you might eat me alive for this. but its the best ive got so far... Ti is my second most energy consumptive function... it both decieves, humors and fascinates me all at the same time... So i often either make irrational Te arguments for something i already believe or I just tire out in Ti and make mistakes.
the problem is that i refuse to believe something just because someone is of authority, so i often try and follow the argument, data myself. if it checks out im on board...its tiring though
good to know. Once again i tire out and make mistakes: i used an absolute "nothing is 100% self evident" where i should of just said "most things are not 100% self evident..."The laws of thought are self-evident; i.e., the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. Wherever there is meaning, the laws of thought are being used. Wherever a law of thought is violated, there is no meaning, and that which is meaningless cannot be true.
well the Christian definition (not sure if theres any other definition!?) is a transgression against God. It can follow from breaking his laws or I guess any act that is against the spirit of the laws? not sure on the expansion of this besides "transgression against God's laws".What do you think sin is? What exactly do people need to be redeemed from?
yes, i will admit that its clear in the simplicities of "follow this law or I will rebuke you!" "do this _____" "you will be saved from bad stuff if you believe in me" "follow me and do ____, _____ and _____". Its however very unclear on the complexities : "my dying for your sins works in this following way and avoids contradictions and absurdities for the following reasons: ______. " "God is able to be omniscient with your free will, still allowing no contradictions because of ____, _______".Christianity teaches that God's self revelation is not confined to the bible, but is both clear and general so that all men, in all times, in all places can know of his eternal power, his divine nature, and the moral law. Once one knows the content of this general revelation, then he can understand the nature, content, and origin of special revelation. When interpreting special revelation (i.e., scripture), in light of general revelation...
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7).
a lot of the complexities have had to be filled in after the fact out. This is a problem. You can't force yourself to "believe". If one finds absurdities or questions how, how will he ever be able to "truly believe and surrender to God". My best example is the million different ideas of how exaclty atonement is achieved with Christ dying on the Cross. Its not that obvious how it works judging from the multitude of ideas on it: satisfaction, moral influence, scape goating, governmental, penal substitution, etc... It just doesnt point to a God that is "revealing" of truth when his own followers have to search in the dark to find suitable arguments for him.
Haha, exaclty. If he was better at communicating himself, I doubt anyone would have any problem with him. It seems absurd to think that we would actually try and "thwart" or "transgress the laws of" this all powerful God. Its kind of like: If someone knew that the cashier had a shotgun, it would be stupid to challenge him with a knife. But if people don't know he has a shotgun cocked and loaded, they might be dumb enough to try and hold him up simply out of ignorance. Maybe people transgress against God because he isnt that clear on SHOWING his greatness, divinity etc.Assume that there is a clear revelation, from the things that are made, of the eternal power and divine nature of God. If an infinitely powerful, infinitely good God exists, then why is there evil?
its almost like this is a little game: "lets see who i can convince to believe in me, without ever actually giving them any real tangible REASON to!"
i dont think i understand how "might equals right" assumes coercion. He is all powerful and can do whatever he wants to uphold whatever he wants, thats all i was implying. This is often the Christian justification for how he "hardened the pharaohs heart" just so he could demonstrate his divinity (actually, how is that not coercion?).Might equals right assumes coercion. God doesn't coerce anyone to do evil. It wouldn't be just to hold a person accountable for an act he was coerced into performing. Persons are evil because they want to be evil, and God lets them do what they want; he lets them reap what they sow.
I get the whole, "God didnt want to create a bunch of Robots...thats not love" but clearly as we see, some people are more likely to believe than others, and God knew that when he created them, so why couldnt he just abstain from creating the ones that he knew wouldnt "believe"? again what is with this believing thing? why cant he just pop out and show us? talk to us? is this all a game about believing in what you empiricaly (i know you're going hate my choice of words here) shouldnt believe?
if he is such a relational being then why heck doesnt he just show up and talk to us??? why would an omnipotent God limit himself to this 2000 year old book? him outright proving his existence would not make us robots of love! If i show up as the most awesome guy ever at a party, that isnt forcing any of the girls to like me! If God is relational and loves us, why is he so shy?
i definitely agree here to some extent...but again, how do we go from: there is some Divinity we cant define to "its most likely the God of a tiny ancient culture in the middle east".Pastors ought to be trying to convince you of the clarity of God's existence.
I think they realize how much it would test their faith to read Numbers, Deuteronomy, Kings and Leviticus... so rather than play with fire they simply go on in their perfect world of an eternally loving, relational God...I too find it disturbing that 99% of contemporary Christians neglect the OT. (And not just the OT, but the entire bible!) A Christianity that is informed by only the NT, (and perhaps Psalms and Proverbs), is impoverished. One ought to pay attention to all that by which God makes himself known, and this is especially true for the way God makes known how it is possible to have eternal life.