, versus the nature of humanity regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Just thinking out loud at this point. Really loving the back-and-forth between you two, by the way.
Mirage (#291): Major thumbs up. Dialogue for the win!
Mayana (#293): I think we talked about this earlier, but I think we can safely say that either proving or disproving God's existence is a doomed venture from the start. If we set out to prove or disprove with natural science, we cannot hope to prove or disprove the supernatural. If we set out to prove or disprove with human reason, we cannot hope to prove or disprove the superhuman.
Daigonite (#295 and 299): I still respectfully contend that humanism is ultimately without a satisfactory foundation. Tell me why I should care about the human race, without appealing to anything outside of humanism? Given your naturalistic perspective on free will, why would you contend that any particular actions should be prohibited? Just because they are not advantageous toward the continued wellbeing and survival of the human race? What makes that a goal worth pursuing?
Quick chime in on the overall topic of "Why should we care about people's sexuality?" I think for the most part the Christian church has gotten their order of priorities backwards and has fallen into a habit of trying to shape the world according to Christian principles, while rejecting the underlying Christian principle that, outside of Christ, no one can live a life pleasing to God. So yeah—the church has every right to ask questions about the morality of what its members engage in. It makes no sense, however, for the church to spend time trying to tell people outside of Christ that anything they're doing is right or wrong, if we acknowledge that outside of Christ, people are slaves to sin in the first place, and therefore will continue to be enslaved to sin in general until Christ liberates them. So basicall, yeah, we've kind of got our priorities mixed up, a lot of the time.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
