Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:05 pm Deal with arguments,

Your so-called arguments are garbage otherwise.

Show that. Instead of spouting nonsense and petty spite, deal with a proposition. Maybe you'll amaze us all.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:44 pm So in every day language you freely interchange, "faith," and, "belief," and believe most other people do as well. Faith only has a meaning such as you described, "belief in what God says," within the context of theology (or perhaps religion in general.)

I can only speak for Biblical theology. I won't characterize what anybody else makes of the word...they can do that.

What does the word, "believe," mean, to you? I'm not interested in how most people use it, or some, "official," definition, only what you mean when you use the word.

It varies by context.

When I'm using it casually, I may mean practically nothing at all. If I say, "I have faith that Man United will win the league," it means practically nothing. I'm just saying, "I'm going to stay supportive, regardless of how unpromising their results," or something like that. But when I use it that way, I may not even really "believe" that they WILL win. So in that context, it's no more than a word for "hope" or "wish."

"I believe it will rain soon," is another one. What does that mean? Little more than, "It seems most probable to me that it will rain soon." So it doesn't mean much. Is that the answer you would anticipate?

But when I'm speaking about my theological beliefs, I'm much more careful. I attempt to use the world much more precisely, and much more Biblically. I try not to mislead people as to the context and dynamics of my theology...as indeed, I should.

The context makes a huge difference, obviously. But it does for many words. "I could kill you," your mother may have once said to you, when you were an annoying toddler or an obstreperous teen, "you're driving me mad." I doubt you would have been much illuminated by her exposition of what was involved in "killing." How long her "madness" lasted is highly in doubt, too.

She probably just meant "Go out and play in the yard."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:30 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:05 pm Deal with arguments,

Your so-called arguments are garbage otherwise.

Show that.

I've already clearly pointed out your distortions several times (as have others). Basing your 'arguments' on distortions is nonsense, as well as dishonest. Pretending that the beliefs you spew in your self-serving/righteous fashion are anything close to valid arguments is absurd -- which is clearly why you must employ distortions and ignore the challenges in responses! You seem strangely unable to do otherwise, nor to avoid being so arrogantly contrary to nearly everything people say, as if you always have some higher answer. The greatest thing you demonstrate is how intoxicated and blinded you are by your theist beliefs... so good job with that.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:30 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:49 pm
Your so-called arguments are garbage otherwise.

Show that.

I've already clearly pointed out your distortions several times...

Nah.

You've got nothing to say.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:32 am Nah.

Carry on.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:48 am Carry on.

Will do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:44 pm So in every day language you freely interchange, "faith," and, "belief," and believe most other people do as well. Faith only has a meaning such as you described, "belief in what God says," within the context of theology (or perhaps religion in general.)

I can only speak for Biblical theology. I won't characterize what anybody else makes of the word...they can do that.

What does the word, "believe," mean, to you? I'm not interested in how most people use it, or some, "official," definition, only what you mean when you use the word.

It varies by context.

When I'm using it casually, I may mean practically nothing at all.

Oh well. That explains a lot too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:50 pm
You didn't read John 3:16. Or you tried to read it, but didn't understand it. However, it's not a 100% wrong way to characterize the situation, so let's go with your metaphor anyway.

Let's view John 3:16 as a "contract."

Terms of Contract

God's Contractual Duties, as specified in John 3:16

1. Love the world.
2. Give His unique Son to pay the price for man's sin.
3. Open up a universal way of salvation.
4. Provide eternal life.

Man's Contractual Duties

Believe God has done it.

Now, that's the contract as spelled out by John 3:16. Does it still actually look "contractual" to you?

You are being rhetorical and evasive in the above.

Far from it. Point out anything I left out, and I'll add it in.

...in effect and both parties are obligated to fulfil their promises until the contract is mutually cancelled or void according to the terms.

Which term, specified in John 3:16, did I not include? What "terms of contract," other than belief in what God has done, does mankind have, according to the verse?

You seem to be very oblivious to what really matter, i.e. the principles involve in this particular human interaction [the institutional fact of 'promise'], I repeat again,

The main operative principles of a Contract are as follows;

• 1. The offer and promise by God;
  "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
  
  2. Acceptance of the offer;
  when one accept the above offer, i.e. surrender and believe in Jesus and God, John 3:16.
  (Note God is omnipresent and omniscience, so there cannot be any cheating nor disingenuous acceptance.)
  
  3. then, there is a contract [covenant, agreement, pact] in effect and both parties are obligated to fulfil their promises until the contract is mutually cancelled or void according to the terms.

John 3:16 merely represent the offer by God/Jesus.

Now, what you missed out is this;
when the believer accept the offer from God/Jesus then there is a 'contract' in effect and the "terms of the contract" is everything [every word and small prints] that are in the Gospels.
When a believer believed in Jesus, it imply he has to believe all that are the words of Jesus or the reported acts and intent of Jesus and God in the Gospels [with Acts and OT as appendixes to the contract].

Thus if God/Jesus stipulated in the Gospels 'a Christian must love all even enemies' then the Christian [as pre-agreed] is obligated to comply with that stipulation as a term of the contract [covenant].

So, why is the above not a contract [covenant, agreement, pact, etc.] in principle?

Well, you're now using four different terms: covenants, agreements, pacts and contracts. Which one are you insisting John 3:16 is? As I recall, you were saying, "contract."

Well, as I also said, "contract" isn't a 100% wrong term to use there, it's just rather misleading. Contracts are ordinarily bilateral. But I'm asking you what you regard as the missing terms of the human side of the alleged "contract." You haven't said.

As I stated, it is a "rose", and you can call it by whatever name, A,B, C or X, Y, Z.
What is critical are the principles and the imperative elements required in that interaction with God/Jesus.

all Christians by definition and substance had entered into a contract with God/Jesus and the overriding terms of the contract is a Christian 'must love all, even enemies'.

John 3:16 makes no mention of this. In fact, it's completely absent from the alleged "contract," as you call it.

John 3:16 is like a letter of offer for acceptance without the details of the contract.
As I had stated, the terms of contract are fully stipulated in the Gospels of Jesus.
'Love your enemies' is a term in the Gospels, e.g. Mathew 5:44, Luke and implied elsewhere in the Gospel.

I'm afraid you're rather badly mistaken. Loving others, and loving enemies, are Christian duties of gratitude, not of contract. They are performed out of love for God, not because some contract specifies the are: for Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15) But the Christian does not love until after God does: "We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19) So, as in John 3:16, the initial love is God's love for the sinner; the sinner's response to salvation is love for God and others. But it's not contractual but relational, because the good that Christians do comes after salvation, not contemporaneous with it.

We have the same in Ephesians 2:8-10, " For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

Note what is in the OT and Acts are not essential 'terms of the contract' they are merely appendixes and not contractually binding [especially the evil and violent elements therein the OT] on the Christian.

As I had stated, ALL the terms of the contract are stipulated in the Gospels of Jesus.
In principle, 'loving your enemies' [Mathew 5:44, etc.] is a clause in the Gospels of Jesus, thus the whole "term of contract."
So this is contractual for a Christian who had entered into a contract [covenant] with God/Jesus.

The use of the term 'contract' and contractual bound is easily and immediately understood by the majority in comparison to the term 'covenant' which is rarely used by non-Christians [it won't click easily] and even Christians themselves.

But, as I have shown, the term "contract" is badly misleading sometimes. It's not a quid-pro-quo, not a bilateral 'deal,' and most definitely not an achievement of the works of men, even in part.

Nah, what we are concern with is the 'rose' not its name.
The interaction a Christian had with God/Jesus has to be initiated by the Christian accepting the offer re John 3:16 and this act consolidating the two critical elements [offer and acceptance] constitute an agreement [obligations] between two parties which is generally called a contract or whatever other names it is called.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:09 am John 3:16 merely represent the offer by God/Jesus.

Now, what you missed out is this;
when the believer accept the offer from God/Jesus then there is a 'contract' in effect and the "terms of the contract" is everything [every word and small prints] that are in the Gospels.
When a believer believed in Jesus, it imply he has to believe all that are the words of Jesus or the reported acts and intent of Jesus and God in the Gospels [with Acts and OT as appendixes to the contract].

Boy, you sure used a lot of words. But you got it wrong again. Sorry.

I didn't "miss" anything in John 3:16. It has no "small print" as you call it. But what's misleading you is your determination to see Christianity as a "contract." That's backward: you're reading a human construct of quite modern provenance back into a situation that does not contain any of it, and in fact, preceeded it by thousands of years. And when you realize that, you have to understand that using "contract" as a metaphor is badly anachronistic, however much it may seem winsome to you.

And in point of fact, when you read those books to which you refer (Acts and the OT: you forgot the Epistles) you find exactly what I'm saying: that there's no "contract." Instead, there is only the requirement, on the human side, of belief in the sincerity of God's offer. Over and over again, the Bible outlines how that salvation is an act of God, and not contingent on some deal made by human actions. That's galling to our pride; but it's the truth.

But I understand your error. You can't figure out how all the commandments fit in, if they're not some kind of quid-pro-quo deal, some kind of "contract." But think again: does it make any sense to day God "needs" us to do something? He wouldnt' be much of a "God" if He did, obviously. What you will find, though, is that salvation is free; but being a Christian costs everything. That is, entry into relationship with God is unilateral, performed by him through what Jesus in John 3 calls "the new birth," or "being born from above." But after one is saved, everything changes; one has commandments to follow. As Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will keep my commmandments." The "loving Me" comes before, and causes the obeying of commandments. It's not a "deal" or a "quid-pro-quo".

Let's use the analogy Christ Himself uses. Think about being born. When you were born, how much did you have to do with it? Not much, right? But it sure made a difference to your life. And everything afterward has been a big change for you. Likewise, salvation is not achieved by any human effort; it's something that God does, contingent only upon your acceptance He should do it (and that, only because He does not violate your free will.) After that, though, life has to be very different -- not because you are somehow 'buying" or "contracting for" your salvation, but because when one is born again one has a new life, new nature and new obligations of gratitude.

All the other commandments -- loving enemies, giving, behaving well, all that stuff -- is a consequence, not a cause, of salvation. And the offer from God is not "Well, if you do this, I'll do that." Rather, it's "Let me make you alive first, and then you'll be gradually able to do and be what you ought to have done and been in the first place." It's sequential, not contemporaneous.

However, I don't expect you'll be able to understand this, because as Jesus said in John 3: "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." As Jesus says to Nicodemus, you have to have faith first; only then do you get to see everything that is entailed by that change in your life. For those who stand outside and try to examine Christianity in a detached way, Jesus says that seeing is going to be impossible.

So I can tell you the truth: I can't expect you to realize it's the truth unless you listen to what Jesus calls you to do first.

God is like that: he doesn't let people just examine him like a lab specimen. He requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us. Once you know God, however, your freedom to disbelieve is gone. As Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." People who have been "set free" don't go back.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pm God is like that: he doesn't let people just examine him like a lab specimen. He requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us.

Trust what? "I'm not going to let you examine anything about me, but you have to trust me." Sounds like Eddie Murphy. I'm God, so you just have to "Trust me!"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pm God is like that:

Oh, IS he???

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pmhe doesn't let people just examine him like a lab specimen.

Is he sensitive or indignant or impatient about that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pmHe requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us.

That makes no sense.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pm God is like that: he doesn't let people just examine him like a lab specimen. He requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us.

Trust what? "I'm not going to let you examine anything about me, but you have to trust me." Sounds like Eddie Murphy. I'm God, so you just have to "Trust me!"

It's not that, RC. It's that trust is basic to relationship. What one has to trust is the character, actions and words of God. Somebody who refuses to believe God exists or that God wants to be known, and cynically refuses even to consider the evidence of his own eyes in Creation...well, such a person gets nothing. Which is exactly what he's asking for. He's scoffing at the very idea of knowing God, so God gives him exactly what he expects...no relationship with Him.

Seems fair.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pmHe requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us.

That makes no sense.

Actually, people are no different in that respect. In order to get somebody to enter into the marriage relationship, we expect them to ask. And if they don't even have enough faith to believe such a relationship can happen, or even to ask for it, it doesn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:00 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:30 pmHe requires us to enter into a relation of trust with Him before He will reveal Himself to us.

That makes no sense.

Actually, people are no different in that respect. In order to get somebody to enter into the marriage relationship, we expect them to ask. And if they don't even have enough faith to believe such a relationship can happen, or even to ask for it, it doesn't.

Why would you enter into a marriage before the other person has revealed themselves to you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:48 am Why would you enter into a marriage before the other person has revealed themselves to you?

God has revealed Himself. See Romans 1.