Free Will and Loving/Rejecting God

[The Grand Nudger]

According to Biblical record:

The biblical narrative.

Did people in the OT see God face to face?

Yes -and also- no. (This narrative irregularity is actually very easy to resolve but for a couple of moments when god whisks folks off deathless, btw - even then...the language of the whisking is such that it can be written off itself -as- a contradiction)

Did people see Jesus face to face?

Yup.

Is Jesus God?

Nope.

Did therefore people who saw Jesus see God face to face?

Nope.

Did everyone who saw Jesus face to face believe in God?

The narrative doesn't make it clear whether or not everyone the character interacts with believed in a god. I doubt that the question occurred to the authors.

Did therefore some people see God and yet not believe in Him?

Nope.

I'll stress again, you're reducing your beliefs to a play on words when you try to make the statement that you've made. If you'd started the questioning off with "According to my sects christology" rather than "according to the bible" some of my answers would be different, except for the last one. No matter how you cut it, those who don't see god in jesus don't believe jesus is god, even if they already believe in god (jews, roman pagans, etc). You think they should have. For you, seeing god and seeing jesus are one in the same, but this is a statement of your beliefs, not some logical maxim that can be relied upon to yield true conclusions, not "the biblical position", and certainly not the position of the character of jesus in the narrative (amusingly, neither you nor I trust what jesus says about himself in the narrative - we both have our own takes). Everyone in the narrative who sees god believes in god, full stop. Some of the people in the narrative just don't see god when they look at jesus.

[orangebox21]

Did people in the OT see God face to face?
Did people see Jesus face to face?
Is Jesus God?
Did therefore people who saw Jesus see God face to face?
Did everyone who saw Jesus face to face believe in God?
Did therefore some people see God and yet not believe in Him?

Do you want us to answer these questions?

Yes.

Chad is welcome to discuss election and predestination in this thread if he wishes. No need to start a new thread.

Orange was the one who quoted Scripture to support his point. If his interpretation of them is not correct then it sorta undermines his point.

I agree. Which is why rather than argue against premise #1 and get into an 'election' conversation, I have retracted said counterargument.

Is Jesus God?

Nope.

Am I clear that you're stating that the Biblical record does not claim Jesus is God?

I'll stress again, you're reducing your beliefs to a play on words when you try to make the statement that you've made. If you'd started the questioning off with "According to my sects christology" rather than "according to the bible" some of my answers would be different, except for the last one. No matter how you cut it, those who don't see god in jesus don't believe jesus is god, even if they already believe in god (jews, roman pagans, etc). You think they should have. For you, seeing god and seeing jesus are one in the same, but this is a statement of your beliefs, not some logical maxim that can be relied upon to yield true conclusions, not "the biblical position", and certainly not the position of the character of jesus in the narrative (amusingly, neither you nor I trust what jesus says about himself in the narrative - we both have our own takes). Everyone in the narrative who sees god believes in god, full stop. Some of the people in the narrative just don't see god when they look at jesus.

I understand your point. It is however outside the context of our argument. In the case of the OP's original argument we have assumed the Biblical record to be true. There are givens that come with this.

1. There is only one God.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Some people saw Jesus face to face but didn't believe He is God.
Therefore, anyone who saw Jesus face to face but didn't believe He is God does not believe in God.

To assume the truth of the Biblical record for the original argument only to deny it as a premise of the counterargument is fallacious. It's a fallacy because doing this would invalidate one or more of the premises of the original argument.

In that case I could perhaps argue with the OP like Stimbo did and force the OP to prove the original premises (that God exists, and that people in the OT saw Him, etc) but I have chosen instead to accept these premises and thus that the Biblical record is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Am I clear that you're stating that the Biblical record does not claim Jesus is God?

The biblical narrative. Correct, the statement that jesus is god requires christology and apologetics, you won't get it out of the biblical narrative alone. You're going to have to apply work. That work has been done, many different takes exist (and some takes have been extinguished), I understand that you subscribe to one or another. Nevertheless......

I understand your point.

Then you would understand why the question above didn't need to be asked, right? Some (arguably all, nowadays) christians claim this, the bible.....meh, I don't think so. If I had to pick some place to argue -for- it I'd probably lean on John(YMMV). Trouble with using John, of course, is John. I can certainly see why a person would conclude that the authors considered jesus to be at least on the periphery of the divine, but overt statements of his divinity are difficult to point to. It always takes a little bit of work, for me, anyway. How about you?

It is however outside the context of our argument. In the case of the OP's original argument we have assumed the Biblical record to be true. There are givens that come with this.

I don't recall anyone other than yourself having assumed that. I went back through for a bit and looked for it - I may have missed it, but if we're discussing relevance than such an assumption is not relevant to your discussion with me, now is it? You get no givens from this corner. If you're not interested, that's cool. Now, since I'm not granting you any of those assumptions, you can take them up with whoever has or will. However, there is one bit in there which I think has meat on it for me.
from

"Did therefore some people see God and yet not believe in Him?"
-to-
"Therefore, anyone who saw Jesus face to face but didn't believe He is God does not believe in God."

Subtle shift, and I appreciate it - but it doesn't resolve the issue, it simply brings the issue up again in different language

Seeing jesus, and seeing god
-or-
Not believing that jesus is god, and not believing in god

.....are simply not equivalent statements, and they themselves require christology and apologetics (which, as above, I'm sure you have) to be used in the manner that you have. Not within the narrative, and certainly not here, in the real world. I can't think of a single example of a character in the biblical narrative who, upon seeing god, doesn't believe in god (or even one who did not already believe in god). There's only one reference, to my knowledge, in the entirety of the text that deals with atheism at all. Psalms, isn't it? "The fool says in his heart"? It doesn't seem as though the authors or compilers or editors even had an interest in exploring this. hrugs:

In that case I could perhaps argue with the OP like Stimbo did and force the OP to prove the original premises (that God exists, and that people in the OT saw Him, etc) but I have chosen instead to accept these premises and thus that the Biblical record is true.

You're really going to have to point out to me where anyone other than yourself made or granted such assumptions. Maybe we're talking about different people? Nope was the OP, yeah?.
-The biblical narrative says that god exists (even if it's a little iffy on other gods, and regardless of whether or not one or more gods -do- exist).
-The biblical narrative says people in the OT saw him (even if it also says that no one has, that it's impossible to do so and live, and that people have done so and yet not died - even if he doesn't exist, as above....and even if none of those people themselves ever existed.)

It would be pointless to argue over this - and what I can only call your assumptions, at present, aren't required to discuss any of that or reach a conclusion as to the consistency or continuity of the narrative, particularly as it regards some additional belief-set about the necessity of free will. In short, I don't see the OP assuming that any of it is true, and I don't see why it would even matter if it were true, it's in the narrative regardless. It doesn't have to be true to be in the narrative, and no one has to assume that it's true to discuss the contents of the narrative. Just what -are- those assumptions doing here -even if someone did or was willing to grant them? They have no value, no use, no relevance.

If the OP wants to run with it, that's on him - but I don't expect them to yield any difference whatsoever. If there's only one god, it won;t alter the narrative regarding who did or didn;t see him. If jesus is god, it wont alter whether or not people saw god when they saw jesus, or whether or not people who don't believe in jesus don't (or can't) believe in god. If the biblical narrative is true but inconsistent (perish the thought, eh) that shouldn't exactly blow anyone's mind (on account of inconsistency, anyway). Accounts of true events often are. The question of the necessity of free will, and whether or not anyone ever saw god will remain regardless.

[robvalue]

Do you think it's a fair assessment that jesus was not originally planned to be God himself, but that this was a later addition to the story? In the "prophecies" (even the ones that aren't actually prophecies) it never talks about the messiah actually being God, does it?

Was he considered God only when the Virgin birth was later added to the story? Keeping up with the timelines of the story developing is complicated.

Anyone who thinks is a straightforward true account of true events, even disregarding the supernatural stuff, needs to do some serious and objective research. If they're interested in the truth of the matter of course. It's quite clear not everyone is. I'm looking for replies please only from people who have objectively studied the texts, I'm not looking for personal interpretations or wild assertions.

[orangebox21]

---

Am I clear that you're stating that the Biblical record does not claim Jesus is God?

The biblical narrative. Correct, the statement that jesus is god requires christology and apologetics, you won't get it out of the biblical narrative alone. You're going to have to apply work. That work has been done, many different takes exist (and some takes have been extinguished), I understand that you subscribe to one or another. Nevertheless......

I understand your point.

Then you would understand why the question above didn't need to be asked, right? Some (arguably all, nowadays) christians claim this, the bible.....meh, I don't think so. If I had to pick some place to argue -for- it I'd probably lean on John(YMMV). Trouble with using John, of course, is John. I can certainly see why a person would conclude that the authors considered jesus to be at least on the periphery of the divine, but overt statements of his divinity are difficult to point to. It always takes a little bit of work, for me, anyway. How about you?

---

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree that the doctrine of Christ's divine nature is not stated explicitly but rather arrived at systematically. I find the work of arriving at a doctrine systematically in no way hinders the truth of a doctrine. I also find systematic theology challenging and enjoyable.

Oh it definitely is challenging, that's why there's so much variance today and has been throughout time. Some of those efforts I find more laudable than others, but it's all effort, that's for sure.

I think our definition of 'belief in God' is what is causing the conflict. In order to rectify the situation I will have to convince you that belief in a god that isn't a god is not the same thing as belief in God. It's a matter of truth, not of a claim. Let's say I claim that I believe in god. I claim that god is the tree in my backyard. If it is true that the tree in my backyard is god, then it is true that I believe in god. If it is not true that the tree in my backyard is god (it is merely a tree) then I do not believe in god but merely make the claim to.

Yeah, sorry, you're not going to get any traction with this. If you believe the tree is god then you believe in god. That the tree isn't god, meh, of course it isn't...but that hasn't stopped anyone from believing in any of the other not-a-gods either. They may not be the -same thing- (one is correct, one is not in your example...that's where they differ) however, regarding a belief in god in and of itself, they are the same thing. This was your unstated assumption. This is the premise whose unsound nature spoils any validity you might be able to cook up. You're attempting to redefine an entire phrase "belief in god" to mean "belief in -my- god". You have to know that shit won't fly.....but if you want to do that, do it out in the open, don't hide it. "

The truth is not determined by a belief claim, but rather a belief claim is validated or invalidated by truth.

Whether or not their belief is an accurate description of reality is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is a belief in god.

If people believe in a god that isn't a god then they believe in no god.

That doesn't work. That means that a person simultaneously does and does not believe in god. It's a self refuting statement Orange, and not a particularly difficult one to spot.

Certainly the atheist can understand this perspective.

lol...not -this- atheist.

No doubt I'll be insulting your intelligence when I point out that an argument is valid if there is no case in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Just gonna cut you off right here. Validity is an issue of structure, not truth. Validity is required to arrive at truth in this system, sure, but validity in and of itself does not guarantee truth, nor does the truth of any given premise guarantee validity, regardless of the truth of the conclusion. We get it right for the wrong reasons all the time. We get it wrong for the right reasons all the time. Your premises may be true, your conclusion may be (judged externally) true, or false...but that won't actually mean that your argument is valid in either case or any juxtaposition thereof.

-An argument is "valid" when it's structure fits a fairly well defined list of structures. End of.

That is what the assumptions are doing here. I've chosen to accept the truth value of some premises in order to test the validity and soundness of the argument.

Your results aren't going to be very reliable if you insist upon approaching it in this manner...and your conclusion regarding the issue of who does or doesn't believe in god demonstrates this quite clearly.

I've found an example of where some people have seen God face to face and not believed in Him and therefore have shown the assumption within the question (that everyone who has seen God believes in Him) is false.

No, you've shown a linguistic and cultural gaff (but also just a touch of misapprehension regarding what validity is and what it can do). Let's use a baseball player, instead of your god to help explain where you went awry, eh?

You say, "Mickey Mantle" is -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-
I say, "Babe Ruth" is -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-

Does this mean, because I don't agree with you, that I don't believe in -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-? Clearly not, since I made my own claim to the very same. If Mickey Mantle actually were -x-..would that mean that I didn;t believe in -x- simply because I was wrong about who -x- was? No. Now, replace whats in quotes with "Yahweh" and "Ra"...and whats in dashes with -God-. As far as belief in god is concerned, The Yahwist and the Raist are on equal terms. You are both theists (and equally so). Incidentally, I think you're both wrong...but just because I think you're wrong...doesn't mean you don't believe in god...and I doubt that you would appreciate if I made such a statement about you, eh?

While you mull that over, I'll bring all of this back around. I don't think that "seeing is believing" myself, even though it certainly seems to be the case in the narrative (course..I think the narrative is fictional so I expect a little bit of of a disconnect)...but I couldn't feel comfortable saying that this was untrue on the grounds you offered.

[Cyberman]

If people believe in a god that isn't a god then they believe in no god.

That doesn't work. That means that a person simultaneously does and does not believe in god. It's a self refuting statement Orange, and not a particularly difficult one to spot.

Actually, I can get behind the statement. A person who believes in a god that isn't actually a god is in fact believing in no god. They retain their belief; it's simply a belief in a non-god.

All orange has to do now is establish that the god of his belief is an actual god.