How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Solace

I gladly entertain atheists regularly, as I find that a good bit of what they have to say is far more pertinent than what religious folk talk about. But yes, some of them do take their convictions to a whole new level of persistence. I recently compared what one atheist on this site was saying to what the very relgious people he despised were saying, that the similarities between how they represent their respective points of view were remarkable. But, shall we say, less hard-nosed atheism is more about taking a skeptical view of God's existence rather than insisting vehemently that God does not, or even, cannot exist.

So do you consider those hard nose 'atheists' true atheists? If so then atheists are not skeptics. Perhapse they are not atheists but antitheists. Atheist is more indicative of not anti-god sentiment but avoidence of religous conviction and embracement religous and moral skepticism. Antitheism would indicate the assertion of no god as opposed to the opposite assertion that all of theism makes. What do you say to this?

[boagie]

Solace,

Try to appreciate, that this favoured premise of a personal god which is generally quite detailed, the acception, his toiletry habits are not shared with us. This is as likely as any other flight of the imagination to become real. That which is without foundation, has the same probablity of manifestation as, that which is without foundation----------no surprises here!

[Didymos Thomas]

There were responses to the original question, yes, but I saw no attempt to justify the scripture, just attempts to deflect responsibility for claiming to believe the scriptures by ignoring those scriptures that cast the original doubt into the mind of the person who started the thread. And it is a doubt that is shared by many.

Then I encourage you to reread the posts. No one attempted to 'deflect responsibility'. When faced with such an accusation from boagie, I responded - you can refer to those arguments if you like.

As for the message being for everyone, I could quote another scripture, "Many have been called, few have been chosen." Yes, the message is for everyone, but that doesn't mean that everyone is meant to understand it.

And your quote would only support the fact that not everyone will understand, so what's the point?

Dirt and stone and air and water and trees and animals, and so on and so forth, also comprise the world. There's nothing in the verse that signifies that God was making a distinction, nor that he wasn't making one.

And so man would be included.

As you say, in the OT the term was "God's chosen people". Do we assume that because of the New Testament God no longer chooses who is or isn't his child? If so, then let me remind you about the "few have been chosen" part. That's from the New Testament. If it doesn't make you different from others to be God's child, then why call yourself Christian? Why bother with a label, a distinction?

God didn't chose or leave out any humans from being his children, even in the OT. Instead, some of his children were his chosen people - those who worshipped him.

From scripture, I would argue that everyone is the child of God. To be a Christian would be to turn to that scripture for guidance.

If everyone at the outset is a child of god, what need then of the totalalitarian ambitions of Christianity, or any world religion for that matter. What they don't embrace they must smite, a lot of smiting going on

There isn't such a need - instead, there is the abuse of teachings by some. This abuse is a terrible shame, but not a "need" that Christianity has.

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things as a meaningful unity" - Albert Einstein

Nietzsche said something very similar to this in "The AntiChrist". I think they're right.

I agree with boagie. And it suggests that Christians don't actually believe that everyone is God's child, they just like to pretend they do. Cause, hey, we don't want to offend you while we smite you.

Right, because I so often smite people.

Seriously, Solace. These sorts of accusations are useless.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

I gladly entertain atheists regularly, as I find that a good bit of what they have to say is far more pertinent than what religious folk talk about. But yes, some of them do take their convictions to a whole new level of persistence. I recently compared what one atheist on this site was saying to what the very relgious people he despised were saying, that the similarities between how they represent their respective points of view were remarkable. But, shall we say, less hard-nosed atheism is more about taking a skeptical view of God's existence rather than insisting vehemently that God does not, or even, cannot exist.

Couldn't that also be called agnosticism?

[Didymos Thomas]

This talk of atheism - the word is understood in different ways. In some schemes of categorizing atheists, agnostics are considered atheists.

[Zetetic11235]

It seems that the system is not gradiated enough how about this:
Antitheists-complete denial of a the possibility of a god
Atheism-chooses not to believe on the grounds of no proof or need
Agnostic-believes that god is likely but that we cannot know his nature and remains skeptical of god
pantheist- believes in a higher order and the teachings available by spiritual leaders and groups but has no set rules in his beliefs
Defined Theist- Has chosen a specific religion to follow as a guide for how to live one's life but sees it as open to reasonable interperetation
Fundamental theist- Believes in the direct and literal translation as applied today and holds staunchly to it.

Just an idea, every now and then terms need a purposeful redefining if only in this thread alone.

[Didymos Thomas]

As long as we are willing to clarify our use of these terms, I don't see the point in developing a particular system for them.

[Solace]

Then I encourage you to reread the posts. No one attempted to 'deflect responsibility'. When faced with such an accusation from boagie, I responded - you can refer to those arguments if you like.

Can you provide a link to a post in this thread that said anything pertinent about the list of things mephistopheles pointed out in his original post? Something that actually directly adresses the issues, that is, and doesn't brush it off.

And your quote would only support the fact that not everyone will understand, so what's the point?

Point being God knows full well who will understand the message, and if understanding the message is relevant to being God's child, which I should hope it is, elsewise God cultivates ignorant children, then preordination of salvation is the only reasonable catalyst.

And so man would be included.

And so any of the elements which make up the world could have been included or excluded, we simply don't know. It's presumption either way.

God didn't chose or leave out any humans from being his children, even in the OT. Instead, some of his children were his chosen people - those who worshipped him.

If God didn't choose who his people were, then why were they called his Chosen People? Who is doing the choosing here? If you're going to say the people, then you're suggesting that there's absolutely no divinity involved in the decision at all, and that, in fact, the Jews being God's Chosen People was just a wild claim made by the Jews, supposing to impose their will upon God.

From scripture, I would argue that everyone is the child of God. To be a Christian would be to turn to that scripture for guidance.

From scripture I can show you that everyone is most certainly not the child of God. New Testament scripture says outright that most people are, in fact, the children of the Devil. Not to put too fine a point on it, actually, if you read that New Testament scripture you'll quickly realize that, according to the scripture, you probably don't actually know anybody who fits the criteria for being a child of God, but everyone you know very easily fits the criteria for being a child of the Devil. But hey, if you don't like what the scripture says you can go right ahead and do what just about everyone that I've shown this scripture has done, you can just ignore it. Christians are good at ignoring things that they don't like which are written in the Bible.

[Didymos Thomas]

Can you provide a link to a post in this thread that said anything pertinent about the list of things mephistopheles pointed out in his original post? Something that actually directly adresses the issues, that is, and doesn't brush it off.

See the 4th and 15th posts for direct responses. Further discussion can also be found by reading subsequent posts.

I would also consider your first post in the thread a direct response, which is why I thanked you for it.

Point being God knows full well who will understand the message, and if understanding the message is relevant to being God's child, which I should hope it is, elsewise God cultivates ignorant children, then preordination of salvation is the only reasonable catalyst.

Why is understanding the message relevant to being a child of God? God does not cultivate children - parents and society do that.

The issue was whether or not the Word was for everyone. If you want to talk about salvation, that is another issue and not limited to listening to or understanding some of the Word.

And so any of the elements which make up the world could have been included or excluded, we simply don't know. It's presumption either way.

No it isn't. Let's go back to the quote:

"For God so loved the world"

The world. The passage does not contain any qualifiers to exclude any part of the world, therefore it is most reasonable to conclude that no part of the world is excluded.

The only way you could possibly continue with the idea that man is somehow excluded from 'the world' in this context is to ignore the context of the passage. Here it is:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Obviously, belief is something men do/have, not rocks or trees. Not only are men included in 'the world', men are the focus of the phrase.

Next time you refer to scripture, consider the context of the phrase you use. Selecting half lines to focus on, while ignoring context, can provide justification for damn near anything. It's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity.

If God didn't choose who his people were, then why were they called his Chosen People?

God, of the Old Testament, did chose his people. They are refered to as the Chosen People and are the Jews. However, Chosen People is not equivilant to children of god. This is evident in the fact that Jesus did not limit his audience to Jews, the Chosen People, yet still lead his audience in prayer "Our father".

If you're going to say the people, then you're suggesting that there's absolutely no divinity involved in the decision at all, and that, in fact, the Jews being God's Chosen People was just a wild claim made by the Jews, supposing to impose their will upon God.

Only if we make the mistake of taking the text literally. We are spekaing of scripture, with figurative language. Allegory.

From scripture I can show you that everyone is most certainly not the child of God. New Testament scripture says outright that most people are, in fact, the children of the Devil. Not to put too fine a point on it, actually, if you read that New Testament scripture you'll quickly realize that, according to the scripture, you probably don't actually know anybody who fits the criteria for being a child of God, but everyone you know very easily fits the criteria for being a child of the Devil. But hey, if you don't like what the scripture says you can go right ahead and do what just about everyone that I've shown this scripture has done, you can just ignore it. Christians are good at ignoring things that they don't like which are written in the Bible.

Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible.

In any case, if you'd like to compare notes on scripture, I'm game. Jesus is pretty clear about the issue in the Synoptic Gospels. John takes a different stance and contradicts the other three. The commentary following the Gospels is all over the place. I prefer to rely on the words attributed to Jesus, and go with which ever opinion is most agreed upon by the authors of the Gospels.

Cherry picking snippets of scripture is pretty useless (as you have done so far with your quote from John 3:16).

[Solace]

Wow, it strikes me as remarkably short-sighted that you chastise me for "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" and then try to justify a faith to which you feel the need to add a qualifier "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible." So you practice selective Christianity then. If you agree with what's written in the scripture you believe it, but if the scripture calls into question your preset conclusions of how and what things are, you write it off as irrelevant. (And I'm not talking about stories that defy science, like the flood. I'm talking about passages that confront your notions of who and what God's children are, idealogy about their nature, and so on...) It's no wonder then that non-Christians look at professing Christians and scratch their heads. You say to them, read the Bible, you can learn something worth knowing, but just skip those passages that call into question my idealogy.