How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Harbal]

So we can ask: can a person who believes that he does NOT need to be "born again" be a "Christian"?

What exactly did he mean by "born again"?

That's exactly what Nicodemus asked Him, when He said it.

An alternate translation of the Aramaic is "born from above."

Jesus explained, "That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Thus, what Christ is teaching here is that a person needs a spiritual 'rebirth' in which God actually constitutes him as a new person...meaning, with a new relationship to God and a new nature given to him in actuality, by God Himself.

In other words, there is no way a man will ever save himself. Good works will not do it. It will be by trusting in the One God has provided to do that. And it will be by way of a spiritual reconstitution of the person.

That's straightforward enough. And there's actually little debate about what He said there. The debate is over whether or not we, as hearers, will agree with Christ on that point.

I hate to disagree with you, IC, but that is far from straightforward (enough). Even after reading your interpretation of it, I don't know what it means. The reason I don't know what it means is no doubt because there are others things about Christianity that I would need to know in order to understand. After everything has been taken into account, there must be scope for variation in interpretation.

[Immanuel Can]

Even after reading your interpretation of it, I don't know what it means.

Even after hearing it, Nicodemus didn't know, either. He was just as puzzled.

That's why Jesus told him, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." It's just not something a person's going to "get" if he doesn't first have some faith in Jesus Himself, so as to accept the rebirth. God's made it that way, and it's always that way...as you can see from Paul, as well...

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made of no effect. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind. (1 Corinthians 1:17-25)

Paul is expounding the reason why it's not possible to know about God through philosophy, or mere reasoning, or common sense, or any other such human method that requires no faith in God. There's no arid, detached, academic way to know God. As Hebrews puts it, "...without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." (11:6)

Faith is the prerequisite of understanding, it says. So I can explain it all day, and God simply will not allow you to understand it...unless you decide you really want to, and believe God will answer you. Without faith, it is simply impossible to know God.

The reason I don't know what it means is no doubt because there are others things about Christianity that I would need to know in order to understand.

Impressive.

You've figured it all out that far, at least. Most people don't even get nearly that far, and simply say, "it's all foolishness." But as Paul says, that says much more about where they're headed than about the Scriptures themselves.

Maybe you're not headed where they're headed. I'd sure like to think that. For some reason, I find you rather likeable.

But in aid of that, let me just add that the key to real understanding will be faith. And for faith, we have to ask ourselves what we really believe about God. Is He real, and is He willing to make Himself known to those who "seek Him"? Can we believe that? Do we think it? Or is He an indifferent, distant "god," who has no interest in us? Or is He merely a myth?

Once we take a position, we can know more. Before we do, the situation remains blank.

[Harbal]

Paul is expounding the reason why it's not possible to know about God through philosophy, or mere reasoning, or common sense, or any other such human method that requires no faith in God. There's no arid, detached, academic way to know God.

Yes, I too would urge someone to abandon reason and common sense before giving him a Bible.

For some reason, I find you rather likeable.

Whatever that reason is, I sense that it puzzles you.

I like you, too, IC, that's why I keep trying to save you.

[Immanuel Can]

For some reason, I find you rather likeable.

Whatever that reason is, I sense that it puzzles you.

I like you, too, IC, that's why I keep trying to save you.

Feel free to continue.

I shall, of course, do likewise.

[Dontaskme]

In other words, there is no way a man will ever save himself. Good works will not do it. It will be by trusting in the One God has provided to do that. And it will be by way of a spiritual reconstitution of the person.

Well that's one idea.

Reconstitution: To build back better. To reform. To be restored.

Err, No, no severed bodily limb ever grew back, the body has no such need to build itself up, it's not a needy requirement of a body to constantly change, to evolve, it is impossible, but also a futile exercise. The body and the soul aka the mental pysche aka the (personality) are perfect the way they are. To try to alter bodily actions is a breach in the purity, peace and harmony of the body.

There is no such event as a spiritual reconstitution of the person. The person is a myth, it's an artificial conceptual character constructed by thought. Whereas the body exists whether there is thought present or not, the body always is. It's the body that is real, not thought, while thought is a by-product of the body, the body needs no thought to function effortlessly and efficiently in harmony with the entire material universe.

“Experience is that wherein our previous sense of reality is undone, refuted, and shows itself as needing to be reconstituted. It occurs precisely in those moments where the object 'talks back'.”

Hmm, I guess the man called Jesus according to you, was the only man in the entire universe who knew what he was talking about. And that unless the rest of us followed his absolute authority on knowledge, then we'd remain forever un-save-able whatever the heck that weird notion of ''being saved'' is supposed to mean?

Thing is, if Jesus was absolutely certain he knew what he was talking about, then the question remains...where did he get the knowledge he's so 100% certain about that seems to elude everyone else? oh that's right, he made it all up in his head. I mean if he knew something, then we'd all know same, since we've all got the same thing in common, we've all got a body just like Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, there is no way a man will ever save himself. Good works will not do it. It will be by trusting in the One God has provided to do that. And it will be by way of a spiritual reconstitution of the person.

Well that's one idea.

God's "idea" is always the only "idea."

[Dontaskme]

In other words, there is no way a man will ever save himself. Good works will not do it. It will be by trusting in the One God has provided to do that. And it will be by way of a spiritual reconstitution of the person.

Well that's one idea.

God's "idea" is always the only "idea."

Blimey, you actually responded to me for a change, I'm shocked.

But did you bother to read past the first 4 words...probably not, oh well, no one's idea wins again.

[Immanuel Can]

Well that's one idea.

God's "idea" is always the only "idea."

Blimey, you actually responded to me for a change, I'm shocked.

Every now and then, I check back to see if you've become sensible; because occasionally, you're like that. Maybe one day, you'll be like that more often.

But often, you're just doing drama, and my interest in that is zero. In such cases, I just don't bother.

[Dontaskme]

God's "idea" is always the only "idea."

Since we are magically on speaking terms again, I'll ask you a few questions.

Can 'Immanuel Can' have an ''idea'' ? Or do all ''ideas'' belong only to God?

And if you reply by saying ''ideas'' are only God's...then why do the ''ideas'' come to be known as and through a body?

And if they are coming through a body, then that must imply the body is God...right?

[Dontaskme]

God's "idea" is always the only "idea."

Blimey, you actually responded to me for a change, I'm shocked.

Every now and then, I check back to see if you've become sensible; because occasionally, you're like that. Maybe one day, you'll be like that more often.

But often, you're just doing drama, and my interest in that is zero. In such cases, I just don't bother.

Are you asking me to change my personality, just so that it fits in place with your own personal criterion of what it takes to be sensible, before I'm accepted as being sensible by you?

Does just 'being yourself' without caring what others think or having the need or requirement for their approval, mean that one just ''being themself'' cannot be capable of being sensible? ..what an absurd thing to say. Do you have high expectations and standards about how people should conduct themselves when expressing their self-bias opinionated world views to others?

Would you say to your wife, please can you change your personality, because I'm really just not interested in your drama queen acts? or would you just accept her for being herself unconditionally without wanting to change her, or wanting her to be more sensible like you?

[Immanuel Can]

Blimey, you actually responded to me for a change, I'm shocked.

Every now and then, I check back to see if you've become sensible; because occasionally, you're like that. Maybe one day, you'll be like that more often.

But often, you're just doing drama, and my interest in that is zero. In such cases, I just don't bother.

Are you asking me to change my personality,

No. I'm accepting that "personality" for what it is. But it's not behaving in a way I find interesting or engaging...or particularly personable. So I'm exercising my option not to engage with it in on the terms in which it presents itself. I find them...uninspiring.

If that's the only "personality" available, then I'm seeing how it carries on, and saying I'm not really interested in engaging with it more than I already have. If I get the better side of that "personality," that might be different. But recently, it's been the "personality" I find overly dramatic and generally unpleasant. I choose not to involve myself with that.

Either way, conversation is a two-sided privilege, not a right. Either partner may opt out if he/she finds the terms being offered unrewarding or uninteresting. That's only fair.

[Dontaskme]

Every now and then, I check back to see if you've become sensible; because occasionally, you're like that. Maybe one day, you'll be like that more often.

But often, you're just doing drama, and my interest in that is zero. In such cases, I just don't bother.

Are you asking me to change my personality,

No. I'm accepting that "personality" for what it is. But it's not behaving in a way I find interesting or engaging...or particularly personable. So I'm exercising my option not to engage with it in on the terms in which it presents itself. I find them...uninspiring.

If that's the only "personality" available, then I'm seeing how it carries on, and saying I'm not really interested in engaging with it more than I already have. If I get the better side of that "personality," that might be different. But recently, it's been the "personality" I find overly dramatic and generally unpleasant. I choose not to involve myself with that.

Either way, conversation is a two-sided privilege, not a right. Either partner may opt out if he/she finds the terms being offered unrewarding or uninteresting. That's only fair.

I have an unpleasant side to my personality, that you choose not to involve yourself with, ok then IC

I understand, you have no time or attention for people like me, who has an unpleasant personality, that's understandable that someone like me would not deserve your time or attention. Yes, you are right, I lose all my privilege when I'm being uninteresting and unrewarding and dramatic. Of course, who wants to have a conversation with someone like that, your right.

I did not think I was being unpleasant in this response to you...

Can 'Immanuel Can' have an ''idea'' ? Or do all ''ideas'' belong only to God?

And if you reply by saying ''ideas'' are only God's...then why do the ''ideas'' come to be known as and through a body?

And if they are coming through a body, then that must imply the body is God...right?

But you have chosen to ignore it, like you do with many of my more normal/better responses to you. You ignore pretty much every response to you, because you've already made up your mind I'm not worth discussing anything with.

Then there was another response I made just prior to the one above, which I didn't think was unpleasant, but you ignored that too.

Bye the way, I do not care whether you ignore my posts, so try not to pat yourself on the back too hard for being the better person.

I'll still continue to point out to the forum reader all the mistakes you are making that are your religious views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

There are no moral fact of divine nature because there is no real God in the first place.
The existence of God as real is an impossibility and a non-starter.
The conception of a God is driven by a very strong fundamental psychological impulse, i.e. cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.

However there are moral fact of human nature.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted Saint Paul:

For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind. (1 Corinthians 1:17-25)

This is directly political. Any ruler who succeeds in persuading his subjects to follow Paul in this , is a wily ruler who pretends he knows what God wants and commands.

The question to ask Paul is "Are you partisan to an inscrutable deity, or are you partisan to some man's interpretation of deity?"

Paul answers that JC is the right interpretation of deity. Maybe so. But we still need to interpret the Gospels.

[Immanuel Can]

...someone like me would not deserve your time or attention....

Everybody deserves time and attention.

But some people make useful attention impossible or unprofitable. You can choose to be cantankerous and dramatic, or focused and pleasant.

That's always in your power, not mine. You decide what is possible.