Christian Objectivist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No such thing as an ex-Objectivist.

Michael

tryin' to play, too...

[BaalChatzaf]

No such thing as an ex-Objectivist.

Michael

tryin' to play, too...

Say what??????? People can choose their beliefs and unbelief s. They can choose their premises and un choose them. It might not be easy but it is doable.

[Mike82ARP]

Jesus died. If what the bible says is true, he didn't have to.

What, specifically, did the Bible say that would make you believe that? Especially given the prophetic references to his death.

[PDS]

@PDS You make some legitimate points.

You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?"

I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction.

Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody.

Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently.

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS You make some legitimate points.

You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?"

I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction.

Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody.

Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently.

I do not consider these satisfactory explanations as they are mere conjecture of individuals. As I previously wrote, God has revealed himself to us in two ways. Through the created universe and through his word in the Bible. We do not have a mystical, hearing God's voice, communication through chanting trances, etc. God has seen fit to limit our knowledge of Him. As Christians, we do not have the warrant to reinvent God to fit our impressions or desires of what we would want him to be.

Therefore, you must show me from his own word, the Bible, that he either did not intend for Jesus to die, or that he has a plan of universal salvation.

[BaalChatzaf]

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction.

Try the following. God is a fiend and he insanely insists on blood sacrifices before he will act in a benevolent fashion.

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS You make some legitimate points.

You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?"

I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction.

Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody.

Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently.

I do not consider these satisfactory explanations as they are mere conjecture of individuals. As I previously wrote, God has revealed himself to us in two ways. Through the created universe and through his word in the Bible. We do not have a mystical, hearing God's voice, communication through chanting trances, etc. God has seen fit to limit our knowledge of Him. As Christians, we do not have the warrant to reinvent God to fit our impressions or desires of what we would want him to be.

Therefore, you must show me from his own word, the Bible, that he either did not intend for Jesus to die, or that he has a plan of universal salvation.

Additionally, you wrote, "Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event." True, but by what mechanism? Justice has to be served.

[PDS]

@PDS You make some legitimate points.

You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?"

I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction.

Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody.

Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently.

I do not consider these satisfactory explanations as they are mere conjecture of individuals. As I previously wrote, God has revealed himself to us in two ways. Through the created universe and through his word in the Bible. We do not have a mystical, hearing God's voice, communication through chanting trances, etc. God has seen fit to limit our knowledge of Him. As Christians, we do not have the warrant to reinvent God to fit our impressions or desires of what we would want him to be.

Therefore, you must show me from his own word, the Bible, that he either did not intend for Jesus to die, or that he has a plan of universal salvation.

He obviously intended for Jesus to die. If Jesus was/is God, it was an act of suicide.

Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you.

I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder.

[PDS]

Additionally, you wrote, "Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event." True, but by what mechanism? Justice has to be served.

Your edited comment obviously begs the question.

[Mike82ARP]

Additionally, you wrote, "Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event." True, but by what mechanism? Justice has to be served.

Your edited comment obviously begs the question.

Glad you caught on to that. I wasn't begging the question, I asked a rhetorical question.

Being God, he did preordain those he wished to save. But he still had to adminster justice (Heb 9:22- without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness) and did so in a way that mankind could not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No such thing as an ex-Objectivist.

Michael

tryin' to play, too...

Say what??????? People can choose their beliefs and unbelief s. They can choose their premises and un choose them. It might not be easy but it is doable.

It's a quip, Bob.

It's a quip.

Dayaamm!

Ah hell, I can't resist:

No such thing as an ex-Jew.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

No such thing as an ex-Objectivist.

Michael

tryin' to play, too...

Say what??????? People can choose their beliefs and unbelief s. They can choose their premises and un choose them. It might not be easy but it is doable.

It's a quip, Bob.

It's a quip.

Dayaamm!

Ah hell, I can't resist:

No such thing as an ex-Jew.

Michael

They exist, but they are few.

[tmj]

Jesus died. If what the bible says is true, he didn't have to.

What, specifically, did the Bible say that would make you believe that? Especially given the prophetic references to his death.

Nothing specific , just more the gist of an omnipotent creator whose will I would doubt could be described as determined.

[caroljane]

No such thing as an ex-Objectivist.

Michael

tryin' to play, too...

Say what??????? People can choose their beliefs and unbelief s. They can choose their premises and un choose them. It might not be easy but it is doable.

It's a quip, Bob.

It's a quip.

Dayaamm!

Ah hell, I can't resist:

No such thing as an ex-Jew.

Michael

They exist, but they are few.

If I'm for me, then what of you?

[caroljane]

O Allah! Who can say what's true?

[tmj]

A question to Christians I would like to see the answer to : did Adam have nipples, yes/no and why/why not

Oh hell actually , biologists too should be asked, why do I have nipples?

[Mike82ARP]

Jesus died. If what the bible says is true, he didn't have to.

What, specifically, did the Bible say that would make you believe that? Especially given the prophetic references to his death.

Nothing specific , just more the gist of an omnipotent creator whose will I would doubt could be described as determined.

So you have no argument, just feelings?

[Mike82ARP]

A question to Christians I would like to see the answer to : did Adam have nipples, yes/no and why/why not

Oh hell actually , biologists too should be asked, why do I have nipples?

It’s been a long time since I took embryology, but here’s you answer. From www.menshealth.com

"The answer is that as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!"

[Xray]

Additionally, you presume the rich young ruler amassed his fortune through laissez faire capitalism which didn’t exist in biblical days. :-)

But it was you who linked laissez faire capitalism to Christianity (see your post # 359).

[We Erred Rand]

tmj wrote:

>>>biologists too should be asked, why do I have nipples?

Maybe you're a woman.

You did answer "Not Telling" in your profile for gender.

[tmj]

well lets just say I self identify as male

[tmj]

So according to embryologists, Adam would or would not have had nipples?

[Brant Gaede]

A question to Christians I would like to see the answer to : did Adam have nipples, yes/no and why/why not

Oh hell actually , biologists too should be asked, why do I have nipples?

If you didn't . . .?

--Brant

why not?

[tmj]

A question to Christians I would like to see the answer to : did Adam have nipples, yes/no and why/why not

Oh hell actually , biologists too should be asked, why do I have nipples?

If you didn't . . .?

--Brant

why not?

But I do(have 'em) isn't that the rub?

[Xray]

Well, an Objectivist can come to Christianity, but not Christianity to Objectivism.

--Brant

a man may have contrafdictions, but not a philosophy which rends them out

I know one who recently did. He’s still a Rand fan, too!

Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity?

[replying to tmj]To blame Christianity exclusively for the Dark Ages is rather short sighted. I’d look at the fall of Pax Romana as the primary reason.

I would put it this way: Christianity (all 'old' religions, in fact) are products of ages considerably 'darker' than the current age because they were founded in times when people had far less knowledge about facts. It is therefore no surprise that magical thinking and belief in the supernatural prevailed back then.

It is also no surpise that the Biblical god is characterized as an almighty being who demands obedience and can destroy or show mercy at will. The image of such a god was probably modeled after the real-life potentates the people back in those times were familiar with.

But all this is also the reason why the image of revengeful and almighty god, or promises like e. g. the resurrection of the flesh come across as increasingly odd in our scientific age.

And if church leaders had not been hungry for political power over the centuries, and if no emperor had ever decided to impose the Christian belief on his subjects - I don't think Christianity would have survived at all.