Two quick questions I have for Christians

[David Sklansky]

"Fair enough. I wouldn't have phrased it the way you did, but the passage you referenced from Romans basically says that all men are without excuse because whether or not they know His name, His nature is revealed.

For those interested, here it is:
Romans 1:18-20
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

So Catholics are morons for thinking otherwise? Or perhaps even worse than that?

[txag007]

I'm not sure to what you are referring. While the word "moron" seems a little strong, I would have a serious issue if a belief they held directly contradicted scripture. Maybe BluffThis! can chime in here and clear things up.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a choice, but only by choosing to love god do we have any chance of being saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accept Jesus and be saved. I ask: saved for what and from what?


If god created everytjhing, what is he saving us from? And if we are just a creation of god's (a toy as it were), what value is there in saving us, he could just create more toys and why does the toy care if it exists as a toy for eternity?
(good post, by the way)

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]


Accept Jesus and be saved. I ask: saved for what and from what?


If god created everytjhing, what is he saving us from? And if we are just a creation of god's (a toy as it were), what value is there in saving us, he could just create more toys and why does the toy care if it exists as a toy for eternity?
(good post, by the way)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think that's a question I struggled with when I was in college. But the fallacy is that if a person has these questions, he or she is really struggling with the issue of whether he believes in a creator at all. That's got to be resolved first because, if the answer is no, then the rest is irrelevant.

The whole question of our free will is tied to a creator's omnipotence and omniscience. But for nonbelievers this question does not disappear, it is just refigured as a question of personal responsibility.

I think your question gets to the heart of it: what are we being saved from? The answer would seem to be, from our own acts. I don't see how believing in a creator leads to a better morality. Those who don't believe will either hold themselves accountable to some set of principles or not, and those who do believe will either hold themselves accountable to their religious principles or not. It seems pretty clear from the empirical examples of our times that mere belief in a creator does not lead to moral acts and choices. I'm one who believes that morality is separate from religion, therefore one can act morally without suscribing to a belief system, and that simply belonging to a religion doesn't make one moral.

Your question makes me think you would really enjoy reading Milton if you haven't already because throughout his career he tried to respond to similar questions from his contemporaries. I think this whole thread reflects questions of Milton's day, especially the issue of whether humans as a creation are just toys. I also think these questions may be more appropriately directed to followers of Judaism than to Christians, since Judaism wonders more about the nature and acts of the creator and Christianity focuses more on the nature and acts of Christ.