God's Intent

[POI]

1. Does God cause some to become inexorably drawn to Him, or not?
2. If so, why not all?
3. If not, then why do some believe and some not? Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

We have gone of this idea before. I guess we are running out of new ideas. That is why I just drop in from time to time to see if anything new popped up that needs to be addressed, or if some repeat is worth addressing.

This response is completely unnecessary, and warrants no response....

This has zero force because all a theist needs to point out is that God can have a good reason to do things as he does them. This is basically about divine hiddenness to which there are several replies that take the force out of the argument.

Disagree. Your assertions create more questions, then to provide answers.

[Purple Knight]

1. Does God cause some to become inexorably drawn to Him, or not?
2. If so, why not all?
3. If not, then why do some believe and some not? Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?

If it's real, we have a few options. I like to explore each one.

"Why not all?"

Easy answer is God plays favourites. He has a Chosen People he favours. 'Nough said.

Another answer is that he does cause everyone to be drawn to him and everyone who says they aren't is lying. This is only problematic if you're one of the people who is not so drawn. If you are one of the people who feels the pull, for all you know, the people with no interest in religion at all, who say they feel nothing, might well be lying.

Yet another answer is that because some people are nasty, God doesn't want them. He might still give them a reward at the end, but if they would damage the faith of the flock, just not giving them that pull might put them outside of said flock, ultimat4ely saving more people.

"Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?"

I think it's neither. I think it's experience. This is purely my personal opinion. There are studies that show evidence doesn't convince anybody of anything, though.

[TRANSPONDER]

1. Does God cause some to become inexorably drawn to Him, or not?
2. If so, why not all?
3. If not, then why do some believe and some not? Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?

If it's real, we have a few options. I like to explore each one.

"Why not all?"

Easy answer is God plays favourites. He has a Chosen People he favours. 'Nough said.

Another answer is that he does cause everyone to be drawn to him and everyone who says they aren't is lying. This is only problematic if you're one of the people who is not so drawn. If you are one of the people who feels the pull, for all you know, the people with no interest in religion at all, who say they feel nothing, might well be lying.

Yet another answer is that because some people are nasty, God doesn't want them. He might still give them a reward at the end, but if they would damage the faith of the flock, just not giving them that pull might put them outside of said flock, ultimat4ely saving more people.

"Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?"

I think it's neither. I think it's experience. This is purely my personal opinion. There are studies that show evidence doesn't convince anybody of anything, though.

Interesting. Elements of predestination there. As if God decided beforehand that some people would not be drawn to Him when he made them, in which case, why make them at all?

The element of free will comes in there. God gives people free will to decide whether to accept God or not. But then one has to ask why it is not made clear that God is real and so fewer people would reject him. It is not clear that presenting more convincing evidence would abrogate Free Will, and even then, given omniscience (unless one posits the odd 'self -limiting God' idea) why make the the ones who will reject Him, free will or not? The excuse of hiddenness remains a poor excuse, so far as I can see, and Aquinas 4 God's 'God has his reasons' excuse an even poorer one.

[POI]

1. Does God cause some to become inexorably drawn to Him, or not?
2. If so, why not all?
3. If not, then why do some believe and some not? Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?

If it's real, we have a few options. I like to explore each one.

"Why not all?"

1) Easy answer is God plays favourites. He has a Chosen People he favours. 'Nough said.

2) Another answer is that he does cause everyone to be drawn to him and everyone who says they aren't is lying. This is only problematic if you're one of the people who is not so drawn. If you are one of the people who feels the pull, for all you know, the people with no interest in religion at all, who say they feel nothing, might well be lying.

3) Yet another answer is that because some people are nasty, God doesn't want them. He might still give them a reward at the end, but if they would damage the faith of the flock, just not giving them that pull might put them outside of said flock, ultimat4ely saving more people.

"Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?"

I think it's neither. I think it's experience. This is purely my personal opinion. There are studies that show evidence doesn't convince anybody of anything, though.

By applying Occam's Razor, it would just be more reasonable to conclude there is no god, and many are in self deception. - 'Nough said.... But yea, I like your responses to the contrary.

1) God plays favorites, even though we are all deemed sinners?
2) I do not think I'm lying, unless you think I'm lying now
3) Refer to answer 1).

And yea, I'd say, when you hold many theist's heads to the fire, the reason they believe stems from personal experiences. And since these personal experiences are not consistent, and reference to the god or god(s) for which they were brought up in, it's safe to say (no god exists). -- 'nough said.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wouldn't like to make a huge bet on it, but I suspect the Personal Experiences (by the nature of selection) support the Faith, not the Faith being based on the personal experiences. Though true, one lucky happenstance or coincidence,with adroit pump -priming,can be what tips a wabbling doubter into Faith.

P.s since this is a short post,I will mention the big, wide smile of deceit. I first noticed this in a comedy TV series ('Butterflies' which I hated) and the female protagonist was trying to persuade the kids to do something and the whole body language, wide eye big eager smile stuck in my mind as 'trying to talk someone into swallowing a lie'.

I saw it again when hearing the leader at Goose green or San carlos or somewhere saying how he bluffed the Argentinians into surrendering. And he was giving us some spiel about how he surrendered to God's will and God gave him the answer. and he had just that same wide eyed big smile of talking us into buying a lie. Can't help thinking if the Argentines had called their bluff and they'd had to call the attack off or tried it and been chopped up, we wouldn't have heard about it was all God's idea, then.

And last occurrence was in Mel Gibson's Vietnam movie, just there mainly to peddle religion. Where the confused and vulnerable (just perfect for the scam) squaddie or grunt says 'I know God has a plan for my life'and Mel says "Why don't we ask Him?" (trans,"Let us pray".)which would be ok in bringing out a latent decision, but there it was: that big, eager scammer's smile. not saying I have all the answers, but it's a Thing, I promise you.

[Purple Knight]

why make the the ones who will reject Him, free will or not?

Fairness maybe? To give everyone a chance to live?

[TRANSPONDER]

why make the the ones who will reject Him, free will or not?

Fairness maybe? To give everyone a chance to live?

it would only be fair if the ones who (for very good reasons,I would argue) do not believe in the right god, religion and denomination, were not eternally punished for it. However, if you are one of those who do not credit the doctrine of Hell (and I watch you with interest as you seem more open minded than many) what should we be worried about?

God is allowing Johnny to enjoy his life on earth, because God is kind'

[Purple Knight]

However, if you are one of those who do not credit the doctrine of Hell (and I watch you with interest as you seem more open minded than many)

I'm not a theist; I'm just very interested in being as open-minded as possible. But no I don't think Hell is canonical, nor do I think an afterlife at all is canonical. Heaven is where God lives. It's not necessarily where humans go when they die. If any do, it's some kind of specialty thing like the JWs think.

God is allowing Johnny to enjoy his life on earth, because God is kind'

Look at it from the perspective of Johnny. You are predisposed to evil and not granted a conscience to know what is wrong. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are going to be punished for your evil. But, you think, you had no way to know it was evil. Now, God can do anything, so to ask for fairness, Johnny might ask, "God, I ask that you install a conscience before I was born."

But then Johnny wouldn't be Johnny.

I agree with the video about double standards but I think everyone has them, not just Christians. I think the worst offenders are diehard capitalists who think that if they are poor, it is because of government regulation, but if anyone else is poor it's because they are lazy. The second-worst are modern liberals (of whom I sadly call myself one of) who will make blanket statements like crazy and then object if the blanket statement is against a group they favour. For example, if you say all Blacks are ____ then omg hateful you can never say all Blacks, but if all whites are oppressive that's just true. I happen to think it is true but I'm saddened that they will use the "not all; you can't say all" objection elsewhere as if there being no universals is a universal.

Actually you can see it on this site because atheists sometimes proselytize and they aren't punished.

[TRANSPONDER]

However, if you are one of those who do not credit the doctrine of Hell (and I watch you with interest as you seem more open minded than many)

I'm not a theist; I'm just very interested in being as open-minded as possible. But no I don't think Hell is canonical, nor do I think an afterlife at all is canonical. Heaven is where God lives. It's not necessarily where humans go when they die. If any do, it's some kind of specialty thing like the JWs think.

God is allowing Johnny to enjoy his life on earth, because God is kind'

Look at it from the perspective of Johnny. You are predisposed to evil and not granted a conscience to know what is wrong. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are going to be punished for your evil. But, you think, you had no way to know it was evil. Now, God can do anything, so to ask for fairness, Johnny might ask, "God, I ask that you install a conscience before I was born."

But then Johnny wouldn't be Johnny.

I agree with the video about double standards but I think everyone has them, not just Christians. I think the worst offenders are diehard capitalists who think that if they are poor, it is because of government regulation, but if anyone else is poor it's because they are lazy. The second-worst are modern liberals (of whom I sadly call myself one of) who will make blanket statements like crazy and then object if the blanket statement is against a group they favour. For example, if you say all Blacks are ____ then omg hateful you can never say all Blacks, but if all whites are oppressive that's just true. I happen to think it is true but I'm saddened that they will use the "not all; you can't say all" objection elsewhere as if there being no universals is a universal.

Actually you can see it on this site because atheists sometimes proselytize and they aren't punished.

Johnny would still be Johnny if not the same Johnny, just as I'm not the same me I was before I entered atheist apologetics (it has made such a Difference to my Life) , but I was still the same me. But sure, ethics and morality is a matter of ongoing education like misic, technology, critical thinking and computer evolution. But the basics are there. An innate fairness is there as soon as teacher says 'How would you like it if someone did that to you?'

Bottom line, It makes sense if we evolved, but not if we were Created.

Discussion (and you may call it proselytization, if you wish) is the way people get to decide. What is wrong is when only One side ever get to put their case.

Final point, I hear what you say about the current civil polemics war between the crazies of both sides. What we need (and not just in America) is a rational and reasonable majority who say with me "A pox on both your crazy houses". The majority reasonable and law -abiding mass is still there and they need support.

[Purple Knight]

Johnny would still be Johnny if not the same Johnny, just as I'm not the same me I was before I entered atheist apologetics (it has made such a Difference to my Life) , but I was still the same me. But sure, ethics and morality is a matter of ongoing education like misic, technology, critical thinking and computer evolution. But the basics are there. An innate fairness is there as soon as teacher says 'How would you like it if someone did that to you?'

At what point then, do you think you would not be you? That innate fairness, what if you had that taken away and instead of introspecting when the teacher says, "How would you like it if he did that to you?" you instead thought, "I wouldn't like it, but so what?"

Bottom line, It makes sense if we evolved, but not if we were Created.

I agree. It's probably why I find morality so interesting. I don't think anyone thinks morality is just something that evolved to help us survive. That sort of makes, what they think morality is, higher than what it actually is.

Discussion (and you may call it proselytization, if you wish) is the way people get to decide. What is wrong is when only One side ever get to put their case.

I agree.

Final point, I hear what you say about the current civil polemics war between the crazies of both sides. What we need (and not just in America) is a rational and reasonable majority who say with me "A pox on both your crazy houses". The majority reasonable and law -abiding mass is still there and they need support.

I think reasonability falls prey to extremes because the extreme version of a morality (that's what these political positions are; they are moralities) will always seem more moral, and higher, than the less extreme. A pacifist will seem to be higher than someone who abhors violence but commits defensive violence anyway. The moderate will not be ruinous while the extreme is, but if he's thinking in terms of who is more moral, the moderate will always be ashamed not to be the extremist.