Do we choose our beliefs?

Theology
63

Samuel — thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate the depth of engagement and the effort to bring various theological traditions into the conversation.

But with respect, I think we’re missing the heart of the question.

You’ve explained how, in classical Christian theology, divine justice is not measured against human standards but grounded in God’s own nature. You’ve cited Thomistic metaphysics, compatibilism, and supralapsarian logic to show that, in this view, God’s justice is never arbitrary, even if it’s beyond full human comprehension.

But here’s the problem: all of that still leaves the core moral concern untouched.

You say that people are judged not for failing to believe, but for sin. Yet in the very same theological system, the only way to be saved from that sin is to believe — and belief is said to be a gift God gives to some but not others.

So the tension remains:
If belief is necessary for salvation, and belief is not under our control, then how is it just to condemn someone for lacking it?

Appealing to “concursus” or “middle knowledge” or “sensus divinitatis” doesn’t resolve this. These are abstract frameworks trying to smooth over a basic moral contradiction: that people are being judged for what they could not, in any meaningful sense, choose.

If God knows my heart — knows that I’ve searched, read, listened, and still find myself unconvinced — then what would justice look like in that scenario?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I’d genuinely love to hear your answer, in plain terms.

And if the best we can say is, “Well, it’ll all make sense in eternity,” then we’ve stopped doing theology and started doing damage control.

64

Johann —

Let’s drop the analogies and speak plainly.

The system you’re defending is not just flawed — it’s morally grotesque. You’re telling me that a person can sincerely search for truth, fail to be convinced, and still be condemned. Not because they rejected light, but because God chose not to give them enough of it — and then blames them for walking in darkness.

That’s not justice. That’s cruelty with a halo on.

And when you say “justice is whatever flows from God’s nature,” you’re not defending morality — you’re erasing it. You’re reducing right and wrong to raw, untouchable authority. It’s the divine version of “might makes right.” And if that’s what you believe, just say it. But stop pretending it’s something beautiful. It’s not.

Your minefield example only highlights the horror: imagine a god who builds the field, hands out defective maps, and then punishes those who step wrong — forever. That’s not a thought experiment. That’s your theology.

You say I’m enthroning my own conscience. No — I’m just refusing to abandon it. If I see something unjust, I will name it. Even if it wears a crown. Even if it thunders from heaven.

And if there is a God who would damn someone for being unconvinced by insufficient evidence — someone who truly sought, wrestled, and came up empty — then I might fear Him. But I could never love Him. Because love can’t be coerced, and reverence can’t be extorted.

And whatever that being is, it has no claim to moral authority. Only power.

65

Correct, let’s drop the analogies.

Scripture answers every line. Here’s the reply — bold, biblical, and unflinching.

“A person can sincerely search for truth, fail to be convinced, and still be condemned…”

Romans 1:21 — “For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Greek verb: ἐδόξασαν (aorist active indicative, “they glorified not”) — not ignorance, but refusal.

“Not because they rejected light, but because God chose not to give them enough of it…”

Romans 1:19–20 — "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them… so they are without excuse."
Greek: φανερόν (perfect passive indicative, “has been made evident”) — the revelation is not lacking, it is spurned.

“Justice is whatever flows from God’s nature — that’s cruelty with a halo on…”

Romans 9:14 — “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means.”
Greek: ἀδικία (noun, “unrighteousness”) — Paul preempts the accusation. The answer is not speculation, but Μὴ γένοιτο — “may it never be.”

“A god who builds the minefield and punishes those who step wrong…”

Proverbs 1:24–26 — “Because I have called and you refused to listen… I will also laugh at your calamity.”
The path was lit. The refusal was willful. Hebrew verb: מֵאַנְתֶּם (Qal perfect second plural — “you refused”) — not confusion, rebellion.

“I will name it unjust even if it thunders from heaven…”

Job 40:2 — “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
To put the conscience above God is not nobility. It is the very pride that Scripture diagnoses in the soul.

“If there is a God who would damn someone for being unconvinced…”

2 Thessalonians 2:10–12 — “They refused to love the truth and so be saved… God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.”
Greek: οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (aorist middle indicative — “they did not welcome”) — the problem is never intellectual, it is volitional.

“Love can’t be coerced. Reverence can’t be extorted…”

Romans 5:5 — “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”
Greek: ἐκκέχυται (perfect passive indicative — “has been poured out”) — love does not begin from man toward God, it begins from God toward man.

Final blow — Romans 2:5 — “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

The minefield is not the terrain. It is the heart that refuses to bow.
The real question is not why some are condemned.
It is why any are saved.

Peace to you and family brother.

Johann.

66

I love ur questions as yes, by asking that question u want to take the question solely on a philosophical basis which I’m glad but I’ll try to keep it to basic and won’t jump deep into philosophy. Since it’s at night, I’m too tired so we will take tomorrow.
But by bringing up concepts Richard Dawkins and atheists ask then demanding a logical answer that satisfies human intellect is impossible given human mind can visualize only 3 dimensions and not beyond it. In my early years, studying physics and mathematics shows the precision, which cannot come out of nowhere but this ain’t physics and mathematical forum.
I think u didn’t read scriptures and even if u didn’t, u read it with the view of seeing urself in it, but search for God. Ik ur wresting with thought and even though u don’t know, in the pretext of knowing-which anyone won’t because God is beyond our understanding, what u allowed is pride to blind ur heart from walking in the truth.
Today, I will cry and pray for you, that you may find what ure asking, i will cry and pray to my Lord, that blindwatchmaker may find the Truth..I will share your sufferings yet I’m incapable of going through what ure going through now…ik its painful..ur soul is in deep agony…it is seeking for God yet the flesh stops u
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak….for are relying on ur flesh.
Ur like the Pilate..who asked what is truth
When in real..Jesus is the truth..he is standing in front of you, just as he stood in front of the Pilate, when Pilate asked him “what is the truth”.

67

Blindwatchmaker (That handle makes more sense to me now)

You said:

“But it misses something fundamental: I was not seeking a God I believed in. I was hoping to believe. “

Ahhh, you were, as you say, not “seeking” but “hoping to believe”, because, as you say, “I was told that belief might come if I prayed, surrendered, opened myself.” Even from my thickheadedness, I think I can see where the train jumped the track. Unfortunately, now you confess, “My own search has long since settled, and I’m at peace.” What am I to do with that?

I hear you when you suggest you are currently on a personal crusade, prompted by care and concern for those who have not ended their search, to battle the perceived cruelty of Christians who demonstrate heartless animosity towards those who they consider “ungifted”. Am I close? I can’t disagree with you. I have perceived the same thing. You get no disagreement from me on that front.

But where does that leave us. Your search has ended; you are “at peace”, you say. There are others who are being hurt as you were, but candidly, how can you and I make any inroads into resolving those infractions in this forum? I cannot really speak for the motives or actions of other people; why they say the things they say, or do the things they do. I admit, Christianity is definitely not a club of unerring people, nor is it an organization of people who have successfully overcome their humanity. Christianity is made up of people, that’s about it. There are obviously some differences (many of which are unseen), but the outward similarities between Christians and the rest of the world are even more obvious. I confess, I am among the erring throng.

I can see where the train jumped the proverbial track, but because you confess no authority from the recorded words of God (through prophets) the words of Jesus (gospels), or the words of first century disciples, (epistles), I won’t offer any here. Frankly, I don’t really have much else to offer that you might trust. Clearly God uses His word to open the ears of people to His truth. If God’s words are not trusted, then the train is already off the track before the journey begins.

From my perspective, all the word of God (How God has revealed Himslf to mankind) points to the redemptive work of Jesus (Messiah, anointed one). From Genesis to Revelation God explains, in our personal language, His rescue plan for mankind. “Redemptive” implies that something needed paid for; something was lost that needed saved something was broken that needed repaired. What might that be? You profess a clean heart in your sincere efforts at “hoping to believe". I don’t doubt you, I accept your personal point of view, but that is precisely where the train jumps the track. The bold message of God’s word is that every man who ever lived is guilty of unholiness (being imperfect, ungodly, self-centered, independent, autonomous, etc.), me, you, and everyone else. That self-satisfying, autonomous, independent nature of man is not his friend, and is not in his best interest, it has never served him well, but has actually caused his death! (Spiritual death = unable to have any relationship with Holy God). It, collectively called “sin” is what has seperated mankind from his own holy creator. The impure have no access to the purity of God, and everyone is impure. Pretty hopeless, Huh? You, me and everyone else, unworthy of a relationship with the eternal; you might say we are all guilty without recourse. There is no “good enough. Pretty good may be ok for a pretty good judge, but only perfect holiness is acceptable for a relationship with a holy judge.

Coming to God with a deal in your hand, or a list of requirements, or well reasoned excuses, or logical justifications, or anything but total surrender is man’s way, and completely unacceptable. Unacceptable not because God has set the standard impossibly high, but unacceptable in that coming that way brings unholiness into the presence of holiness, and that will never occur. Anything short of men replacing confident self-sufficiency with personal abasement, sincere surrender, which manifests as a heartfelt belief in personal need, a deeply held want for a savior, does nothing to gain anyone an audience with God. Inotherwords, comint to God with anything else but an honest acceptance of our own unworthiness is untrue, and unwelcome in His presence. Be true, or stay out. But those who come to God must first believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Reward? What reward? The reward is Jesus, the prefect substitutionary sacrifice for your own unholiness. God is not just willing to forgive you, he doesn’t just say "Aw, Fa-get-a-bout-it”. No sir. God’ forgiveness was costly to God, The perfect God was willing to sacrifice Himself to man’s cruelty, (a cruel death) to justly reward an uneserving you because of His great love for you.

This is the gate through which you must submit yourself before you can ever restart your journey of “hoping to believe”, should you decide to do so. No amount of personal sacrifice or sincerity in fulfilling certain efforts could ever provide even the slightest payment for the hopeless situation we all found ourselves in. Only Holy God Himself could provide a sufficient payment, His holiness for our unholiness, through the death of the only Holy One. Holiness and Justice demand it. This is also the gate through which any of those poor souls, who have been so illtreated, and poorly shepherded by Christians must pass before they can hope to begin their journey of a full relationship with their own creator. You love them? Help lead them to this gate! The best way (actually the only way) you can help them is to lead them through yourself.

If you are interested in dropping everything outside the gate, and walking through it naked, needy and contrite, there is welcome for you on the other side. On the other side your understanding will begin.

Hoping for your renewed search.
KP

68

Amen brother.

John 14:6 (NASB)
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Acts 4:12 (NASB)
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

John 10:9 (NASB)
I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out, and find pasture.

John 3:36 (NASB)
The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Romans 5:1–2 (NASB)
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we also have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.

These verses allow no ambiguity. Jesus is not one of many ways. He is the exclusive way, the singular mediator, the only access point into grace and eternal life.

Johann.

1 Like
69

@johann @kpuff
@Blindwatchmaker I don’t know what you want, u said u want theology, when im adding theology, u tell im side-lining the topic (because it answers your question, if not, counter that) but now u want solely on a philosophical basis then yeah…this aint philosophical forum but…i hope u aint doing this to just compete and waste time..i hope ur seriously reading it and from the prev post, it shows u didnt read the posts complete, rather u just took the titles and searched it.
i will write the post in the form of
1.topic
paras
so i want you to counter each para, and not just the heading.
1.The Ontological and Axiological Ground of Divine Justice
Your critique hinges on a perceived moral contradiction in condemning disbelief when belief is divinely initiated. To address this, we must first establish that divine justice is proper because it is rooted in God’s aseity, His self-existent, self-sufficent nature as ipsum esse subsistens. God’s essence is identical with His attributes, including justice, goodness and holiness, ensuring that His justice is not arbitrary but the transcendental condition for all moral value. As Anselm argues Go is id quo maius cogitari nequit meaning His justice is the axiological archetype of all justice, inherently rational and non-contingent. (I have written abt it in prev post but u ignored it..pls read it)
U claim this framework leaves the moral concern untouched, assumes that justice must conform TO HUMAN MORAL INTUITIONS…WHAT that what ur ARGUING FOR
Philosophically, this presupposes a constructivist moral ontology where moral norms are human-derived over a transcendental moral ontology, where moral value is grounded in a necessary being (God). Following Cornelius Van Til’s (which i wrote before) God’s existence and justice are the preconditions for intelligibility and moral reasoning itself. Without a transcendent moral source, the critique of injustice collapses into relativism or nihilism. Divine justice is thus **proper because it provides the ontological and axiological foundation for moral coherence, against which human intuitions are derivative and fallible due to noetic effects of sin as we learn in hamartiology
(BW, dont write terminologies, if u don’t know, ask me, but don’t just write and pretend u got the answer..)
2.Belief
U said that if belief is necessary for salvation and not under human control, condemning belief is unjust…
Christian theology talks abt concursus divinus (stop ignoring it..lets talk abt it), the simultaneous operation of divine and human agency and a nuanced understanding of human responsibility. In monergistic soteriology, faith is a divine gift but humans are accountable for rejecting God’s revelation. Romans 1:18-20 asserts that all have access to general revelation (creation, conscience), rendering them without excuse for suppressing truth. Unbelief is not a passive lack but an active rejection, rooted in fallen will
Philosophically, this is defended through compatibilism (because this answers ur question, u chose to sideline it..brothe,r do u know philosophy or what..this is a philosophical topic not some sideline tactic I’m using…try challenging compatibilism rather than blaming it and enough of this repeating of question again and again) if u read Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, humans are free when they act according to their desires, even if those desires are shaped by divine causation or fallen nature. Ur assumption that belief must be “under our control” in a libertarian sense reflects an incompatibilist view of freedom, which Christian theology rejects. Instead, humans are responsible for their response to God’s prevenient grace, the enabling grace offered to all (John 1:9 and Titus 2:11), which mitigates the effects of sin and enables a free response to revelation.
Those who remain unconvinced despite sincere searching, as BW said (i hope u meant it from ur heart) are not condemned for lacking faith but for rejecting the light they have received, however dim it may be
Molinism further clarifies (brothe,r dont ignore a topic telling its sidelining the main problem…every topic defends the main aim..) Through middle knowledge, God knows what free creatures would do in any possible world (THIS IS FROM SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, BY AQUINAS, AN IMPORTANT PART OF THEOLOGY). He actualises a world where the elect freely accept grace and the reprobate freely reject it ensuring that condemnation aligns with free human choices. Divine justice is thus proper because it respects the integrity of human agency with God’s sovereign plan

70

@Johann can go through it
@blindwatchmaker, let’s continue
3.Lets go to what u said abt those who sincerely seek an answer, yet remain unconvinced
Taking the scenario of someone who has “searched, read, listened and still finds unconvinced”.What does justice look like here?
Christian theology responds that God’s justice accounts for the individual’s epistemic context and moral disposition. The sensus divinitatis (Calvin) a natural awareness of God, ensures that all humans have some access to divine truth, calibrated to their circumstances. Romans 2:14-15 suggests that conscience acts as a moral guide and Acts 17:27 implies that God places humans in contexts where they can seek him
Now, instead of taking this as a sideline topic, read it and try to understand, they are challenging it
For the sincere seeker, divine justice is proper **because God judges based on the light received (responsibility propotional to revelation, Luke 12:48). If someone genuinely seeks but remains unconvinced, Christian theology posits that God’s omniscience knows their heart and motives. The doctrine of divine accommodation suggests that God reveals Himself in ways suited to human capacity (pace Calvin, Institutes I.5). If unbelief stems from intellectual obstacles rather than willful rejection, God’s justice, tempered by mercy may account for this in the eschaton, though Scripture is reticent about specifics (1 Peter 4:6 on posthumous opportunities).
Philosophically, if we look (this is not a side-line topic, challenge it and read it), this aligns with epistemic warrant. Belief in God is “properly basic” but its absence in a sincere seeker does not necessarily entail culpable rejection. God’s justice is proper because it evaluates the whole person, his motives, actions and response to available light, not merely the presence or absence of explicit faith.
If sincere seeking is truly sincere, then rejection is not damning by default
4.The propriety of Divine Justice
In the last post, u said theological frameworks like concursus or middle knowledge are abstract evasions (idk this tell me u have no idea abt theology or philosophy, this also gives me an idea where ur getting ur answers from..so its be honest..i aint meek or fool..i know whats happening)
I will counter what u said by grounding divine justice in the cross as its it ultimate expression. Romans 3:25-26 presents Christ’s atonement as satisfying divine justice (satisfactio vicaria) while demonstrating mercy. This is not an abstract dodge, but a concrete, historical act that reconciles God’s holiness and love, making justice intelligible. The cross shows that God doesn’t condemn arbitrarily but provides a universal remedy for sin, accessible through faith enabled by grace.
The greater good theodicy further ensures propriety. God’s judgments, including election and reprobation, serve His supralapsarian purpose to manifest His glory through mercy and justice. This axiological teleology, the purposeful ordering of value, ensures that even apparent moral tensions serve a greater good, fully revealed in the eschaton. Contra, ur claim that eschatological hope is “damage control” it is a theological necessity: human finitude (Kantian epistemic limits, Critique of Pure Reason) cannot grasp God’s full plan now, but the promise of eschatological clarity.
5.Refuting BW
Ur accusation that “God is just because He’s God” rebrands power is addressed through a transcendental moral ontology (dont expect a 3 3-dimensional brain to grasp God, u can’t, because if u try to..then u aint sincerely seeking answers to ur questions because if ur sincerely seeking answer to ur question, then you would accept ur limits, u aint beyond 3 dimensions, so dont expect answers that satifies ur intellect, dont be blinded by pride like Richard Dawkins). Divine justice is not power but the necessary condition for moral intelligibility. Without God, moral norms lack an objective ground, falling into axiological nihilism (pace Nietzsche). The historical resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) provides empirical warrant for God’s just nature, as it fulfils His redemptive plan. Far from arbitrary, divine justice is rational, a good foundation of moral order, proper because it aligns with God’s impeccable essence.
(Dont take this as side-line topic, counter if u want to discuss truly)
Divine justice is proper because it is grounded in God’s aseitous nature, ensuring non-arbitrary rationality. The sincere seeker’s unbelief is judged justly based on their response to available revelation, enabled by prevenient grace and evaluated by God’s omniscient justice. The cross and eschatological hope make this justice intelligible, while compatibilist freedom and Molinist middle knowledge preserve human responsibility. It’s the transcendental ground of moral value, coherent within God’s redemptive axiological teleology.
Peace
Sam

1 Like
71

Johann —

You keep quoting Scripture like it settles the debate — but I’ve told you plainly: I don’t accept the Bible as an unquestionable authority. I’m not saying it’s worthless. I’ve said it’s often beautiful and meaningful. But when you treat it as if citing Greek verbs from Romans somehow resolves a moral objection about Romans, you’re missing the point entirely.

You’re just asserting the thing under dispute — over and over — in different fonts.

You’ve never shown how it is just to condemn someone for failing to believe something they were not enabled to believe. You’ve just insisted that it is, because Scripture says so. But that’s not reasoning — that’s circularity. That’s dogma.

And let’s be honest: the system you’re defending is morally indefensible unless you first grant the entire framework — that God is the standard of goodness by definition, and therefore anything He does must be just.

That’s not justice. That’s power dressing up as virtue. This conception stips the words “good” and “moral” of any intrinsic meaning.
You might as well just say God is God. That would tell you no less about God’s character. This approach reduces morality to nicknames.

I don’t think you’re a bad person, Johann. But I think your theology is doing something dark to your moral compass. It’s making you call things good that, on any human level, would be called monstrous — and then telling me my conscience is the problem for noticing.

That’s not bold. That’s not biblical clarity. That’s the collapse of moral reasoning.

And the fact that you have nothing to offer but verses proves exactly what I feared: this isn’t a conversation. It’s a sermon. One that ends with, “Bow — or be damned.”

No thanks.

72

@Samuel_23 care to give me a helping hand?

Johann.

73

@blindwatchmaker, i have replied to ur posts and questions in the prev two posts..avoid side-lining the concepts which answers ur questions… but rather challenge it as topic by topic..dont persist with one question..we are humans, we cannot go beyond 3 dimensions so
I would like to end with:
If God exists and you’re wrong, are you truly ready to stand before Him and defend the sincerity of your unbelief or are you hiding behind intellect to mask rebellion?
pls read the prev 2 posts, i have talked abt the case of a person “who is sincerely seeking answers but isnt satisfied with it” etc etc

1 Like
74

Hi Sam.
I’m writing a reply to your 3 posts now. Bear with me..
BW

75

npnpnp pls take ur time..because these questions u have asked..i asked myself and wrestled with it…so nonono, i dont need a reply..i just want you to read and ask urself the questions and try to find answers by urself, that would be fruitful, otherwise we gonna go on an endless debate lol, (if u want u can reply, but naturally it would take a person 2hrs to respond clearly on philosophy and theology, since there is philosophy and theology, take it slowly, otherwise it would be shallow, so take time)

76

Samuel, you asked for a point-by-point reply. So here it is. I’m not going to match your wall of terminology, because I think you use it to obscure rather than clarify. But I’ll engage the substance, as requested.

1.The Ontological and Axiological Ground of Divine Justice
Your whole framework begins by placing “justice” inside the nature of God. That sounds impressive, until you realise what it actually means: justice is whatever God does. Not what is fair. Not what is coherent. Just… whatever He does. That’s not justice — it’s rebranding power.

You accuse me of smuggling in human moral intuitions. But what is morality without moral intuition? What is “justice” if it can condemn a person who sincerely sought truth, found the evidence unpersuasive, and acted accordingly? If your theology requires you to override your own moral sense — your own capacity to distinguish cruelty from compassion — then what exactly does “justice” mean in your system? Just a label slapped on the outcome?

  1. Belief

You’re relying on compatibilism to bridge an unbridgeable gap. You claim belief is a divine gift — not under our control — but then hold people accountable for not having it. That’s not compatibilism. That’s incoherence.

Compatibilism says we’re free when we act according to our desires. Fine. But belief isn’t a desire. It’s a mental state — the sense that something is true. I can’t desire myself into believing that Islam is true. Neither can you. We can’t make ourselves believe things just because it would be better for us if we did. And if God knows that — and still punishes people for failing to believe — then your version of God is not just.

3 The Sincere Seeker
You try to make room here. You say maybe God accounts for sincerity, epistemic context, and internal obstacles. Good. But this directly contradicts everything you just said in point 2. If belief is required, and is a gift, and is withheld from some — then sincerity is irrelevant.

You can’t have it both ways. Either people are condemned for lacking saving faith (which they can’t produce), or God judges based on the light they were given and how they responded. The former is monstrous. The latter is morally plausible — but it collapses the whole soteriology you’ve spent the last three posts defending.

  1. The Propriety of Divine Justice

You say the cross shows justice, not arbitrariness. But only if you first accept that justice requires blood. That moral guilt can be transferred. That killing an innocent man can somehow absolve the guilty. I don’t accept that. Most people outside your theological bubble don’t accept that. It’s a Bronze Age solution to a modern moral problem.

You say “eschatological clarity” will make it all intelligible. That’s a dodge. That’s like saying, “Yes, it all looks hideous now, but wait till you’re dead — it’ll make sense then.” That’s not an answer. That’s damage control.

  1. Refuting BW
    You accuse me of hiding behind “three-dimensional thinking” and call me proud for wanting intellectually satisfying answers. But what else should I want? Isn’t it worse to pretend to believe something just to avoid consequences?

You say I’m asking God to conform to my fallen conscience. But I say this: if God gave me a conscience, then He can’t reasonably ask me to ignore it. If something looks unjust, feels unjust, and walks like injustice — then calling it “divine justice” doesn’t make it right. It just makes it terrifying.

And finally Your closing line:

If God exists and you’re wrong, are you truly ready to stand before Him and defend the sincerity of your unbelief?

That’s just Pascal’s Wager in disguise.

And it only makes sense if belief is a choice — a bet I could force myself to place to hedge my eternal odds. But belief doesn’t work like that. I can’t choose to be persuaded any more than you can choose to believe in Santa. You believe what you believe because it seems true. So do I.

If God exists and is just, then He would know the difference between rebellion and honest doubt. And if He damns people for the latter — then He doesn’t deserve your worship, let alone mine.

You asked for a reply. That’s it. If you’re going to keep defending a system where sincerity is irrelevant, grace is arbitrary, and condemnation is fixed — don’t expect silence in return.

77

Haven’t forgotten you KP. (Thanks for your reply)
Will respond more fully shortly.

1 Like
78

nothing will satisfy ur question..its clear u are here to compete and not to learn.so im leaving, since i cant help a blinded heart, only he himself can help
COME ON, ur recent post show u have no idea abt philosophy and theology, i meant theology is nil in ur answer, i think ur searching and just writing, but didnt learn..so its time u open books and learn from it rather than posting..ik where u are getting ur answers from, but its fine, like really, its as if u just wanna do it to satisfy ur pride, i have answered ur question, and used concepts like axiological teleogy to which u had no idea but still countered it as if its in ur hood, so yeah enough..its a waste of time.. ur searching google and stiching ur idea, thats not wrong, but u need to learn then type, u can search and learn, but what u did is not right, (idk or any other source but u have no idea abt philosophy or theology and ur answering questions which requires depth of theology and philosphy to understand at first, then another level of depth to reply which u dont have) if ur truly learning, i would have seen that spark.
So yeah i see ur posts, and its evident…lol..u are new to this topic, idk how u understood my post without posing a doubt…

79

Samuel,
You asked me to respond to each point in your long post, and I’ve tried to do so in good faith. But I want to be honest with you: if you’re going to accuse me of having “no idea about theology or philosophy,” of googling answers, and of posting just to “satisfy pride,” then there’s little point continuing. You’re welcome to believe I’m out of my depth — but that’s not a refutation. It’s a dodge.

Let’s cut to the real issue: your entire system starts with a premise that makes discussion pointless. If justice is whatever God does because it comes from His nature, then the term “justice” becomes circular. To say “God is just because justice is whatever God does” is not a moral claim — it’s a redefinition. You haven’t grounded morality. You’ve bulldozed it and called the rubble a temple.

Your arguments are sophisticated only on the surface. Peel back the Latin and the abstractions and it’s the same idea: God is right even when He seems wrong — and you’re proud if you question that. That’s not theology. It’s surrender.

As for your claim that “belief is volitional,” and that compatibilism answers the moral problem — I’ve addressed that repeatedly. Saying someone “freely” believes what they were determined to believe is semantic sleight of hand. It doesn’t change the fact that the outcome was fixed. If belief is not up to us in any meaningful way, then condemning unbelief is condemning an effect, not a choice.

You also say “God judges the heart,” and might be merciful to sincere seekers. But that directly contradicts the earlier claim — that those who are unconvinced are guilty of suppressing truth. You can’t have it both ways. Either the unconvinced are in rebellion, or they’re sincere but not granted faith. If it’s the latter, the injustice remains: they’re punished for something they weren’t able to change.

Finally, don’t mistake theological terminology for clarity. Dropping terms like sensus divinitatis or aseity doesn’t solve the problem. If your system ends with people being damned for not believing what they lacked the capacity to believe, then no amount of scholastic window dressing can make it just.

You’re welcome to bow out. That’s your call.
But don’t confuse stepping away with having given a sufficient answer to the moral challenge.

KP —
Your tone was far more gracious, and I want to honour that. I’m not angry at people like you — I’m moved by your kindness and your care. But I also need to challenge something you said: that unless I submit in total surrender, I cannot “restart the journey.” That’s not an invitation. That’s a warning disguised as welcome.

What I hoped for was faith. I was open. I searched. But I didn’t pretend to believe something I didn’t. And I can’t force belief now, any more than you could force yourself to believe the Qur’an was divinely inspired just by trying hard enough. So I’m not rejecting the gate — I’m standing at it, and I just don’t see anything there. If God exists and knows my heart, He knows I was sincere. If He condemns me anyway, then no matter how poetic the theology, it’s not good news. It’s a tragedy.

All I ask is this: don’t let doctrine dull your conscience. If you feel the tension between love and this system — trust that feeling. It might be the most Christlike thing about you.

1 Like
80

lol im tired today, if i will ans, i would ans tomorrow, dont mistake my aggressive reply for my nature, thats just my style of writing..sorry if it was a bit hard, but uk thats how i learnt writing 10 years ago and thats how i continue..habits dont change lol..but i will try to change by habit and be as direct without personal references, that would be good ig..

1 Like
81

Thanks Blindwatchmaker for your thoughtful response.
I surely understand you when you suggest:

I can relate to how that must feel to you. But let me offer a gentle counter-challenge. Surrender is hard (maybe impossible) for the superior one, but it is easy, maybe unavoidable, for the inferior one.

Throughout this long topic, I have appreciated your candor, and reading your strongly held ideas. Your posts read to me like you are a highly intelligent individual, gifted in rhetoric and logic. Your linguistics suggest you have been educated and retain a vast amount of information which you are able to wield like a strong sword. I respect you and your many talents. You have been given much in your life, and by your own testimony, this crusade is one way you are fighting injustice and defending the spiritually abused. Maybe more on this later, we’ll see…..

Your stated quandary is not novel, it is just misguided. I accept that being misguided must surely be blamed on the guide, not on the one who was misguided. I accept it, and bear my part in it. Being misguided has manifested by presenting you with a faux-gospel; a mocked up requirement for acceptance that The Originator of the Gospel never voiced. You are therefore, as Cervantes suggests, tilting at windmills, (IMHO) ; you are, with good intentions, slashing at an enemy when no enemy actually exists. Logic is the sword with which you fight. In your words, you wage warfare as:

“a moral challenge” against “a system that claims to be righteous.”

This fight in which you are nobly embroiled stems from your intellectual acuity, and is fueled by strong confidence in your skill with the sword of logic. (as I see it, I am open to correction here).

When you say:

“You’ve never shown how it is just to condemn someone for failing to believe something they were not enabled to believe.”

You are “tilting at windmills”; you are not faithfully restating The Gospel, you are creating an enemy over whom you feel superior, and against whom you must logically fight. I respect your nobility. I do not doubt this is what you were told, and I understand why someone may even say it. That does not make it Gospel; that does not make your enemy real.

In your logic, God is telling you to breath while holding your head under water, and somehow your logic has told you tens of thousands of people actually love a god who would do something like this. You are just in calling this scenario monstrous and grotesque. I do too. But your logic can not hold against the unassailable truth that your creator God loves you, even loves you in a greater way than you have ever felt, imagined, or experienced. God loves you enough to offer-up His perfect guiltless son to die in your place, accepting your punishment for your unholiness. Not because you deserve it, not because you asked, not because you were sincere, not because you even wanted it, but solely because He loves you. There is no logic that can suggest that this kind of love emanates from one who would hold the beloved’s head under water and tell them to breathe. The gospel that God has presented to you is love. Gospel is “good news”; “good”, not like ice cream is good, but good in the sense you cannot imagine anything better. “News”, in the sense that you have never even imagined what is being presented you. All your education and all your logic has not brought the truth of The Gospel before your very capable mind. It is NEWS. “Good News” is exactly that in every sense, and is not hideous or grotesque in any sense. What you have been suggesting as God’s cruel requirement for redemption is not the gospel; not good, and certainly not news.

You continuously assert that you (and others dear to you) have wanted to “believe” because that is the requirement for acceptance, but you simply do not have, nor have been given the capacity to do so. But when I tell you that sincere “wanting to believe” is an artifact of acceptance, not an insidious requirement, you fall back on reasserting that “wanting to believe” is a requirement, which you faithfully met, but were still unjustly rejected by the high court. Your logic keeps suggesting you (and the unfortunate others) wanted to believe in something (someone) who you didn’t believe existed, and who you will continue to believe does not exist. I’m not sure how that sounds logical to you. (actually I do have some insight here, but not for today)

------------ Split due to 5000 character limitations of this platfom -------------
more…

1 Like
82

-------------continued from previous post to @blindwatchmaker--------------

You assert that you “prayed”, “sought”, and “sincerely opened yourself up to”… and I say: “to who?”. To someone imaginary, some divine that you think does not exist and is only a cruel fiction of an elite masochistic group who go by the name of Christian? An unfortunate group of malformed misfits, a group that you desperately tried to join in all effort and with all sincerity. This is logical?

You say: I was not seeking a God I believed in.”
Then you say: “I had the door wide open, and no one walked through.”
Your logic is asking me to accept you were sincere when you say you opened some imaginary door hoping some imaginary being would respond to your beckoning. If you didn’t think the door you were holding open was real, and you don’t think the being who you asked to walk through it is real, how did you land on that being logical, or sincere? I’m not trying to be harsh, but I sincerely don’t understand how someone so intelegent would wage a war over this scenario.

You say to @Johann:

“And the fact that you have nothing to offer but verses proves exactly what I feared: this isn’t a conversation. It’s a sermon. One that ends with, “Bow — or be damned. ” No thanks.”.

Now either you were sincere when you honestly prayed, sought, and opened yourself up to God, you “opened the door”, wanted His gift, waited for His entry, or, you sincerely have openly rejected the truth that God has revealed to you, His demonstration of His great loves toward you as His beloved creation, and His patientce with your personal contribution to the universal rebellion against Him. Rejected with with your ringing words, “No thanks”. I do not know which of these statements about yourself is sincere, but I do know logically they can’t both be.

I appreciate your antagonisim (I really do), and I appreciate your sense of self-justice and noble fight for the underdog. Ironically, any personal sense of justice or a need to act in sorties of righteous nobility actually originate with the one you are fighting against, but maybe you can’t see that yet. As Christians, we expect and embrace any antagonism toward the truth. We are unhurt by it. It does nothing to alter the great love we have for you. a love that we share with the one who loves you the most. I understand you have not felt the love of Jesus from Christians, and I know we will answer for our failure in this regard.

The “door” through which you must pass to even begin to understand the enemy you fight against, has already been opened for you. It is not imaginary, but more real than anthing you have ever experienced. The door is an eternal person who loves you more than any love you have ever experienced. This peson is Jesus, who has already done more for you than you have ever imagined. If you lift your eyes, you will see Him, If you see Him you will believe because He is real, if you believe you will yield. You can do nothing else.

Much Love in Jesus
KP

2 Likes