Christianity

[Veritas Aequitas]

How is this supposed to work for children? Are their parents allowed to sign the contract for them?

While not entirely incorrect, VA's summary is somewhat incorrect.

Perhaps its chief problem is that it's in the language of contract, which isn't a good metaphor for what Christianity entails. "Covenantal" might be better, but is still potentially insufficient. "Relational" might be generally better, but fails to point out the volitional elements that VA quite rightly points out. So it's difficult to select a single metaphor, but I would choose the Biblical emphasis on relationship as primary.

Whatever name you called it, the 'rose' here is there is a state and event with the following;

• 1. There is an "offer" with terms, conditions, promises, rewards for compliances, penalties for non-compliances,
  2. Awaiting Agreement or acceptance [explicit or implied] to accept of offer.
  3. The acceptance of the offer and the terms specified is obligated by both parties.

I prefer to call the above a divine 'contract' rather than 'covenant' as the majority understand what is a 'contract' and its principles.
More importantly I want the emphasize the contractual obligations the believer is bound to comply to gain whatever is promised in the contract and the penalties for non-compliances and infringements of the agreed contractual terms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Relationships cannot be unilateral. (Well, we have names for those sorts of 'relationships,' but not usually complimentary ones.) Relationships must be undertaken consensually by both parties, or what you have is not relationship but compulsion of some sort.

Note relation by birth [parents-child, blood-relatives] is not consensual all group under the umbrella term 'relatives'.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer to call the above a divine 'contract' rather than 'covenant' as the majority understand what is a 'contract' and its principles.

No, that's not a reasonable metaphor. "Contracts" are two-sided, being a kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement. Either party can "owe" the other the fulfilling of the "contract," and the balance between the contracted is equal. Contracts are also mediated by a third party or agency, one with the authority to guarantee the contract. They are co-signatory, bilateral, legal arrangements.

The relations in salvation are not contractual in any of those respects. All one could really say is that both parties in the New Covenant "have a role"; but the role God has is vastly greater than the human role; and while the human role has obligations that follow upon God's fulfilling of His promises, those obligations do not obligate God in any way in return. And all that's just for a start. So the idea of a "contract" is misleading in very significant ways.

I understand the error: but I think you've really got it significantly wrong in thinking about it in terms of "contract." I'm quite certain you won't actually see what's really going on if you rely on that metaphor. It distorts the facts too much.

[Immanuel Can]

The God of Christianity via Jesus made the offer in the Gospel in John 3:16 and alike. This is indisputable.

I'm always amused by closing lines like, "This is indisputable," because they almost invariably signal "I know I'm vulnerable on this point, so please, please don't contradict me."

John 3:16 definitely does not describe a contractual relationship. Sorry. It actually describes a birth-relationship, or more precisely, a new-birth relationship. That's what "you must be born again" implies.

On the human side, the requirements of the relationship are dead simple: to believe that what God has done, God has done. But no "doing" on the part of the person in question is implied. "Belief" is a passive act, a giving up of reliance on oneself, not a set of obligations that are being imposed. The activity of what you call the "contract" is all on the Divine side; man does nothing but to accept what has been done.

[Lacewing]

Being fallible doesn't stop them from judging.

Right. But they make wrong judgments sometimes...and the way we know that is by objective standards. So their judgment is judged by objective facts.

When you separate points from their context so that you can reply whatever thing you want to reply, it makes the entire discussion senseless. Such methodology of distortion is apparently required for responding to questions about Christianity.

There's no reason a god couldn't show up in the same way: "Here you go... see what you can do!"

What makes you think He hasn't?

Same comment as above.

Surely people would do a much better job with their lives if they weren't tangled up in the misleading paths of religion.

Oh, I agree completely. Religion is bunk. Only the truth sets people free.

Christianity isn't religion, though. Religion is the human attempt to reach the divine by his own wit and methods. Christianity is God reaching down to humankind.

You will frame it in whatever elaborate way serves you, as you do with all of your claims and beliefs... and then claim that to be true, without objective proof and by ignoring/dismissing all to the contrary. Christianity and religion are intertwined and based on belief.

It is indeed the most dramatic story in history. But it also happens to be true.

Many people have died for their beliefs. Only primitive man turned such an incident into a story based on the climate/fears/needs of that particular time. A mere two thousand years (in the timeline of Earth) hasn't been long enough for current mankind to evolve beyond beliefs that it feels served by -- but every civilization on Earth has had its eras of beliefs and its end. No singularly-defined god has shown up throughout Earth's history except in the self-serving imaginations and claims of men.

That's how creative humans can be: they can be utterly convinced by their own fantasies despite all that is contrary and obvious. They can create and live in their own worlds... some of which they share with others. And that's how crucial their egos/identities are: they will tend to do whatever is needed to support and justify themselves, even if it's dishonest, foolish, or mad. Doesn't matter -- it's their divine trip.

[Immanuel Can]

When you separate points from their context...

Show me how I did that?

Christianity and religion are intertwined and based on belief.

So, "religion" = "belief"? Then there are no human beings that are not "religious." We all believe stuff.

No singularly-defined god has shown up throughout Earth's history except in the self-serving imaginations and claims of men.

Your evidence for that claim is...what?

[Lacewing]

When you separate points from their context...

Show me how I did that?

You made a claim about the 'entry point' not being too high for knowing god. I asked why there would even need to be an entry point when we're already inside of god's world/plan -- and I pointed out that it's humans who judge 'inside' and 'outside'.

You then said that humans are fallible judges. That response missed/avoided my point that it's only humans who are judging such a thing... why would a god make judgements about 'inside' and 'outside'?

You then continued on your track of claiming that humans make wrong judgments. Which continued redirecting the discussion, out of context.

Christianity and religion are intertwined and based on belief.

So, "religion" = "belief"? Then there are no human beings that are not "religious." We all believe stuff.

Your distortion (and dishonesty, again). That's not what I said.

No singularly-defined god has shown up throughout Earth's history except in the self-serving imaginations and claims of men.

Your evidence for that claim is...what?

Earth's entire history of civilizations with different beliefs. Humans did not, and do not, believe or experience the same. Clearly, no singularly-defined god has shown up. What is your evidence to the contrary?

[Immanuel Can]

That response missed/avoided my point that it's only humans who are judging such a thing... why would a god make judgements about 'inside' and 'outside'?

Oh. I misunderstood your point, I guess.

I'm still not quite seeing it. What do you mean by "inside" and "outside"? Maybe you could clear that up for me.

Christianity and religion are intertwined and based on belief.

So, "religion" = "belief"? Then there are no human beings that are not "religious." We all believe stuff.

That's not what I said.

Well, what does "are intertwined on" imply, if not that belief supposedly makes the one into the other?

Again, maybe you can clarify.

No singularly-defined god has shown up throughout Earth's history except in the self-serving imaginations and claims of men.

Your evidence for that claim is...what?

Earth's entire history of civilizations with different beliefs. Humans did not, and do not, believe or experience the same. Clearly, no singularly-defined god has shown up.

Oh, I see. Well, that just doesn't follow, of course. The fact that people believe different things says nothing whatsoever about the truth itself.

At one time, everybody believed the world was flat, or had an edge they could fall off. Some people have believed that a giant dragon was coiled around it. Some thought it was the center of the universe. Those are all different beliefs: but none of them changed the truth.

If there is a real God, then people's beliefs about Him do not change Him. It's only on the assumption that God is purely imaginary that you could think that different versions of God make any difference at all. But if He were imaginary, then nobody's opinion on His identity would matter at all, anyway.

What is your evidence to the contrary?

My evidence is Jesus Christ.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I prefer to call the above a divine 'contract' rather than 'covenant' as the majority understand what is a 'contract' and its principles.

No, that's not a reasonable metaphor. "Contracts" are two-sided, being a kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement. Either party can "owe" the other the fulfilling of the "contract," and the balance between the contracted is equal. Contracts are also mediated by a third party or agency, one with the authority to guarantee the contract. They are co-signatory, bilateral, legal arrangements.

The relations in salvation are not contractual in any of those respects. All one could really say is that both parties in the New Covenant "have a role"; but the role God has is vastly greater than the human role; and while the human role has obligations that follow upon God's fulfilling of His promises, those obligations do not obligate God in any way in return. And all that's just for a start. So the idea of a "contract" is misleading in very significant ways.

I understand the error: but I think you've really got it significantly wrong in thinking about it in terms of "contract." I'm quite certain you won't actually see what's really going on if you rely on that metaphor. It distorts the facts too much.

Your knowledge on 'what is a contract' is so limited.

Note there are explicit and implied contracts.
Contracts need not be mediated by a third party.
If you sign a contract that required to pay a depo$it to start work, then the contract is void, if the other party did not pay the deposit.
There are so many instances of contracts where no third party is necessary.

The contract [covenant] between a theist and God is essentially and fundamentally in alignment with 'what is a contract' as generally understood.

God's role and the Christian's* role has not critical relevance to the operation of the contract [contract]. * note it is a contracted-Christian not merely any human.

In the contract [covenant] between a Christian and God /Jesus is the Christian is promised eternal life in heaven upon compliances with the necessary terms as stipulated within the Gospel.
Therefore if the Christian complied with all the terms as stipulated, then God will definitely fulfil what he had promised.
Surely as all-wise God would not break what he promised and thus God is in a way 'obligated'.
If God is not obligated when all the terms are complied with, then God's credibility is questionable and no one will accept John 3:16 to be a Christian.

The term 'contract' [aka covenant] in principle is very valid to represent the "relationship" between a Christian and his God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The God of Christianity via Jesus made the offer in the Gospel in John 3:16 and alike. This is indisputable.

I'm always amused by closing lines like, "This is indisputable," because they almost invariably signal "I know I'm vulnerable on this point, so please, please don't contradict me."

John 3:16 definitely does not describe a contractual relationship. Sorry. It actually describes a birth-relationship, or more precisely, a new-birth relationship. That's what "you must be born again" implies.

On the human side, the requirements of the relationship are dead simple: to believe that what God has done, God has done. But no "doing" on the part of the person in question is implied. "Belief" is a passive act, a giving up of reliance on oneself, not a set of obligations that are being imposed. The activity of what you call the "contract" is all on the Divine side; man does nothing but to accept what has been done.

I stated 'John 3:16 and alike' meaning including other verses and the whole context of the Gospel reducible to the 'contract' [covenant] that initiate a person to be a 'Christian' officially.

[Immanuel Can]

In the contract [covenant] between a Christian and God /Jesus is the Christian is promised eternal life in heaven upon compliances with the necessary terms as stipulated within the Gospel.

You didn't read John 3:16. Or you tried to read it, but didn't understand it. However, it's not a 100% wrong way to characterize the situation, so let's go with your metaphor anyway.

Let's view John 3:16 as a "contract."

Terms of Contract

God's Contractual Duties, as specified in John 3:16

1. Love the world.
2. Give His unique Son to pay the price for man's sin.
3. Open up a universal way of salvation.
4. Provide eternal life.

Man's Contractual Duties

Believe God has done it.

Now, that's the contract as spelled out by John 3:16. Does it still actually look "contractual" to you?

[RCSaunders]

I brought the existing real there,
in my opinion, the One is regularity of nature.

What, "regularity of nature." Most of nature is chaotic, not regular at all.
Are you saying chaos is your God?

[RCSaunders]

Faith is simple ...

Would you like to explain what it is? Simply?

[RCSaunders]

What is your evidence to the contrary?

My evidence is Jesus Christ.

The ultimate scam. Every con man knows the best hook is the promise of what cannot be checked out. It is the basis of most religious frauds. Just, "accept this doctrine," "follow this formula," or, "buy into this belief," no matter what it costs in this world, and, "you will have paradise in the next world." It's the perfect hoax, because those taken in by it cannot come back to sue, and there is no way to check out the promised eternal vacation paradise before hand.

Even better is the, "fake evidence," that no one can actually check out. First you have to convince people that what someone has written or described is actually evidence, but must people are gullible enough to believe that. Then you use something written that says: "see there was once this man, or miracle, or god-man, or man-god, or divine teacher, or ... well just anything really," and since there is no way to actually check that phony evidence no one can prove the fraud, and non of the suckers will ever be the wiser.

Most of those who have been taken in will become the unwitting accomplices of the con man, spreading the scam. It's called evangelism. They are driven by their ignorance and the uncomfortable feeling there might be something wrong which can only be assuaged by finding and convincing lots of other suckers to fall for the same scam.

[Lacewing]

That response missed/avoided my point that it's only humans who are judging such a thing... why would a god make judgements about 'inside' and 'outside'?

Oh. I misunderstood your point, I guess.

I'm still not quite seeing it. What do you mean by "inside" and "outside"? Maybe you could clear that up for me.

If you or anyone claims there is an entry point, then that suggests there is an 'inside' and an 'outside'... see? That is a human idea... surely not the idea of a god.

So, "religion" = "belief"? Then there are no human beings that are not "religious." We all believe stuff.

That's not what I said.

Well, what does "are intertwined on" imply, if not that belief supposedly makes the one into the other?

Again, maybe you can clarify.

I said Christianity and religion are intertwined... and both are based on belief. That's not a difficult or outrageous or unfounded concept. You changed it to: religion = belief, and suggesting that all belief is religious. That is very different than what I said. Are you so intoxicated with your beliefs that you are completely unaware of how much you distort things to continually support them?

The fact that people believe different things says nothing whatsoever about the truth itself.

It shows that your idea of a god and the 2,000-yr-story that you base all of your beliefs on, is but a blip in time that doesn't resonate consistently, nor was it shared or acknowledged, throughout Earth's or humankind's history. Why would this be if your god was able to 'show up' consistently without question?

If he were imaginary, then nobody's opinion on His identity would matter at all, anyway.

The way it matters is in how it serves those who believe in it, and what they do with it. The ideas and stories differ because they're made-up by men.

So! Why put so much focus on stories instead of looking beyond them? The stories become an idol to worship! Drop the stories, and see what else there is. Are you brave and honest enough to do that? Or must you hide within the static stories and resulting distorted assumptions that you can claim to know? Why would any god be so static?