Agreed. Too many differences in fundamental assumptions can make communication difficult.
Could it be that this is your view?
My objection is only that I don’t think we are designed. I would say instead that we have such a need in the sense since God made us finite beings with a nature to grow, learn, and become more.
No, it is what I think you believe. about design.
I do not see a problem with “designing” n terms of control. Whoever designed the machine to choose the lottery balls could not possibly have incorporated a means by which they would now what those balls would be, any time let alone all the time.
My view of god is that he does not try or even want to control, which is why I object to any view of “Judgement” because it automatically sets a criteria to abide by.
The result is a paradox.
No matter who sets or claims the standard, God or man, the net result will be loss of freedom. Freedom, by definition, has to be amoral. Whether that makes God amoral is a mute point.
Judgement is unfair unless all parties are aware of the standards involved and agree to them. Which sort of reverts back to where we stsrted. If humanity has an inbuilt moral code does that make us designed?
And, if we have that moral code does that entitle God to judge us by it. (Rhetorical)
Richard
Can God create a straw so thin He cannot suck water through it?
Somehow I don’t think anyone will be debating this conundrum 20 years from now. 
I guess you don’t have to have straws to suck. We suck in air all the time
Shame, it was a nice thought while it lasted
Richard
We are His imagers – how could we not have a specific need for Him? We were designed to be in relationship to Him.
How you got that out of what he wrote I don’t know.
Which makes God uncaring, unloving.
So you are saying God puts on a show to just make it look unpredictable when it really isn’t because knowing the position and motion of all the balls he knows exactly what the machine will do?
Because otherwise I think it comes down to the same thing I am saying which is that God made the process of life where living things make their own choices and the future is something we write together with God.
In other words it is not design in the absolute sense of how we make machines but only design in a much weaker sense that God made us so that we make our own choices.
Since the Bible uses the word judgement, I consider such an outright repudiation unwise. I certainly think nature demonstrates that the way God does things (as is required by the very process of life) is to make the world work by a fixed set of rules and it is both our responsibility and the very nature of life that we have to learn those rules, otherwise there are consequences (as there must be for there so be any learning, which is the essence of the process of life). In ancient times we had too poor of a grasp on the this and the judgement of a human ruler was simply the best model for understanding it.
When judgement actually means natural consequences then saying it is unfair is like saying it is unfair for someone to fall to their death for simply stepping off the top of a building. But that is BS understanding of fairness. The fairness is in the consistency of the rules and learning those rules is our responsibility and the very essence of life itself. Anything else would be God living our lives for us which is not a good thing at all.
If you followed the conversation and knew what @mitchellmckain beleives you wold know that is not my view but his.
Hoow do you cme to that conclusion?
“spare the rod and spoil the child”?
You are claiming that God mposes Himself onto those who ether cannot see Him or have decided not to follow Him. If so “freedom of choice” is meaningless. and, to be hionest, so is this life in general.
You confuse Love with dominanace and dictsation.True love does not rely on reciprocation or obedience. It loves no matter what and lets them live rather a=tan insisting or imposing specifics.
God loves me despite, not becauxe of what I do and say.
Your model would seem to be based on Orwell’s’ 1984.
…Richard
Edit.
More likely 1984 is based on that Christian model.
George Orwell wrote 1984. H.G Wells is the dude who wrote War of the Worlds and the Time Machine.
Ok, I’m getting old, sorry.
Richard
That’s a clearer statement of what I’ve been trying to say than I’ve managed!
No tests, no growth.
He did that the moment He created us. We continue in existence only due to His sustaining energy.
So anything that can have consequences is meaningless?
I haven’t brought love into it, only that you call many things that are just consequences “judgment”.
This again assumes some sort of neutral condition that puts us on equal status with God.
To use Paul’s metaphor, God is the potter, we are the clay – and you are arguing that it’s okay to be a cracked vase covered in scratches and that that is better than allowing the potter to repair it.
What is dogmatic antidogmatism?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Dogmatic anti-dogmatism is a concept that seems paradoxical at first glance, as it combines two opposing ideas: dogmatism and anti-dogmatism. Let me break this down:
When these ideas are combined into the term dogmatic antidogmatism, it refers to a stance where someone may reject dogmatism, but does so in a rigid or uncompromising way. In other words, it’s a form of antidogmatism that is itself approached dogmatically.
This paradoxical position might manifest as:
In philosophy or discussions of intellectual positions, this can be viewed as a critique of those who are so firm in their rejection of dogmatism that it becomes a new kind of dogmatism, leaving little room for nuance or dialogue.
No
It is you setting a standard for God.
That is your view, not mine. And you stick to it like suoerglue.
You are basically claiming tht there is a standard set by God and anyone who does not meet it should face consequences.
The problem being that God does not set any standards for humanity, only thode who claim allegiance, or, tp put it another way, those who wish to have a relationship with Him. Scriptrue is abut deiscipleship. You are applying it universally. God, by forgiving all sins has shown that actions are not important. You can niteher buy nor ,sell your way into or out of Heaven. If you want to try and be like Paul ,good luck. Monks and Nuns have been trying for centuries with limited success, but that way of life is not for everybody. They know it, shame that you do not.
Unlikea potter, god does not force a shape onto us, You have decreed a shape for all, God beleives in diversity, as can be seen all around. One shape does not fit all. Stop imposing your view of God’s standard onto all and sundry. That is not how God works.
God knock, he does not barge the door down. if you do not open the door, he wil not come in. (And He will not condmen you for not opening the door either)He will wait, for a lifetime if necessary. And He will still love those who refuse, or cannot see Him. He will love them for what they are, not what you want them to be.
Richard
Hi mitchellmckain, there are a lot of replies to your question and I confess I have not read them all. Your question reminded me of a podcast I heard recently about Christianity in India. There a lot more Christians than the government census would show. This is because many Christians will write hindu on the census. It is more of a cultural thing. And it is extremely unsafe to declare Christianity. The situation is a lot more nuanced than I have presented it. The podcast I heard was from undeceptions.com episode 75 “global Christianity” It replayed October 2024 labelled as “Rewind:Global Christianity”
I think another way to understand it is that can the love and justice of God that was revealed to the Jews through accomondationist means and that was fulfilled in the works of Jesus Christ also have been revealed through accomondationist means in other faiths. I think the answer is yes. Do many of us believe things like God never revealed himself to pre colonized indigenous people in America? Or did God only find a way to share his love and justice with them after being mass murdered by group of men? I think God found a way to reach out to them without Europeans. Then because of the love and justice they already developed through their own faiths, by the accommodating means of God, they were then able to see the love and justice in Jesus despite the cruelty of the settlers. I think the same can be said for ancient Hindus in India and even for ancient men like Neanderthals and even to those potential beings from other planets somewhere out there in the universe. Let’s say Christianity is still here in a 200 million years. Let’s say we somehow have found a way to travel to some far off distant planet and on that planet we found intelligent life and we found a way to communicate with them. I think that won’t be the first time God reached out to them. I think God will have already been accommodating them.
Nope – read John 3–
“For God so loved the world that he gave his unique Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
The word for “world” is κόσμος (cosmos) which in first century usage indicates the world of humans – it thus includes everyone.
And it’s not me saying there’s a standard, it’s what John wrote above.
I haven’t decreed anything – YHWH-Elohim did that in the beginning by making humans in/as the image of God.
The problem is at the end of the lifetime: as John wrote, those who have not come to the Light are condemned.
LOL
I don’t even really know what I want me to be, let alone anyone else!
Though there are some things I don’t want other people to be, starting with worshipping a death god by engaging in terrorism.
A Lutheran missionary working with St. Thomas Christians in India related to an audience once that many of the parishioners where he worked counted themselves as Buddhists, and got a chuckle out of folks when he said that a survey of the community there showed a large number of “Lutheran Buddhists”.
Well, he got some people angry as well; they insisted it isn’t possible to be Lutheran and Buddhist, or indeed any kind of Christian and Buddhist – they probably would have gotten really upset if instead it was “Lutheran Hindus”!
Just BTW, I met a guy who was ordained a Roman Catholic deacon even though he was definitely a Buddhist. He spent most of a four-day weekend being grilled by the (rather conservative) bishop before being approved for ordination, but he wasn’t asked to renounce anything. Given this thread, I’m now wondering about how things go in India!
I was amazed when several missionaries giving a panel presentation at a conference related one instance after another of “Gospel ‘Easter Eggs’” hidden in cultures they had worked with. I doubt there are such in every culture, but they seem to be pretty abundant.
I agree with one philosopher I read who argued that given that Christ is πρωτότοκος (pro-TOH-toh-kos), “firstborn of all Creation”, then it is not possible for truths about God to not spring up more than just here or there since everything in existence was ‘shaped’ according to Christ’s character. That’s not quite the same as revealing Himself, but it does suggest that we shouldn’t be surprised to encounter real truths in unexpected places.
In ten states of India, causing someone to convert from a Hindu to a member of some other religion is forbidden by law (anti-conversion laws). The laws were originally instituted under the British rule (!) in some Hindu princely states “to preserve Hindu religious identity in the face of British missionaries”. In some states, even marrying a person from another religion is punishable if there is a risk of converting to different religion. Punishment varies between states but is generally 1-10 years in prison + fines.
Earlier, it sometimes was enough that the person told that nobody converted him/her, that was a personal decision. Today, it is more strict. If someone converts officially, there are those who want to know who was quilty and quilty ones are found when there is a strong enough pressure. If the officials do not act as hoped, mobs of Hindu extremists may act violently and the officials turn their heads to other directions. Converting officially to Christian does not threaten just the person, it may lead to persecution, prisonment (anti-conversion laws) or in the worst case, even to the death of other Christians that have been seen with the convert or done something that might have played a role, such as singing and worshipping publicly or telling about Jesus.
This happens in some states but not in all.
A sad development in India that is supposed to have a freedom of religion.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.