What's Wrong with Meeting People in Church or Through Family?

  • Thread starter progressivenerdgirl
  • Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
Faith, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, is defined as: "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


So you went with 2-b-1 without any consideration for primary definitions of the word.

You legitimately don't care about understanding whats going on here do you? You won't acknowledge anything that doesn't support your point of view. This is not a constructive way to debate, and more importantly it is not a constructive way to learn and grow.

Can you at least try to relate to why I asked what it was like in that little box of yours?

Irony of ironies that I'm seeing this in a thread about relationships. You will not be able to carry on relationships reasoning that way. Gotta get that empathy, that perspective, that consideration. This approach to interpersonal communication is just not functional.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
I think my next question would be, then, is what is the point of an arranged marriage? In previous centuries, including in the Bible, and even in some cultures now, arranged marriages are usually made for socioeconomic or political reasons. If arranged marriages within the Christian world is to ensure a godly marriage, I think I'd have to ask why I wouldn't be able to discern that for myself and why other people would be the ones to choose FOR me? Yes, I highly respect and value my parent's/family's/friend's opinions. In fact, I would find it hard to date someone my parents don't approve of simply because that would probably tip me off that something isn't right about the guy.

If I had to trust someone else's judgement on picking out a future husband for me, it'd probably be my brother, but even then, he's not the one who is making the commitment to this person for the rest of his life.

Could two Christian people make it if they were forced to marry? Sure. But I want my marriage to be based off of mutual understanding, trust, love, focus on God, etc. Perhaps it's the stubbornness in me, but I would not want my marriage to be based off of being forced to be together.
People can actually be pretty bad at deciding what is good for them, especially in the case of love. A third party offers better perspective.

Of course both are fallible, neither is necessarily better than the other.
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
-Martain Luther

That may also have been Martain Luthers position, or his 'table talks' (from which your quote is also derived) are forgeries (as some think). Either way, it doesn't add anything to your position.

My point in using the quote was to Illustrate the idea that the concept has been around long before it was labeled as Fideism.

Mathematical abstraction? If we must. A miracle described in mathematical abstraction is this:
Given A natrual force valued at 1 added to another natural force of 1 has a force of 2.
And
God has unlimited force and unlimited ability to act, and thus has a value of X. Normally, God takes no action, so X=0

In any situation we have the following:
1+1+X

Normally the result is 2. If God chooses to intervene the result will not be 2. If the result is not 2 God must have intervened.

That is a mathematical abstraction of the statement that a Miracle is

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

Using your terms, is it therefore Rational assume that X will equal anything other than 0? No. Hence my position. Its really not hard.

That is what a miracle is in scripture, and in normal English conversation. What you're talking about is something different than that, and has no real place in theology.

^I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here^

But what you're saying doesn't matter, because you are not talking about a miracle, you are merely using the word as a way to put your ideology places it does not work.

Actually, I'm hung up on having a 'functional' definition, one which is agreeable to people in general and publicly and officially accepted. This is the basis for intelligible communication.

Also, more importantly, I'm refusing to allow you to tirade your definitions around as if they where true.

My definitions?

In fact you do not have an interest in what is true, that has been brought to my attention recently and highlighted by your point blank refusal to deal with contradictions in your philosophy. Nor will you go back and address contradicitons in your own statements that I addressed last post. Perhaps we will touch on that later.

You didn't address mine, and the premise of yours is STILL a flawed misunderstanding of my position.

God governs reality. Imminently in fact. The above are all observations on how he chooses to govern it. You agree with that don't you? That is a very important question.

Yes, however it is the Observation of His "Governance" that allows us to ascribe rules to the conventions upon which we understand Reality. It in these conventions that we can make Rational and Reasonable choices. To suspend the conventions/rules/laws etc is to suspend Our Ability to Reason through the Observation of these Rules. It is Irrational to Trust that the Conventions will be suspended.


Search the word Miracle in whatever bible software you use. Also try signs and wonders for more OT hits. This is what we are discussing, and each miracle in scripture holds some exception to normal understanding of physics. The superlong day comes to mind as one of the most remarkable ones...

Absolutely, it is STILL Irrational to expect an Extra Long Day.

What a silly assumption, don't you realize by now that I know more about how these laws where formed, their implications, limits, uses, and problems than you? Despite being the same age I'm a tad better rounded than you.

By what measure? According to whom? Are you pulling this out of the same place you pulled the notion that Faith is a Rational belief in what cannot be proven?

Your premise on Faith was clearly contingent on your premise concerning miracles. If the foundations faulty don't go checking the roof for leaks when the house comes down. If you don't know what a miracle is you cannot justifiably talk about how miracles relate to faith.

I don't thing you understand the Epistemological limitation of your position

I did you the dignity of explaining why I did not address parts of your post, you said nothing as to weather you where or not in fact a fideist, nor did you adress my reasons for thinking you where. You certainly didn't take the time to deal with the apparent contradictions in your own statements on Gideon...

When Jesus was tested by Satan in the Desert, He specifically said It is written do not Put the Lord your God to the Test. Seems Legit enough for Jesus, also works for me too.

It is indeed possible. That does not however mean it will happen. It seems their fallacy is misapplication of scripture. Interestingly enough that is what I say your fallacy is. And while their mistake is lethal only to the body, the poison that strikes you is of the soul.

I still don't see any case where in having a Faith that relies primarily on Rational Skepticism is reasonable.

You completely ignored my Posts Concerning Doubt, which is by definition the Opposite of Faith. Doubt is motivating Factor for Testing God. Doubt is what moved Gideon to Test God.


Anyway, when having a discussion on matters like this it is best to build layer upon layer with agreements, and state when our presuppositions force differences that cannot be reconciled. Sharing definitions are quite critical in resolving a discussion, as they are the means of accurate communication.

Here I completely agree with you.

I will not allow you to dictate your own definitions any more than you should allow me to come in and define a miracle as tuna sandwich, and say that when scripture talks of miracles its really talking of tuna.

Well then, I guess we find ourselves in a place where we actually have to listen to each other instead of ignoring the points we don't agree with because the other person's premise is ridiculously silly.
And apparently my message is too short. <a first.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
I think my next question would be, then, is what is the point of an arranged marriage? In previous centuries, including in the Bible, and even in some cultures now, arranged marriages are usually made for socioeconomic or political reasons. If arranged marriages within the Christian world is to ensure a godly marriage, I think I'd have to ask why I wouldn't be able to discern that for myself and why other people would be the ones to choose FOR me? Yes, I highly respect and value my parent's/family's/friend's opinions. In fact, I would find it hard to date someone my parents don't approve of simply because that would probably tip me off that something isn't right about the guy.

If I had to trust someone else's judgement on picking out a future husband for me, it'd probably be my brother, but even then, he's not the one who is making the commitment to this person for the rest of his life.

Could two Christian people make it if they were forced to marry? Sure. But I want my marriage to be based off of mutual understanding, trust, love, focus on God, etc. Perhaps it's the stubbornness in me, but I would not want my marriage to be based off of being forced to be together.
This is good discussion Rachel...
Yet I wish to fine tune you thinking.... While you are using world think regarding the examinatoin of arranged marriage (which is ok) it is improper to reduce to Could two Christian people make it if they were forced to marry, because forced is the antithesis of Christianity. The idea of Christian arranged marriage still requires CONSENT of the parties to marry. Consent is required to enter into a contract or covenent otherwise it is NULL and invalid.
 

rachelsedge

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2012
3,659
79
48
33
People can actually be pretty bad at deciding what is good for them, especially in the case of love. A third party offers better perspective.

Of course both are fallible, neither is necessarily better than the other.
I agree with that. I had a friend whose boyfriend I did not approve of. None of her friends approved of him.He was manipulative, controlling, and really just not good. When she asked what I thought about him, I told her my honest opinion. It still took her a bit to break up with him, and she's much happier now that she has, but I do see your point in that some don't make smart decisions when they're in love.

That being said, neither one of them was really following God. I would imagine/hope that two people who are earnestly and honestly seeking God, both individually and together, would be able to discern for themselves whether their relationship was godly and able to move towards marriage, along with considering the wisdom of others who see their relationship.

This is good discussion Rachel...
Yet I wish to fine tune you thinking.... While you are using world think regarding the examinatoin of arranged marriage (which is ok) it is improper to reduce to Could two Christian people make it if they were forced to marry, because forced is the antithesis of Christianity. The idea of Christian arranged marriage still requires CONSENT of the parties to marry. Consent is required to enter into a contract or covenent otherwise it is NULL and invalid.
I suppose, then, that my understanding of an arranged marriage is skewed? You're saying that both parties must first consent? And if one says "no", what then? They find someone else to arrange them with?

That sounds an awful lot like dating. ;)
 

rachelsedge

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2012
3,659
79
48
33
I hope that ^^ didn't come off as snarky. Not my intention! I do think this discussion (even the discussions within this discussion, haha) is interesting. :)
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
My point in using the quote was to Illustrate the idea that the concept has been around long before it was labeled as Fideism.
Then quote Tretullian and be done with it. Luther isn't particularly early.



Using your terms, is it therefore Rational assume that X will equal anything other than 0? No. Hence my position. Its really not hard.
For God's sakes! If God says he'll intervene then its rational to assume he will intervene. His intervention is still a miracle.

Can you at least admit to that? How much plainer can I say it?


My definitions?
If people expect it, then its not miraculous, its natural.
This is an extension to the definition of a miracle, don't tell me you've forgotten your own words on the matter.


You didn't address mine, and the premise of yours is STILL a flawed misunderstanding of my position.
The only thing I didn't address was that which was laid on a faulty premise. We can go back to that once the premise is fixed.
Yes, however it is the Observation of His "Governance" that allows us to ascribe rules to the conventions upon which we understand Reality. It in these conventions that we can make Rational and Reasonable choices. To suspend the conventions/rules/laws etc is to suspend Our Ability to Reason through the Observation of these Rules. It is Irrational to Trust that the Conventions will be suspended.
Ok, I have to ask, do you know the difference between philosophical naturalism and rationalism? It really seems like you don't. Lets pick this apart....

Yes, however it is the Observation of His "Governance" that allows us to ascribe rules to the conventions upon which we understand Reality.
Observation of the physical world allows predictions. Yes? We can agree to that.

It in these conventions that we can make Rational and Reasonable choices.
Observation of the natural world is the only way to make rational and reasonable decisions.

Naturalism says yes to this. Rationalism and every other epistemologicall construct in existence says no to this.

You are hereby ardently advocating naturalism. This is a problem, this is the problem I'm saying you have.
To suspend the conventions/rules/laws etc is to suspend Our Ability to Reason through the Observation of these Rules.
Only in ardent naturalism. Not in any other philosophy of reason.

It is Irrational to Trust that the Conventions will be suspended.
Only in ardent naturalism. Not in any other philosophy of reason.


So the problem is, as I said before; you are a naturalist first, and a Christian second. To you naturism is de-facto reasonable therefore Christianity is de-facto unreasonable.

You are serving two masters, and Christ is second.

Absolutely, it is STILL Irrational to expect an Extra Long Day.
This is because you are a naturalist first, and a Christian second.

By what measure? According to whom? Are you pulling this out of the same place you pulled the notion that Faith is a Rational belief in what cannot be proven?
Faith is evidence of things you can't see. You've misquoted my notion. Evidence presupposes rational convictions. Better rounded by the measure that I know your ideas, I know where they come from and generally how they arose. What circumstances brought them in and out and back into favour. You're still talking as if naturalism was the only reasonable approach to reason, which is incredibly narrow even by today's standards.

I don't thing you understand the Epistemological limitation of your position
That's interesting. You in fact do not properly know what an epistemological limitation is... In fact I'd be surprised if you in fact could say what my system of epistemology is, much less state its limitations.


When Jesus was tested by Satan in the Desert, He specifically said It is written do not Put the Lord your God to the Test. Seems Legit enough for Jesus, also works for me too.
Yes, that references Deuteronomy 6:16, which in turn references Exodus 17:7. Despite all they'd been though they doubted God was with them and would provide for them. Yet nothing was spoken against Gideon, nor do any of these passages speak directly of faith. They do indirectly in either of our philosophies, but that's not really important now I think.

I still don't see any case where in having a Faith that relies primarily on Rational Skepticism is reasonable.
You're calling skepticism rational now? Certainly it isn't (weather you mean modern skepticism or classical)


You completely ignored my Posts Concerning Doubt, which is by definition the Opposite of Faith. Doubt is motivating Factor for Testing God. Doubt is what moved Gideon to Test God.
Yes, doubt opposes faith, and can be a factor for testing God. It was in Exodus 17.

But what did Gideon doubt? It seems he doubted himself, that he would be the one to save his people. God was not angry with him, and he is a mighty man of Faith.

Flat disbelief or mistrust is the opposite of faith though. One can have both doubt and faith, they are not polar opposites.



But to the point. You are a naturalist. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do you agree with that assessment? You assert that reason comes from observation of nature and anything arrived at by other means or excluding those means is unreasonable.

And further, do you understand that other systems of reason do and have ever existed?
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
I agree with that. I had a friend whose boyfriend I did not approve of. None of her friends approved of him.He was manipulative, controlling, and really just not good. When she asked what I thought about him, I told her my honest opinion. It still took her a bit to break up with him, and she's much happier now that she has, but I do see your point in that some don't make smart decisions when they're in love.

That being said, neither one of them was really following God. I would imagine/hope that two people who are earnestly and honestly seeking God, both individually and together, would be able to discern for themselves whether their relationship was godly and able to move towards marriage, along with considering the wisdom of others who see their relationship.



I suppose, then, that my understanding of an arranged marriage is skewed? You're saying that both parties must first consent? And if one says "no", what then? They find someone else to arrange them with?

That sounds an awful lot like dating. ;)
Yes, I agree that if two people are seeking God they will be able to discern for themselves weather a relationship is good or not.

Arranged marriage comes in many forms, the parties being forced together is the exception rather than the rule, though normally pressure to be together is quite high.

I brought the topic of arranged marriages to this thread, though I never actually advocated them over any other method. I dislike excessively prolonged dating (as people tend to do nowdays) but I have no gripe with any method of a marriage forming.

Some arranged marriage setups I've heard of actually include some dating (arranged of course).


Oh, that last part of your post was at Barelygurl. I'm going to leave what I wrote though, as it seems to contribute to the discussion.
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
I suppose, then, that my understanding of an arranged marriage is skewed? You're saying that both parties must first consent? And if one says "no", what then? They find someone else to arrange them with?

That sounds an awful lot like dating. ;)
Naw... I do not think you are snarky at all. :)

I spose your understanding might be a little skewed and perhaps my communicating could use a little polish. What I mean is... regarding arranged marriage... the parties bride and groom... have previously consented to participate in an arranged marriage situation.... by consenting to allow someone else (parents, church, friend, service provider, etc.) to select a suitable partner/mate vs. being subjected to threatened, beguiled, forced or tricked into a performing a wedding ceremony with someone against their will. Is that better?

I would like to add that marriage was instituted by God... long before christianity was born... and God does approve of and bless unblievers' marriages... it is strictly to the believer who is admonished to be certain to marry another believer... willfully ignoring that will bring chastening for rebellion against the dictates of God.

Modern American dating practices are truly training grounds for DIVORCE as the parties make temporary commitments and them break them when difficulty comes... on to the next dating partner and so on... this is much closer defined as practicing how to break up than how to have a healthy relationship that honors God.

Oh.. I did want to ADD that most all arranged marriages would include some personal interaction to become aquainted but the purpose is not to test for compatabilty prior to consenting... rather to get acquainted before having the wedding ceremony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
But to the point. You are a naturalist. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do you agree with that assessment? You assert that reason comes from observation of nature and anything arrived at by other means or excluding those means is unreasonable.

And further, do you understand that other systems of reason do and have ever existed?





And I thought I was condescending. Snarky streak aside.

I never suggested that God was angry with Gideon or Thomas. Yes, I am familiar with the History of Western Thought.

Rational Skepticism is just another term for Scientific Skepticism or Modern Empiricism. But if you think that Rational Skepticism has something to do with Descartes, then perhaps it is you who fails the criterion of understanding other schools of thought.

I have made no claim that Christianity is Unreasonable. It is precisely because Unconditional Love is irrespective of the necessity of reason that I believe in it. I am commanded to Love my Neighbor as myself, insofar as I acknowledge that everyone is my neighbor, the command remains unconditional. I do not need to formulate a reason to love my neighbor, rather my relationship with my neighbor as a practicing Christian is one of unconditional love. This corresponds to my relationship with God, for whatever I've done to the least of these I have done unto Him.

Similarly Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. To claim that my Faith was contingent upon the Verification of my hope and the visibility of what I cannot see, is to place a criteria between my belief and the action that my belief requires of me. When I test God, whether for reassurance of His authority or to verify the validity of His sovereignty, I do so out of Doubt. Not so that I can better execute His Command.


My earlier attempts at establishing a dialogue concerning the reasonable proposition that Doubt is a default setting which is to be overcome by Faith (X=0), seemed to backfire into being called a Naturalist. I was merely hoping to illustrate using material means that which is immaterial. If we could prove God’s existence through evidence or reason, then Faith would be unnecessary. That is what makes the Day of the Lord such a frightening concept.


When I was talking about Epistemological positions, I was referring to your idea about where I was coming from. That any further explanation I would have would be simply interpreted as an extension of Naturalism. To this I can't say that you will necessarily even now think that I am not a naturalist, but frankly its irrelevant to this discussion or my position, or your interpretation of my position.

I understand where you are coming from. God is Lord of nature and a Miracle is simply God being God. I don't disagree with you in this respect. I do disagree with what can be infered by the implication that miracles exist. but that is a discussion for another day.

I don't care if you call me a Fideist, just don't call me an Evidentialist or a Foundationalist. Contextualism is key in everything.
 

my_adonai_

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
818
22
0
32
What does God say about it? we make preparations and everything, but if GOD gives a go ahead, whether it be online, in secret etc etc and ooh please note that if YOU truly are SURE that it is GOD who gave the GO ahed. then GO AHEAD.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
I never suggested that God was angry with Gideon or Thomas. Yes, I am familiar with the History of Western Thought.
There is no evidence that Gideon actually lacked faith in God. My statement that God was not angry with him was a sidenote, but still the only thing you adressed.

Rational Skepticism is just another term for Scientific Skepticism or Modern Empiricism. But if you think that Rational Skepticism has something to do with Descartes, then perhaps it is you who fails the criterion of understanding other schools of thought.
Of course, but no one had suggested such a method of inquiry, and I was poking fun at your bringing it up. Plus the side implication of your statement, if you re-read what you wrote, was that skepticism was reasonable in the first place.
I have made no claim that Christianity is Unreasonable.
Other than, you know, the love of God being irrational, miracles being de-facto irrational, and faith being de-facto irrational... The first alone is a core foundation of Christianity which you've deemed unreasonable.

It is precisely because Unconditional Love is irrespective of the necessity of reason that I believe in it.
Well you've rephrased, earlier you said that it was unreasonable. I assume this is closer to what you actually believe though.

I am commanded to Love my Neighbor as myself, insofar as I acknowledge that everyone is my neighbor, the command remains unconditional.
Yes.

I do not need to formulate a reason to love my neighbor, rather my relationship with my neighbor as a practicing Christian is one of unconditional love. This corresponds to my relationship with God, for whatever I've done to the least of these I have done unto Him.
You do not need to formulate a reason only because God has given you many. Foremost because he has commanded it, and as a Christian you agree to serve him. Also because you know he loves them, so you should love them too, because you know that how you behave reflects how He will judge you, because you seek to promote His Kingdom and that is a means too it.

There are many reasons for unconditional love, they are painted all over scripture. How could you see otherwise.

Similarly Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. To claim that my Faith was contingent upon the Verification of my hope and the visibility of what I cannot see, is to place a criteria between my belief and the action that my belief requires of me.
Yes, we may have faith because he is faithful. Where he treacherous would faith in him be good?

When I test God, whether for reassurance of His authority or to verify the validity of His sovereignty, I do so out of Doubt. Not so that I can better execute His Command.
But he shows his faithfulness freely and abundantly without asking or testing. Such is the nature of a faithful God.

Consider Gideon and Thomas if you will. Gideon asked God for a sign when he was called, before he had reason to believe he would save his people, and he is a great man of Faith. Thomas asked God for another sign after walking with him for years and seeing many signs, and so is called having little faith.

My earlier attempts at establishing a dialogue concerning the reasonable proposition that Doubt is a default setting which is to be overcome by Faith (X=0),
Yes, and I asserted that doubt is neutral, as you said X=0. Disbeleif is the opposite of faith, X<-1 while faith is faith X>1. Though that oversimplifies, as one can have a mixture of faith and doubt, indeed one can have a mix of faith and doubt and outright disbelief.
seemed to backfire into being called a Naturalist.
Your stances on rationality are why I called you a naturalist. You wrote a paragraph on how Observation (you capitalized it even, so clearly it was an important word for you) allows us to rationally understand things. You went further to state how excluding observation and the conventions based solely on observation also excludes reasonable inquiry. Therefore things not based on observation are irrational.

This is what you wrote.

This is what epistamological naturalism is.

This is why I called you a naturalist.

If I must make it clear one more time. I called you a naturalist because you explained your philosophy of reason and it lines up cleanly with naturalism, and only naturalism.

I was merely hoping to illustrate using material means that which is immaterial. If we could prove God’s existence through evidence or reason, then Faith would be unnecessary. That is what makes the Day of the Lord such a frightening concept.
Apologists, and those brought to salvation by them stand testament against that...

When I was talking about Epistemological positions, I was referring to your idea about where I was coming from.
The idea you gave me when you stated where you where coming from...
That any further explanation I would have would be simply interpreted as an extension of Naturalism.
Because it in fact would be.
To this I can't say that you will necessarily even now think that I am not a naturalist, but frankly its irrelevant to this discussion or my position, or your interpretation of my position.
Did you just say your underlying approach to handling information and understanding the universe is irrelevant to this discussion?

But to be clear, I assert that you hold contradictory positions: Naturalism is the king of your mind and reason, but you hold to Christianity secondarily, and so you must exempt Christianity from reasonable scrutiny.

I understand where you are coming from. God is Lord of nature and a Miracle is simply God being God. I don't disagree with you in this respect. I do disagree with what can be infered by the implication that miracles exist. but that is a discussion for another day.
Yes, I'm trying to deal with that, but you're evading the few plain and straightforward questions I'm posting...
I don't care if you call me a Fideist, just don't call me an Evidentialist or a Foundationalist. Contextualism is key in everything.
Not 'Chinese Room' contextualism surely? That would just lead to another ugh... But you could mean something entirely different.

Anyway, to get back to plain as day questions...


Using your terms, is it therefore Rational assume that X will equal anything other than 0? No. Hence my position. Its really not hard.
For God's sakes! If God says he'll intervene then its rational to assume he will intervene. His intervention is still a miracle.

Can you at least admit to that? How much plainer can I say it?
 

Liamson

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2010
3,078
69
48
For God's sakes! If God says he'll intervene then its rational to assume he will intervene. His intervention is still a miracle.

Can you at least admit to that? How much plainer can I say it?


Yes, but where does that leave us? If God says He is going to flood the earth and then the earth floods, yes I can draw a causal relationship there.

From the perspective of the Totality of Knowledge is can be said that every instance or occurance of God's intervention is a Miracle. However I cannot comment on what is unknowable. It is also beyond the bounds of Philosophy to infer from the observation of the absence of an occurrence of God's power anything as it pertains to the Nature of God. As evidence I, much like Job, do not understand where God is, goes or what He is doing or how it relates to my day to day existence in the world. I cannot speak of what I cannot relate to. It is not because God does not exist, but rather because the information by which we deal with God, is necessarily qualitatively different than our ability to process information that we relate to on a day to day level.

To put it in Rational Terms, God is on a whole Nuther Level.

My distinction is the assumed intervention, where God is silent, what He is doing is in fact unknowable. That is why it is unreasonable to handle snakes, or to place damp wool on the ground at night, or tell God to turn Rocks into bread. That is why it is an imposition on the part of a faithful person to instigate God. Faith allows us the Liberty to affirm that we don't need a reason to act on behalf of the Commands of God. Because He is God, His commands are sufficient unto themselves. There is no command of God that is separate from the Character and the Nature of God. Scripture verifies our Faith concerning the Character and the Nature of God and His relationship with us.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
Yes, but where does that leave us? If God says He is going to flood the earth and then the earth floods, yes I can draw a causal relationship there.
Good.

That leaves us exactly where I want us to be.

If God says he will intervene and reverse death then that reasonable to assume he will, and this new life is still a miracle.

That's where it leaves us. That is what our Hope is, that is what our Faith is. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a nutshell. And that, with nothing else added to it, is entirely reasonable.

That's it.

Whatever reason gets someone to that reason is a reason of faith. People get to that conclusion from many different directions, their first faith established in many different reasons. People can be lead though apologetics and discipleship from a simplistic presupposition such as 'I believe God is' 'there has to be more to life than whats seen' or even 'there has to be a bigger purpose' to that reason. To Salvation, to the Kingdom of God.

Certainly emotive repossesses can accomplish the same thing, certainly direct intervention of God can accomplish the same thing. But the point is reason is a tool of Faith, and something which can build and grow it. It is wasteful and hazardous to throw it out, and certainly wrong to say that Faith cannot be by reason. Such is a pertinacious philosophy because it means we cannot give all our faculties to furthering the Kingdom. If we deny our reason to Him than something other than He is King of our minds. That cannot be left be.

I'm not going to touch too much on the next few paragraphs but there are a few important notes:

I cannot speak of what I cannot relate to. It is not because God does not exist, but rather because the information by which we deal with God, is necessarily qualitatively different than our ability to process information that we relate to on a day to day level.
This is the wonder of the Incarnation, God becoming man. Him having lived day to day and reasoned with us on our level and lived as we do. We don't need to relate to God Almighty, we need to relate to God Incarnate, he mediates for us so through him we can relate to God Almighty. He came to our day-to-day level of processing information so that we might know Him better. Our Faith is in Jesus Christ, the man who is God. Though him we might have Faith in God Above.
That is why it is unreasonable to handle snakes, or to place damp wool on the ground at night, or tell God to turn Rocks into bread.
But the second one WAS reasonable, God actually accepted that and did it. One of those things doesn't belong there.
Faith allows us the Liberty to affirm that we don't need a reason to act on behalf of the Commands of God. Because He is God, His commands are sufficient unto themselves.
Yes, the commands are sufficient reason themselves... Being His command IS a reason to do something in and of itself...

God bless, I think and hope we are getting somewhere.
 

my_adonai_

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
818
22
0
32
These matters are Life changing yall, the wrong wife/husband, and a danger to your calling, i believe these are not things to think of lowly, but take into much consideration and lots of prayer, am not married yet, and dont want to be. but from What i have seen, and what God has taught me through many ministers you learn to always be open to GODS view'. always open to what He says, if it is indeed the right time for yall to think about it or not, a right time to discuss it or not.

God bless you all.

Jas 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Jas 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
 

JGPS

Banned
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
I suppose that's the end of the thread. Not a bad not to live it on adon.