Objections to the belief that God's law is written on our hearts

[shunyadragon]

In a thread in Theology 201 where I am not allowed to respond this question was asked based on Romans 2:12-16 that 'God's law is written on our hearts.' This follows the claim that all humans the belief in God is inherent to human nature regardless what one believes, even the most died in the wool atheists.

I believe in a more subtle version of this, but not to the degree that some believe that atheists are dishonest to their inner innate belief in God. The potential of God's attributes exists in the hearts of all humans and a witness to all of our physical existence.

The following posted by thoughtful Monk is what I would like to respond to:

I've seen this thought before. I find that many people that argue all religions worship the same God tend to minimize the differences in the first part and emphasis the second part. I personally don't believe all religions worship the same God because of the vast differences in the conception of the divine, redemption, etc.

Of course, it is idealistic and unrealistic to argue that ALL religions, churches, and the many diverse and conflicting belief systems believe in the same God.

Likewise, it is idealistic and unrealistic to believe that out of the many religions, churches, and the many other conflicting belief systems that one may be considered the one 'true' belief for ALL of humanity for time immemorial.

I do believe in an inherent nature of God and the attributes of God in all humans, but it is more subtle than proposed in the claims of any one religion or belief system.

More to follow . . .

Seer may not post in this thread for obvious reasons of rampant off topic rants.

[37818]

Atheist Matthew Adler wrote a book called "The 'God' Part of the Brain." Holding there is a biological reason of human spirituality and the belief in God. Through MRI studies that show that there is a part of the brain associated with human spirituality.

Makes me think of Romans 1:19,

Romans 1:19,
. . . Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; . . .

[Starlight]

Romans 2:12-16 that 'God's law is written on our hearts.' This follows the claim that all humans the belief in God is inherent to human nature regardless what one believes, even the most died in the wool atheists.

But Paul is talking about moral behavior here. He's saying that the gentiles can live morally and achieve a positive final judgment from God:


Paul believes that God's final judgment of people will be based on the morality of a person's actions as understood by them. That is consistently the NT and early Christian depiction of the final judgment. And IMO this section is Paul's reply to his rhetorical opponent's opening statement in 1:18-32, where a Jewish preacher holding to the theology of the book Wisdom of Solomon (and paraphrasing a couple of chapters from that work) claimed that Gentiles all do truly horrible evils as a result of failure to believe in the right God. Paul's response is that, no, Gentiles do lots of good things, and nothing stops them passing God's final judgement as a result.

[Starlight]

Through MRI studies that show that there is a part of the brain associated with human spirituality.

It's called 'the imagination' right?

[ke7ejx]

In a thread in Theology 201 where I am not allowed to respond this question was asked based on Romans 2:12-16 that 'God's law is written on our hearts.' This follows the claim that all humans the belief in God is inherent to human nature regardless what one believes, even the most died in the wool atheists.

I believe in a more subtle version of this, but not to the degree that some believe that atheists are dishonest to their inner innate belief in God. The potential of God's attributes exists in the hearts of all humans and a witness to all of our physical existence.

The following posted by thoughtful Monk is what I would like to respond to:



Of course, it is idealistic and unrealistic to argue that ALL religions, churches, and the many diverse and conflicting belief systems believe in the same God.

Likewise, it is idealistic and unrealistic to believe that out of the many religions, churches, and the many other conflicting belief systems that one may be considered the one 'true' belief for ALL of humanity for time immemorial.

I do believe in an inherent nature of God and the attributes of God in all humans, but it is more subtle than proposed in the claims of any one religion or belief system.

More to follow . . .

Seer may not post in this thread for obvious reasons of rampant off topic rants.

Except he was on topic in the last couple of threads you kicked him out of. It's more you don't like that he has an opposing opinion.

[shunyadragon]

Except he was on topic in the last couple of threads you kicked him out of. It's more you don't like that he has an opposing opinion.

It is Tweb policy that one can choose to exclude someone from a thread if they so desire. There are a number of threads in other places that have addressed seer's issues and questions. I have repeatedly answered seer's questions. He does not accept my answers, nothing new here to be addressed.

[ke7ejx]

It is Tweb policy that one can choose to exclude someone from a thread if they so desire. There are a number of threads in other places that have addressed seer's issues and questions. I have repeatedly answered seer's questions. He does not accept my answers, nothing new here to be addressed.

Correction: It is Tweb policy to ask people to not participate in a thread if there's a history of the poster being an issue. However, the rule also says:

But this is not to be taken to extremes and can be denied by moderator decision if we believe it is being abused. In other words, you can't just use this power to keep any critics out of your thread so you can "win"

You have a nasty little habit of banning people from your threads simply for disagreeing with you. You flagrantly abuse the policy to turn your threads into an echo chamber when you know we are a debate site for a reason.

[Starlight]

It's more you don't like that he has an opposing opinion.

That claim seems ridiculous at face value. Seer turns any thread he's in into an argument about the philosophical foundations of morality and then argues about that ad nauseum. If shuny were trying to escape from opposing opinions he's not doing a very good job of it by posting in a public forum where literally everyone in the world can argue with him.

[shunyadragon]

Correction: It is Tweb policy to ask people to not participate in a thread if there's a history of the poster being an issue. However, the rule also says:



You have a nasty little habit of banning people from your threads simply for disagreeing with you. You flagrantly abuse the policy to turn your threads into an echo chamber when you know we are a debate site for a reason.

Document the 'habit of banning people.' It is rare on my part.

There is a history of seer being an issue.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think the OP is pretty good.

Likewise, it is idealistic and unrealistic to believe that out of the many religions, churches, and the many other conflicting belief systems that one may be considered the one 'true' belief for ALL of humanity for time immemorial.

I think this is largely accurate even from a Biblical perspective.
(Assuming the timeline of the Bible for sake of discussion) It is quite clear that for the first several thousand years of Biblical history there wasn't even an organized priesthood.
Undoubtedly, the beliefs of Seth, Noah, Abraham and so forth varied considerably.
Would Melchizedek be welcome down at the local Catholic Church? Probably not.

I'd say what draws these all together isn't the form of their faith as much as the object of their faith.

[37818]

It's called 'the imagination' right?

Are you saying that the MRI studies show that imagination and what is identified as that spiritual part of the brain are the same?

[Meh Gerbil]

Are you saying that the MRI studies show that imagination and what is identified as that spiritual part of the brain are the same?

He's playing with you, not making a factual claim.

[shunyadragon]

I think the OP is pretty good.

I think this is largely accurate even from a Biblical perspective.
(Assuming the timeline of the Bible for sake of discussion) It is quite clear that for the first several thousand years of Biblical history there wasn't even an organized priesthood.
Undoubtedly, the beliefs of Seth, Noah, Abraham and so forth varied considerably.
Would Melchizedek be welcome down at the local Catholic Church? Probably not.

I'd say what draws these all together isn't the form of their faith as much as the object of their faith.

Actually, and it may be rare, but I agree with you here to a certain extent, but I will question the timeline, and be more inclusive as the spiritual history of humanity.

I consider religions to be to a certain degree the human view of God through the cultural perspective of the time an place in human history, and the relationship with humanity as the object , and not the form of the belief system.

[Tassman]

Actually, and it may be rare, but I agree with you here to a certain extent, but I will question the timeline, and be more inclusive as the spiritual history of humanity.

I consider religions to be to a certain degree the human view of God through the cultural perspective of the time an place in human history, and the relationship with humanity as the object , and not the form of the belief system.

[Doug Shaver]

Atheist Matthew Adler wrote a book called "The 'God' Part of the Brain." Holding there is a biological reason of human spirituality and the belief in God. Through MRI studies that show that there is a part of the brain associated with human spirituality.

That is how some people interpreted those MRI studies.