The intellectual draught of ideas.

shnarkle

Well-known member
Draught: as used here: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:18,19

Descartes assumed his thoughts proved his existence. He assumes that he is the one who thinks. He commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. He never proves that he is the one who is thinking. He doesn't have to if everyone accepts it as a Given.

The mystic, the poet, the seer, and the prophet will be the first to openly admit that the inspiration, musings, or revelations they receive are not of their own making. They neither created them, nor are they theirs to possess.

However, it does not then follow that we cannot create anything. In fact, the first thing we create actually follows from what all infants create. The mind forms an intellectual bowel movement in the form of its own identity.

From there, this intellectual turd simply assumes every idea that appears before it is of its own making. It is all intellectual waste and is incapable of inspiration of any kind.

The idea, the id, the identity is what is produced, and therefore can never be the source of inspiration.

By the same token, they can never be worthy of redemption. These silly ideas are destined, like Satan burned to ashes in an incinerating toilet; to a brief and harried life of flatulent ratiocination.
 
Last edited:
Not of their own conscious making.
I used to find it quite amusing to see how many people wander through their lives almost completely unconscious. Unconscious people are not creative. They're not inspired. They're bored, boring and seek constant mind-numbing stimulation.
 
I used to find it quite amusing to see how many people wander through their lives almost completely unconscious. Unconscious people are not creative. They're not inspired. They're bored, boring and seek constant mind-numbing stimulation.
Subconscious, not unconscious.

Ever suddenly remembered something you stopped thinking about hours ago? If you are suggesting that this somehow comes from "outside" your mind, I find that ludicrous, but if you can prove it, I'm all ears.
 
Subconscious, not unconscious.

Ever suddenly remembered something you stopped thinking about hours ago? If you are suggesting that this somehow comes from "outside" your mind, I find that ludicrous, but if you can prove it, I'm all ears.
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness. Good luck proving those thoughts that you become aware of originate in your mind. Look at everything you're aware of that is "out there". Do you believe you created that as well?

There's a really entertaining British hypnotist with his own show, and he shows how easy it is to plant ideas into someone's mind. These people all think they're making these choices themselves.


Just because you're not aware of someone planting ideas into your noggin, it doesn't then follow that you came up with these ideas yourself.
 
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness.
1. Yet.
2. This is an argument from ignorance.
Good luck proving those thoughts that you become aware of originate in your mind.
Good luck proving that they don't.

And I didn't claim that they don't, so I don't have to prove it.
You claimed that they did, so you do.
There's a really entertaining British hypnotist with his own show, and he shows how easy it is to plant ideas into someone's mind. These people all think they're making these choices themselves.
This does not prove that all ideas are "planted".
 
1. Yet.
2. This is an argument from ignorance.
It's a simple observation which you have yet to refute.
Good luck proving that they don't.
I don't have to. I'm not the one making these assumptions.
And I didn't claim that they don't, so I don't have to prove it.
You're the one who is making these assumptions which preclude you from even entertaining an argument as to why you believe these assumptions.
You claimed that they did, so you do.
Strawman argument. I'm simply pointing out that you are the one who is making these assumptions which you can't prove.
This does not prove that all ideas are "planted".
Ah, at least you now see that there is evidence which is more than can be said for your assumptions. Perhaps you have some evidence showing that you're in the habit of planting ideas in your own mind.
 
It's a simple observation which you have yet to refute.
"Science doesn't know" =/= "it's supernatural".

You don't win just because your opponent hasn't (yet) won.
I don't have to. I'm not the one making these assumptions.
Neither am I.
Ah, at least you now see that there is evidence which is more than can be said for your assumptions.
We have evidence that humans can plant ideas in the mind of other humans.

How does it follow that something besides humans - something supernatural, even - can do so?
 
"Science doesn't know" =/= "it's supernatural".
Ah, yet more Strawman arguments. Your inability to produce a valid argument is telling.
You don't win just because your opponent hasn't (yet) won.
When no one refutes or even addresses what I've posted, the points presented are automatically conceded. You are not opposing anything I've posted. You're presenting Strawman arguments. You're addressing arguments that have nothing to do with this OP.
We have evidence that humans can plant ideas in the mind of other humans.
Agreed!
How does it follow that something besides humans - something supernatural, even - can do so?
Why are you pretending to argue? Where have I suggested the supernatural as a solution to this conundrum? Where are these mysterious Strawman hallucinations coming from? Are they coming from you? If so, prove it. If not, then where are they coming from?
 
Draught: as used here: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:18,19

Descartes assumed his thoughts proved his existence. He assumes that he is the one who thinks. He commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. He never proves that he is the one who is thinking. He doesn't have to if everyone accepts it as a Given.
I think you could made a case that it is true by definition. What is Descartes is that entity that is doing the thinking - regardless of where the body is or whether it even exists.

The mystic, the poet, the seer, and the prophet will be the first to openly admit that the inspiration, musings, or revelations they receive are not of their own making. They neither created them, nor are they theirs to possess.
So then the whole idea of copyright is flawed. No one - in your view - thinks of anything original.

I disagree. I think there is a difference between being inspired by something and dictation.

However, it does not then follow that we cannot create anything. In fact, the first thing we create actually follows from what all infants create. The mind forms an intellectual bowel movement in the form of its own identity.

From there, this intellectual turd simply assumes every idea that appears before it is of its own making. It is all intellectual waste and is incapable of inspiration of any kind.
Well I am now wondering about your postings, but I do not consider what I create to be anything like that.

The idea, the id, the identity is what is produced, and therefore can never be the source of inspiration.
Can you talk me through that? Are you saying it is impossible for something that is made to inspire? I find great art, great architecture inspiring. Acts of bravery likewise. Am I missing some nuance here?
 
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness.
As stated, this is objectively false. Science knows a great deal about human consciousness, including how to detect and manipulate it.

There is obviously a lot more to learn, too.
 
As stated, this is objectively false.
Stating it doesn't prove it. This is just Begging the Question.
Science knows a great deal about human consciousness,
No. It doesn't.
including how to detect and manipulate it.
They have no idea why they can manipulate someone's consciousness.
There is obviously a lot more to learn, too.
Or there's nothing more to learn because it may remain a mystery forever.
 
Descartes assumed his thoughts proved his existence. He assumes that he is the one who thinks. He commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. He never proves that he is the one who is thinking. He doesn't have to if everyone accepts it as a Given.
This begs a question of its own. Who else is doing the thinking if not the individual?
I can choose what to think about, and I think about it. It's self evident. To prove otherwise is an argument from absence.

The idea, the id, the identity is what is produced, and therefore can never be the source of inspiration.
Thoughts (nouns) are the result of thinking. (Verb). An individual is not their ego, nor their thoughts. Moreover, not all thought have to be original to be thoughts.
 
This begs a question of its own. Who else is doing the thinking if not the individual?
Paul points out that it isn't he, but Christ in him.
I can choose what to think about, and I think about it.
This is your assumption.
It's self evident.
No, it clearly isn't.
To prove otherwise is an argument from absence.
Not really. You don't think your thoughts any more than you beat your heart.
Thoughts (nouns) are the result of thinking. (Verb).
As I pointed out already, there are plenty who would point out that they clearly are not the origin of the thoughts they're aware of.
An individual is not their ego,
Correct, but most people are completely unaware of this fact.
nor their thoughts.
Agreed.
Moreover, not all thought have to be original to be thoughts.
Most probably aren't original, and none of them originate within the brain that receives them. Jesus had enough sense to admit this simple fact, but everyone else has been deceived into believing they're the origin of their own thoughts and ideas.
 
Paul points out that it isn't he, but Christ in him.
So what was the origins of Paul's thoughts before he accepted Christ?
This is your assumption.
Maybe so, but you can't prove it false, which makes it plausible and equally as valid as your assumption.
No, it clearly isn't.
Why isn't it clearly self-evident? Self is the standard by which we evaluate, no?
Not really. You don't think your thoughts any more than you beat your heart.
My brain stem controls my heart. Just because something happens subconsciously doesn't we automatically assume everything this is a result of an outside force.
As I pointed out already, there are plenty who would point out that they clearly are not the origin of the thoughts they're aware of.
I disagree. The moments people give credit to thoughts outside themselves they class those thoughts as "inspired". Not every thought is inspired. Inspired thoughts are the exception, not the rule.
Correct, but most people are completely unaware of this fact.
How is this relevant? We don't have to be aware of something to make it true.
Most probably aren't original, and none of them originate within the brain that receives them. Jesus had enough sense to admit this simple fact,
What scripture are you referring to?
but everyone else has been deceived into believing they're the origin of their own thoughts and ideas.
Or, you have been deceived to believe you are not the origin of your own thoughts.
 
So what was the origins of Paul's thoughts before he accepted Christ?
I'll let Paul answer that question for you. " there is one God, the Father, OF whom are ALL things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom are ALL things, and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6

I don't see Paul presenting any caveats or exceptions, do you?
Maybe so, but you can't prove it false, which makes it plausible and equally as valid as your assumption.
You're making progress. Whenever you're ready to defend your claims, we're ready to hear them.
Why isn't it clearly self-evident?
The claim isn't proof. You're just begging the question. We have proof that no one is born with an identity, and yet this fabrication of the mind then concludes that the identity formed must be who comes up with these thoughts. See the problem yet?
Self is the standard by which we evaluate, no?
Perhaps you do what you think is right in your own eyes, but then that would mean you've ignored the gospel message which begins with "deny yourself", and cling to God's standard.
My brain stem controls my heart. Just because something happens subconsciously
Autonomous systems are not proven to be subconscious systems.
doesn't we automatically assume everything this is a result of an outside force.
I'm not making references to inside or outside forces. I'm pointing out false assumptions of possession. See the quote from Paul above.
I disagree. The moments people give credit to thoughts outside themselves they class those thoughts as "inspired".
Agreed, and as I pointed out earlier, there are quite a few types of people who live inspired lives.
Not every thought is inspired.
Programs aren't thoughts They're default programs that you believe you're thinking. Corporate Amerika has algorithms which manipulate those programs for fun and profit.
Inspired thoughts are the exception, not the rule.
This may be the case with you, but it certainly isn't the case with everyone. The rule is that most people are walking around completely unconscious. This is an evolutionary trait that allows people to get through their miserable lives as painlessly as possible.
How is this relevant? We don't have to be aware of something to make it true.
Correct, but a Strawman because this doesn't negate the fact that it is NOT true.
What scripture are you referring to?
"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." John 5:19

Granted, this only applies to those who are born again sons of the Father.
Or, you have been deceived to believe you are not the origin of your own thoughts.
See above quotes from Paul and John's gospel, and note that the bible reveals that, barring the elect; the whole world is deceived.
 
I'll let Paul answer that question for you. " there is one God, the Father, OF whom are ALL things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom are ALL things, and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6
That doesn't answer my question. Paul had an "old man" and a "new man". How can that be if the same outside force is controlling the person. How is there a choice to put off "old man" if the outside force is deciding for us? What's would be the point of proposing such a teaching? Are you lumping Paul in the Descartes?

You're making progress. Whenever you're ready to defend your claims, we're ready to hear them.
I don't have to. Plausible is a valid status of belief. I can assume it's true until proven otherwise.

The claim isn't proof.
Actually, self-evidence is exactly with the claim is the proof.
It even conforms to the scientific method.
Hypothesis: I can control my thoughts.
Test: Can I control my thoughts?
Result: Yes. I can.
You're just begging the question.
What question am I begging?

We have proof that no one is born with an identity, and yet this fabrication of the mind then concludes that the identity formed must be who comes up with these thoughts. See the problem yet?
I disagree. Everyone is born with an identity. You are not me. I am my mother's child. A cat is not a bird. Etc.
The error comes in how we define our identity. People who think they are their thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, possessions, or roles are usually where people get misled and controlled.

Perhaps you do what you think is right in your own eyes, but then that would mean you've ignored the gospel message which begins with "deny yourself", and cling to God's standard.
First of all, I thought this was a philosophical, not a religious one. So I sense a moving of the goal posts here.
Second, Descartes intent was to prove there is a God, so if you're using the Bible as evidence, I don't know why you'd want to discount him.
Third, everyone does what is right in their own eyes. By nature, man chooses survival. A person may initially seek to understand the gospel to "avoid hell", or what they are doing aren't currently isn't working for them, so they try something else.
Fourth, "I" (self) can't deny myself, if there is no self to deny. You've completely destroyed your own argument.

Autonomous systems are not proven to be subconscious systems.
This is just blanket skepticism which has no relevance to the argument.

I'm not making references to inside or outside forces. I'm pointing out false assumptions of possession. See the quote from Paul above.
Ok. I apologize if I misunderstood your argument.
Still, man has experience, he avoids pain and avoids pleasure, whether the sources of that of pain is real or unreal.
Thus, if man wanted to create God to justify his behavior, he could to do so. (Not that I believe that, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)
People are led by both "true" and "false" spirits, right? But I don't see the purpose of a gospel where there is no agency. If the decisions are all made, then that would make God a very cruel person.

Agreed, and as I pointed out earlier, there are quite a few types of people who live inspired lives.
I'm glad we can agree on something. :)

Programs aren't thoughts They're default programs that you believe you're thinking. Corporate Amerika has algorithms which manipulate those programs for fun and profit.
I disagree with your premise here, but agree with your conclusion.
Thinking is a behavior. Thoughts can be adopted. By manipulation, thought habits can be instilled. So, I would say programs come in the form of thoughts.
Having said that, by self-awareness, the truth can set you free from programming.

This may be the case with you, but it certainly isn't the case with everyone. The rule is that most people are walking around completely unconscious. This is an evolutionary trait that allows people to get through their miserable lives as painlessly as possible.
This reminds me of the book "Outwitting the Devil" by Napoleon Hill. It's a good one.

Correct, but a Strawman because this doesn't negate the fact that it is NOT true.
A strawman is to mischaracterize another person's argument to easily beat it down.
Somethings can't be proven. I don't have to prove your plausibility false to prove my plausibility true.

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." John 5:19
This scripture is evidence of Jesus admitting that no thought originates within the brain that receives it?
That might be true of inspired thought, but not thoughts in general. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding your argument.
If Jesus has a will, and He chooses the will of His Father, then Jesus has thoughts, he just chooses to follow the thoughts of His Father.
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)

As far as creativity goes. I believe the existence of AI disproves "no thought originates within the brain that receives it". Any intelligence can act in response to its environment, learning by pleasure and pain, without anyone suggesting anything from an external force.

Granted, this only applies to those who are born again sons of the Father.
Well, that's the beauty of it, if we accept man originates thought by experience, even in atheistic reasoning, a man can find the fruits of the gospel by the scientific method if a person is willing to release their skepticism.
See above quotes from Paul and John's gospel, and note that the bible reveals that, barring the elect; the whole world is deceived.
Every religion has their "elect". Every man's religion is self-serving, if it wasn't they wouldn't believe it. In other words, a man wouldn't authentically serve God if he honestly believed if he was going to hell regardless.
I think that's why Jesus permitted the blind to lead the blind, and not to judge one another based on their beliefs. If we can release our egos and have hearts of understanding (like Solomon), then we can be peacemakers who are the true children of God. But I would say anyone able to do that would have to recognize that that attribute is a gift from God in itself.
 
That doesn't answer my question. Paul had an "old man" and a "new man". How can that be if the same outside force is controlling the person.
Pretty simple really. God sustains all of creation.
How is there a choice to put off "old man" if the outside force is deciding for us?
There isn't a choice. How can you choose something you have no idea or experience of in the first place? We're all born in this fallen state which kinda makes it impossible to seek God. If you don't believe me, perhaps you might believe Paul when he makes the same observation. "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3:11
What's would be the point of proposing such a teaching?
It's the truth. I'm not the one proposing it. Paul is.
Are you lumping Paul in the Descartes?
No. Paul refutes Descartes position. For the sake of those following along who may not be up to speed on this subject. Descartes claims that because he thinks, it necessarily follows that he must exist. Paul makes the exact opposite claim. He points out that everything originates from God in, with, through, and for Christ. It is not he who does anything, but Christ within him. This insight isn't the exclusive domain of Christians either as he quotes a pagan philosopher who observes that it is in God that "we live and move and have our being." We assume that these identities we have are real, but the reality is seen only when one denies themself. By denying this false identity, the true identity is revealed. Ultimately it isn't something that any of us can do on our own. It is what happens when Christ increases. As Christ increases, we decrease.
I don't have to.
Nobody claims you do. The point is that you're not able to.
Plausible is a valid status of belief.
You can believe whatever you please. That's not the point.
I can assume it's true until proven otherwise.
Agreed, and since I've presented an argument already which you have yet to refute, you've conceded the point.
Actually, self-evidence is exactly with the claim is the proof.
False. You're committing the fallacy of Begging the Question Look it up.
It even conforms to the scientific method.
No. It most certainly doesn't.
Hypothesis: I can control my thoughts.
You can't. There are very few people who can.
Test: Can I control my thoughts?
Result: Yes. I can.
False. There are countless examples of people who can't control much of anything running through their mind. There are also some examples of those who can, but they're extremely rare, and there is no doubt in my mind that you're not one of them. Regardless, making the claim doesn't prove the claim.
What question am I begging?
You're making assumptions which are not proof or evidence. You're claiming something is self-evident, and it's not. If it's so obvious, then prove it. If you can't, then it isn't self-evident at all.
I disagree. Everyone is born with an identity.
False. No one is ever born with an identity. They are all legal fictions which can be changed by simply filling out some paperwork and paying the fees.
You are not me.
Correct.
I am my mother's child.
You're referring to identification now. As closely related as identification is identity, identification is not identity.
A cat is not a bird. Etc.
See above.
The error comes in how we define our identity.
How? Please elaborate.
People who think they are their thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, possessions, or roles are usually where people get misled and controlled.
Very true! You're starting to catch on now.
First of all, I thought this was a philosophical, not a religious one. So I sense a moving of the goal posts here.
I'm not making religious arguments here.
Second, Descartes intent was to prove there is a God, so if you're using the Bible as evidence, I don't know why you'd want to discount him.
I'm not discounting Descartes. I'm pointing out that he was mistaken. His argument is flawed.
Third, everyone does what is right in their own eyes.
False. I don't see any reason why I should refrain from wearing clothing with mixed fibers, yet I never wear clothing with mixed fibers.
By nature, man chooses survival. A person may initially seek to understand the gospel to "avoid hell", or what they are doing aren't currently isn't working for them, so they try something else.
Not sure what your point is here.
Fourth, "I" (self) can't deny myself, if there is no self to deny. You've completely destroyed your own argument.
If you pay attention to the chronology of events, the argument is irrefutable. Once one denies themself, they no longer have a self to deny. This is where the gospel begins and ends. Self-denial and self-sacrifice are synonymous. Mark asks his readers to peer into Christ's tomb. What do you see? Nothing. You see an empty tomb. There is no one there. There is no body. Nobody is there. There is no better illustration of self sacrifice.
This is just blanket skepticism which has no relevance to the argument.
False. You made a claim which you have yet to prove. The burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims. Back them up or concede the point.
I don't see the purpose of a gospel where there is no agency. If the decisions are all made, then that would make God a very cruel person.
False. As Paul points out in Romans 9, it is a Given that God is just. This is his response to your claim which is essentially that if you're only doing what God wills then why would you be blamed? Correct?
I disagree with your premise here, but agree with your conclusion.
Thinking is a behavior. Thoughts can be adopted. By manipulation, thought habits can be instilled. So, I would say programs come in the form of thoughts.
Programs are instead of thought. Instead of thinking for oneself, one simply plays the program. One doesn't have to think if the program makes all the decisions.
Having said that, by self-awareness, the truth can set you free from programming.
The truth sets you free from yourself. When you are set free from yourself, there can be no self-awareness. In other words, the awareness is of God rather than of yourself.
A strawman is to mischaracterize another person's argument to easily beat it down.
Strawman arguments don't beat down or even address an argument if it is mischaracterized.
Somethings can't be proven. I don't have to prove your plausibility false to prove my plausibility true.
I'm not asking you to prove my position false. You're not doing that to begin with anyways. You just have to defend your own position, and assuming it is the case is not proving it to be the case.
This scripture is evidence of Jesus admitting that no thought originates within the brain that receives it?
Yep, and if you need more, I have plenty. Here's another:
"That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the HEART of men, proceed evil THOUGHTS, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

to be continued...
 
continued from post 18
That might be true of inspired thought, but not thoughts in general. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding your argument.
Again, those who are begotten of God according to his will are incapable of doing anything other than what they see their Father doing. Those who are carnal cannot please God no matter what they do because they can't see the Father to begin with. There quite simply is no choice regardless of how you look at it. How can someone choose anything if they don't have the choice to begin with?
If Jesus has a will, and He chooses the will of His Father, then Jesus has thoughts,
Just because someone has a will, it doesn't then follow that they necessarily have thoughts. Plenty of athletes, musicians, artists, etc. will openly and eagerly admit that when they're immersed in their sport, musical piece, etc. it's like they no longer exist. They become one with the muse, the ball etc. They've practiced for so many years and for so long that they no longer have to think about anything, and this is what the Old Testament was pointing out as well. Doing the right thing can become second nature, but the New Testament points out that if you begin with self denial/self sacrifice, there is no one left to sin. Self-denial is not an act of the will. It's an act of God.
he just chooses to follow the thoughts of His Father.
The father's will is revealed to him which he cannot help but comply with. He cannot follow the mind or thoughts of God, and he even admits this when he points out that only the father knows when he will return. He can't even tell you when he's coming back. He doesn't know. He only knows the will of God, and that he will follow God's will. This has nothing to do with choice, and everything to do with the ontological reality of who he is.

Your argument is effectively saying that fish swim because they will to do so, but the reality is that fish swim because they're fish. Likewise, the child of God doesn't sin because they're a child of God. It has nothing to do with their will.
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)

As far as creativity goes. I believe the existence of AI disproves "no thought originates within the brain that receives it".
Your beliefs don't prove anything. AI proves anything that is programmed into the AI can be regurgitated right back out. As it happens, this is the exact same case with the good ol' fashioned type of natural intelligence as well.
Any intelligence can act in response to its environment, learning by pleasure and pain, without anyone suggesting anything from an external force.
Those external sources of pleasure and pain in the environment refute your claim. Intelligence makes sense of what it receives. You just admitted this simple fact. Intelligence cannot be the source of what it receives.
Well, that's the beauty of it, if we accept man originates thought by experience,
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. What you experience through your senses do not originate in intelligence. Again, you're not paying attention to what's really going on. You see, hear, smell, taste etc. something which you then "make sense of." You make it intelligible but making it intelligible comes AFTERWARDS. You smell a fragrant rose, but the thought of a fragrant rose does not originate in your mind. It only comes AFTER you smell a fragrant rose. There's a reason why there's a "re" in front of "cognition". Becoming cognizant of something you sense happens after you sense it, and THEN you must make sense of it, and this is why it then becomes something you
re-cognize.
even in atheistic reasoning, a man can find the fruits of the gospel by the scientific method
No, he can't. The kingdom does not come by observation (Luke 17:20), and observation is an integral feature of the scientific method.
if a person is willing to release their skepticism.
They need to be more skeptical of science. Science requires it.
Every religion has their "elect". Every man's religion is self-serving, if it wasn't they wouldn't believe it.
I'm not referring to religious doctrines. I'm referring to the reality of self-denial/self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, experiencing self-sacrifice isn't something that is easily conveyed to others. One has to experience the liberation that comes with it in order to believe it. It is abhorrent to the ego which is why it's so rare.
In other words, a man wouldn't authentically serve God if he honestly believed if he was going to hell regardless.
This is a very important point, and one which might be worth spending more time on because it goes to the heart of the problem, which is the carnal, depraved, wicked heart of humanity.

The carnal man cannot please God, and only deceives himself when attempting to serve God. There is nothing anyone can do to save themselves including, but not limited to, accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior, getting baptized, etc. The carnal man can only go through those empty motions.

You just answered a question I've been asking people for the last 30 years which is: "Would you live your life any differently, if God revealed that you were a vessel fitted for destruction?" Your answer is that you would stop serving God.

While this response is understandable, it spotlights a problem with mainstream Christianity, i.e., the underlying assumption that God redeems or saves people because deep down, they're good people. It also reveals the fact that the carnal man cannot believe the gospel, but instead believes that they can and must continue to serve God in order to be saved. We know this is the case because you just admitted that no one would serve God knowing that they were destined for hell. Ultimately, the carnal man doesn't serve God if they believe that they're destined for glory as well.

Again, while I see how you would come to this conclusion, I'm not convinced this is necessarily the case with someone who sees that the Mosaic law is a benefit to one's life and keeping the Mosaic law is a way to serve God even if one has no intention of serving Him.

I also don't see how anyone could enjoy a life of sin knowing that they're going to burn in hell for eternity. Knowing that is what awaits me doesn't sound like something that's going to inspire me to go off and indulge in sinful behavior. Knowing that sin isn't something I'm interested in doing in the first place because I already know it only results in misery creates a sort of Catch 22.

Ultimately, the overwhelming grief one must incur knowing they're damned would obliterate any other desires one might normally have. How does one ignore that existential fact of reality? How does one get on with their life knowing they're destined for hell? It boggles my mind.
I think that's why Jesus permitted the blind to lead the blind, and not to judge one another based on their beliefs. If we can release our egos and have hearts of understanding (like Solomon), then we can be peacemakers who are the true children of God. But I would say anyone able to do that would have to recognize that that attribute is a gift from God in itself.
Agreed, therefore it isn't we who release our egos, but God. Even so, gifts from God are not what documents that we're saved or the elect of God. God blesses and bestows gifts upon the weeds right along with the flowers.
 
Back
Top