# The Biggest Lie of All



## Diogenes (May 12, 2009)

Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.  Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way.  So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."

Much is said here about the difference between those who are 'saved' and those of us poor non-believers who will suffer all manner of torments for all of eternity and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum . . . and too many times now the idea of morality has been ascribed solely to 'believers,' who have a book to point to and quote from, and that makes all the difference . . . 

But then, those same 'believers' draw a very distinct line in the sand, and that is where they say that because they are believers, their 'sins' will be forgiven.

Um? As a basis for morality goes, that one seems a little counter-intuitive.  Wouldn't the knowledge (belief) that you will be forgiven anything simply because you claim to 'believe' be quite the opposite of morality?  It seems to me that sort of belief system would give one carte blanche to sin all you want, then all you have to do is bow your head and say, "Gee, I'm Sorry."  Shazam, end of problem!

So how does a 'Believer' resolve this problem?  It seems to me that the entire 'forgiveness' dogma is just one more convenient rationalization, and it hands 'believers' every reason to reject basic morality, since they have no need of it.  How, exactly, can you honestly and rationally build a moral basis around a belief that you, personally, do not need to act morally because you will be forgiven, but 'nonbelievers' do?

You can't have it both ways folks -- either you, too, are punished for your 'sins,' equally, or none of us are.  The decal on your Chevy from the Antioch Baptist Church isn't going to change whatever the truth really is, so what is this selective idea of 'forgiveness,' but only for a few, really saying?


----------



## WTM45 (May 13, 2009)

Remember, only a "few" have true understanding of the words.
Only a "few" are truly chosen.


----------



## gtparts (May 13, 2009)

In two words......"Godly repentance". 


Oh, ...and He does know the difference!


----------



## Ronnie T (May 13, 2009)

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla and Bla.

Go some place else to pedal your unbelief and sarcasm.


----------



## formula1 (May 13, 2009)

*Re:*



gtparts said:


> In two words......"Godly repentance".
> 
> 
> Oh, ...and He does know the difference!



And Godly repentance is the only way you'll ever understand!  As a seed must die before it can live again, truth cannot be found from a premise of unbelief.  I will offer up a prayer for you, that your unbelief will be replaced by just enough faith to repent.  I hope my Believing brothers and sisters on here will join me in that prayer!!!  I have nothing else to offer you!

"The foolishness of a man twists his way, And his heart frets against the LORD."


----------



## WTM45 (May 13, 2009)

Instead of responding with reason, evidence and supported argument, here comes the "push" away.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 13, 2009)

Ok, here's the deal.

Our sins are just as punishable as yours are.  Sin is punishable by eternal blah blah blah....

You've got it backwards though.  Repentence and salvation do cause your sins to be forgiven.  However, true repentence and true salvation changes the heart of the sinner.  

It's not that you never sin again.  But you are aware that you are sinning and you continue in a process of refining and becoming more like Christ.  Your desire becomes to stop sinning because it's pleasing to the Savior....not sin more.  IF Christ has become your Lord and Savior, you will not view forgiveness as a "license to sin".  

I'll not deny that there are a lot of folks out there who claim christianity and use it as an excuse to follow the "sin-repent", "sin-repent" method.  Those people are not exhibiting the Fruit of the Spirit.  It's just as plain as that.  If you do not see those characteristics in one who claims to be a follower of Christ, then they are not what they claim to be.

You don't say "Oh, Jesus...I SOOOO sorry." and become somehow "immune" to punishment.

Every sin has two types of consequences: earthly and eternal.

Everyone pays the earthly price.  It's unavoidable.  But the eternal is most certainly avoidable.


----------



## donjon25 (May 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ok, here's the deal.
> 
> Our sins are just as punishable as yours are.  Sin is punishable by eternal blah blah blah....
> 
> ...



What he said.


----------



## Madman (May 13, 2009)

It boils down to justice.  If you believe in a JUST, creator of the universe, then you believe you will get what you deserve.
There are consequences for sin as Huntin says, earthly and eternal.,  “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, believer and non-believer.  
Christians believe that the price of sin is death, or eternal separation from God, some choose to call it punishment some call it choice.
Whatever you call it, could a perfect and holy God allow sin in His presence?  The answer is obviously no, so what is the solution?

The Bible calls it propitiation:
Ro 3:25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1Jo 2:2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 4:10  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

We have been purchased with the blood of God’s Son Jesus Christ.  One day I will stand before God and be judged for my life and because of my sins I will deserve eternal separation from God, but Jesus Christ will intervene on my behalf, just as he will intervene on behalf of all who freely accept His gift of eternal life by confessing Him as Lord.  He paid for my sins on the cross at Calvary.  He died and took on my sins that I may live.

If anyone believes they will not be judged one day the biggest lie is the one they tell them self.

_Ps 19:1   The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork._


----------



## Madman (May 13, 2009)

> How, exactly, can you honestly and rationally build a moral basis around a belief that you, personally, do not need to act morally because you will be forgiven, but 'nonbelievers' do? ...Diogenes


I missed the class in Christianity where we are taught that we do not have to act morally.  Please reveal that to me.

Can I continue to WILLFULLY sin after conversion?
Romans 5:20 – 6:2 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
1    What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
If I have been converted how can I continue to willfully sin?  How can I continue to live a life that my Lord has commanded me not to live?  How could I crucify Him again and again by willful action?  If I did I believe I would, and the church should, sincerely question my conversion.


----------



## Jeffriesw (May 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ok, here's the deal.
> 
> Our sins are just as punishable as yours are.  Sin is punishable by eternal blah blah blah....
> 
> ...





donjon25 said:


> What he said.



X's 2


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 13, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Instead of responding with reason, evidence and supported argument, here comes the "push" away.



I was betting on this happening within 2 responses.  How many did you guess?


----------



## WTM45 (May 13, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I was betting on this happening within 2 responses.  How many did you guess?




Right about the sixth post, where I posted.
There are always some who must first soapbox evangelize.


----------



## ToLog (May 13, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Remember, only a "few" have true understanding of the words.
> Only a "few" are truly chosen.




in my reading of the posts here from time to time, if i was trying derive the "basecase" scenario, i'd say that only a "few" are truly chosen, provided they're of the Catholic or Baptist faiths. 

this doesn't rule anyone else out, whatsoever. but, it might lower their chances, a bit?? 

that is, in reading the posts, the Muslims have no chance whatsoever, and folks like the Mormons and the JW "might" not have much of a chance either.


----------



## WTM45 (May 13, 2009)

roothog said:


> in my reading of the posts here from time to time, if i was trying derive the "basecase" scenario, i'd say that only a "few" are truly chosen, provided they're of the Catholic or Baptist faiths.
> 
> this doesn't rule anyone else out, whatsoever. but, it might lower their chances, a bit??
> 
> that is, in reading the posts, the Muslims have no chance whatsoever, and folks like the Mormons and the JW "might" not have much of a chance either.



I do wish there was more representation from those groups here.  There is SOOOOOO much to discuss and debate over!


----------



## reformedpastor (May 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.  Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way.  So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
> 
> Much is said here about the difference between those who are 'saved' and those of us poor non-believers who will suffer all manner of torments for all of eternity and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum . . . and too many times now the idea of morality has been ascribed solely to 'believers,' who have a book to point to and quote from, and that makes all the difference . . .
> 
> ...



Are you addressing "people" or the historic Christian faith as stated in its creeds and confessions? Two different things. For the most part our doctrine is always better than our practice. This is true for unbelievers too.


----------



## ToLog (May 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> ..... For the most part our doctrine is always better than our practice. This is true for unbelievers too.



Yes! i can easily understand and agree with you. 

or, as someone once said that was close to me: "in theory, theory and practice are the same; but, in practice, they're not."


----------



## Diogenes (May 13, 2009)

Formula1 states: "I will offer up a prayer for you, that your unbelief will be replaced by just enough faith to repent."  Um?  Repent?  For what?  Heck, I haven't even had a speeding ticket in 25 years.  Talk to the Christian chaplain at your local prison about the positive power of 'repentence.'  His chapel is full of folks who 'repent,' some for the fifth or sixth time.  

Huntinfool states: "Everyone pays the earthly price. It's unavoidable. But the eternal is most certainly avoidable."  Sir, your post was thoughtful and well considered, right up until that last part -- it is the position of the true believers here that the eternal is not only true, but avoidable only for themselves.  I ask that view to be supported by something other than a single book in a world awash with books.   Even Fiction writers are admonished by their teachers to, "Show, do not tell."  

Madman states: "The Bible calls it propitiation."  Propitiation, as a word, means conciliation, or appeasement, and implies something akin to throwing virgins into volcanoes to avoid the wrath of the volcano god.  It is an ancient concept borne of superstition, and has no modern usage other than to refer to the fella who brown-noses the boss at work.  We now use the word like this -- "If not for his propitiation, the ignorant, incompetent fool would have been out of a job years ago . . . "

reformedpastor asks: "Are you addressing "people" or the historic Christian faith as stated in its creeds and confessions? Two different things."  I should think, for a man of your learning, that question would be rhetorical, and beneath a decent level of discussion.  

Then states: "For the most part our doctrine is always better than our practice. This is true for unbelievers too."  Here, sir, we agree, and we may, finally, this far down into the thread, begin to address the central topic.  If the doctrine allows forgiveness, regardless of sin, and allows even forgiveness for 'infidels' provided they see the one true light that only a very few seem to hold, then what seems to matter most, in this doctrine, is not so much morality, but belief.  This seems contradictory.  One might believe that the one true light is a little green watering can in Geneva, and folks in this world have worshipped and still do worship odder things.  But if that little green watering can will forgive them no matter what they do, so long as they believe in it, then what real reason do they have to behave morally?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 13, 2009)

Here's some informative reading from 1st John, written by the apostle John.  It's a bit lengthy but worth it.
It gives insite into ideal Christian thinking.

1 John 2
 1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.

 3 And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. 4 If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. 5 But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. 6 Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.

 7 Dear friends, I am not writing a new commandment for you; rather it is an old one you have had from the very beginning. This old commandment—to love one another—is the same message you heard before. 8 Yet it is also new. Jesus lived the truth of this commandment, and you also are living it. For the darkness is disappearing, and the true light is already shining.
 9 If anyone claims, “I am living in the light,” but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is still living in darkness. 10 Anyone who loves another brother or sister is living in the light and does not cause others to stumble. 11 But anyone who hates another brother or sister is still living and walking in darkness. Such a person does not know the way to go, having been blinded by the darkness.
....
....  
 15 Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. 16 For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. 17 And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.
 18 Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come. 19 These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.
 20 But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit, and all of you know the truth. 21 So I am writing to you not because you don’t know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. 22 And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. 23 Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 24 So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. 25 And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life he promised us.
 26 I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray. 27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

 28 And now, dear children, remain in fellowship with Christ so that when he returns, you will be full of courage and not shrink back from him in shame.
 29 Since we know that Christ is righteous, we also know that all who do what is right are God’s children.


----------



## WTM45 (May 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> If the doctrine allows forgiveness, regardless of sin, and allows even forgiveness for 'infidels' provided they see the one true light that only a very few seem to hold, then what seems to matter most, in this doctrine, is not so much morality, but belief.  This seems contradictory.  One might believe that the one true light is a little green watering can in Geneva, and folks in this world have worshipped and still do worship odder things.  But if that little green watering can will forgive them no matter what they do, so long as they believe in it, then what real reason do they have to behave morally?



"Belief" is what gets you in the door, and out of the bad place.  Hmmmmmm.......

Then, the "works" and "fruits" come into play.  Why?  Is it for the promise of more jewels and stones in their crown?
Hmmmmmmm.......

Some will say "But we will give those crowns back to God!"
Maybe some just want to show more "accomplishment."
Hmmmmmmmmm..........

Jeff Dahmer is supposed to be there.  There might be other suprises as well!


----------



## Lowjack (May 13, 2009)

Madman said:


> I missed the class in Christianity where we are taught that we do not have to act morally.  Please reveal that to me.
> 
> Can I continue to WILLFULLY sin after conversion?
> Romans 5:20 – 6:2 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
> ...



What He said !


----------



## Diogenes (May 13, 2009)

Ronnie T quotes a portion of a portion, and edits out some parts, as pleases him, and my KJV says it entirely differently, but still . . . pick a version any version.  As wisdom goes, and as quoted here, the parts quoted display some decent wisdom, right up until it gets to 11.  After that, I tend to think the author might have been better off putting his glass down and stumbling off to bed . . .


----------



## Diogenes (May 13, 2009)

Lowjack -- Sir, certainly your own critical reading faculties are more highly developed -- it was never stated that Christians,  "do not have to act morally."  Those words were provided by Madman so that he would have something to argue with -- namely, himself.


----------



## Lowjack (May 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Lowjack -- Sir, certainly your own critical reading faculties are more highly developed -- it was never stated that Christians,  "do not have to act morally."  Those words were provided by Madman so that he would have something to argue with -- namely, himself.


----------



## Diogenes (May 14, 2009)

Noted.  Takes me a moment sometimes . . .


----------



## Ronnie T (May 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Ronnie T quotes a portion of a portion, and edits out some parts, as pleases him, and my KJV says it entirely differently, but still . . . pick a version any version.  As wisdom goes, and as quoted here, the parts quoted display some decent wisdom, right up until it gets to 11.  After that, I tend to think the author might have been better off putting his glass down and stumbling off to bed . . .



I never edited.  I did not include all the verses.  I made it clear that I had not included everything.

You KJV does NOT differ substantially from what I printed.  To be honest, I posted from one of the more easily understood version of the Bible because I was afraid you'd have trouble understanding.

You last sentence proves again that you have no real interest here other than play games.

Go to the kids forum.
You've angered me with your stupid adlibs and comic routines.
I pray that God will deal with you one way or the other.


----------



## Madman (May 14, 2009)

Lowjack -- Sir, certainly your own critical reading faculties are more highly developed -- it was never stated that Christians, "do not have to act morally." Those words were provided by Madman so that he would have something to argue with -- namely, himself…Diogenes 05/13/09 11:39

“How, exactly, can you honestly and rationally build a moral basis around a belief that you, personally, do not need to act morally because you will be forgiven, but 'nonbelievers' do? ...Diogenes  Quoted in #10

You are correct I should have attributed the word need not the word have to you, however by your note to Lowjack it appears you are saying you did not originally write what I attributed in #10.

Is that correct?


----------



## Madman (May 14, 2009)

Very well in an attempt to move the discussion along I will play your sophomoric game and amend my post without waiting for a reply, as your response has done nothing more than obfuscated the post.

I missed the class in Christianity where we are taught that we do not *need* to act morally. Please reveal that to me. 

Can I continue to WILLFULLY sin after conversion?
Romans 5:20 – 6:2 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
If I have been converted how can I continue to willfully sin? How can I continue to live a life that my Lord has commanded me not to live? How could I crucify Him again and again by willful action? If I did I believe I would, and the church should, sincerely question my conversion. 

Perhaps we can continue from here.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Huntinfool states: "Everyone pays the earthly price. It's unavoidable. But the eternal is most certainly avoidable."  Sir, your post was thoughtful and well considered, right up until that last part -- it is the position of the true believers here that the eternal is not only true, but avoidable only for themselves.  I ask that view to be supported by something other than a single book in a world awash with books.   Even Fiction writers are admonished by their teachers to, "Show, do not tell."



I admit...I cannot.  But that, in no way, requires that it not be true.

I understand why you ask for something other than the book.  If you haven't experienced what I've experienced, all I can offer you is that book and what lies inside of it.

I wish badly that I could show you exactly what I know.  It's not a "secret" that I am trying to keep you from.  But all I can do is show you the path to walk down....it's your decision from there.

What I can tell you is what I've experienced that convinces me that what is in that book is true.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Talk to the Christian chaplain at your local prison about the positive power of 'repentence.'  His chapel is full of folks who 'repent,' some for the fifth or sixth time.



I'll post this again for those that don't understand.

"repent" and repent are two entirely different things.  One has quotes around it for a reason....because it's not real.

Repent means to turn away from something...."repent" means to be sorry you got caught.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Propitiation, as a word, means conciliation, or appeasement, and implies something akin to throwing virgins into volcanoes to avoid the wrath of the volcano god.  It is an ancient concept borne of superstition, and has no modern usage other than to refer to the fella who brown-noses the boss at work.  We now use the word like this -- "If not for his propitiation, the ignorant, incompetent fool would have been out of a job years ago . . . "



Don't worry about your personal definition.  See how it is used in the Scripture.  Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...particularly when we have clear examples of how the word is used in the Scripture.  If you're going to decry how it is used in Scripture, you must address it as it is used in Scripture.  Otherwise you are guilty of equivocation (a text book fallacy).

Again, how the word is used today is of no consequence either.

Stringing fallacies together doesn't make a quality argument.  It's just a ploy to fool those who aren't familiar with the technique.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Madman said:


> Can I continue to WILLFULLY sin after conversion?



I'll take this one....



YES!


You DO still sin, don't you?  Is there any other kind of sin than "willfull"?


----------



## Madman (May 14, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll take this one....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps I did not convey the thought very well.

Certainly there are different "kinds of sin." There are sins of omission and sins of commission that does not make them any less a sin.  But do I “willfully” commit the same sin over and over again? Do I continue to drink to excess, or steal and cheat?  

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Ah...then yes, I totally agree.  If you continue the same sin repeatedly, I would question the repentance as well.

No, you do not continue in the same sins.  I totally agree.


----------



## Madman (May 14, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Don't worry about your personal definition.  See how it is used in the Scripture.  Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...particularly when we have clear examples of how the word is used in the Scripture.  If you're going to decry how it is used in Scripture, you must address it as it is used in Scripture.  Otherwise you are guilty of equivocation (a text book fallacy).
> 
> Again, how the word is used today is of no consequence either.
> 
> Stringing fallacies together doesn't make a quality argument.  It's just a ploy to fool those who aren't familiar with the technique.



Could not have said it better myself.  If I might add this thought.  We know that the “appeasement” definition does not fit what Christ did on our behalf by the words used throughout the New Testament.  Christ’s Church is described as “the redeemed” or those who were purchased just as a prisoner was “purchased” from jail by his family.

Christ has purchased us from death and brought us into life.  The proper definition for Biblical propitiation would be “purchase price.”


----------



## Phillip Thurmond (May 14, 2009)

Jesus died for our sins.  His blood coveres all of our sins past, present, and future.  
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son that who ever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.  
John 3:16  
It really does not matter what we believe, God Said it and that is just the way it is!


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 14, 2009)

This guy lives in the rain forest. He has never read nor even heard of a bible. He believes in many gods, the sun god, the fish god, the rain god, the wind god etc......... He also believes in human sacrifice for the gods, has many wives and smokes a little home grown herb.

Is this man going to Heck! (I meant to write something that ryhmes with bell but that is a cuss word I guess) ........Remove Profanity ---- According to most he is!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Ah, the ever-present "what about the people that never hear the gospel" argument.


----------



## Lowjack (May 14, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> This guy lives in the rain forest. He has never read nor even heard of a bible. He believes in many gods, the sun god, the fish god, the rain god, the wind god etc......... He also believes in human sacrifice for the gods, has many wives and smokes a little home grown herb.
> 
> Is this man going to Heck! (I meant to write something that ryhmes with bell but that is a cuss word I guess) ........Remove Profanity ---- According to most he is!


"Where there is no LAW (God's Law) there is not condemnation of sin "
He will be judge according to his deeds, just like you and everyone else.
Christ Blood just assures you will not be convicted, sort of like paying the fine ahead of time before you go to court.

Same answer for huntingfool.

It is not like God hasn't dealt with this problem before and his love is not understandable by man.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

There are probably some who will try to tell you that those who don't hear the gospel will, somehow, be accepted into salvation because they were not given the opportunity to accept it.

I don't agree with that.  The short answer to your question (even though it will disappoint you) is yes, that man is going to heck....unless he accepts Christ.

You ask, "How is that possible?  How is that fair?"

I think we have to distinguish between the KNOWLEDGE of a law...and the EXISTENCE of the same.

If you have to KNOW the law before you can BREAK it, then why would we ever want to tell you that it exists?  You can't break it if you don't know it, right?  That's the logic we try to use with the officer who just pulled us over for speeding.  "Well, officer, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the speed limit was 25.  I thought it was 45."

Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from following it.

Paul said as much in Romans 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law." - the only difference is that those who hear the gospel and reject it will be judged accordingly.  Those who don't hear it will simply die as the sinners against God that they are.  It sounds harsh...I know.  But it's the truth according to the Bible.

You are not "lost" because you refuse salvation.  You are lost because of your sins...which all carry the burden of.

The fact that so many more people exist today that HAVEN'T heard it than have should be just as horrific an event to us as any genocide that we've ever heard of IMO.  The only difference is that the blood is on OUR hands because we have failed to take the gospel to all the world and fulfill the Great Commandment.

They WILL die because of it.  But it will not be because the gospel is not available to them.  It is because we have not taken it to them.

It's the aweful reality of not fulfilling the Great Commandment.  It's the consequence of not doing what we are supposed to do.


----------



## Lowjack (May 14, 2009)

Paul said as much in Romans 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law." - the only difference is that those who hear the gospel and reject it will be judged accordingly. Those who don't hear it will simply die as the sinners against God that they are. It sounds harsh...I know. But it's the truth according to the Bible.

I dissagree with your view hunting fool, it is saying those who sinned without the law their body will perish without the law, it is no saying they are going to he.l.l.
I just quoted what Paul also said, there is no condemnation where the Law of God is not found" Then what kind of God is God ?

"The payment of Sin is death" Their death is their payment
will they return in the Kingdom ? Probably not.
That is for God to decide not us.

I think we have different views of what saved means, participating in the Kingdom, and being separated for God.

The View of most churches is not the view of the bible or The Mother religion which is Judaism.

Stop Worrying about He.l.l and start pleasing God.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

Feel free to disagree.  


But why would we try to take the gospel to them and give them the unfortunate opportunity to reject it?

If they never hear it, then there is no condemnation.  Why would we want them to hear it?



> Stop Worrying about He.l.l and start pleasing God.



This part I definitely agree with.  The beauty of salvation is not being saved from He||.  It's being with God forever.

I was addressing the specific question that was posed.  "Is this man going to he||?"


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 14, 2009)

This is another example as to why I don't beleive, it all sounds pretty ridiculous!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 14, 2009)

I hope someday it doesn't my man.

Can you explain to me, though, why it sounds ridiculous?  Does it sound ridiculous or does it offend your sense of fair?  

I'm not asking that as a mock.  I'm interested to hear the answer.  You certainly can't say that it doesn't sound consistent, can you?


----------



## Madman (May 14, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> This is another example as to why I don't beleive, it all sounds pretty ridiculous!




SkeeterEater,

If you took the time to study and pray, it would not sound ridiculous at all.

This promise is for you too: 

Rev 3:20  "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. '


----------



## formula1 (May 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Formula1 states: "I will offer up a prayer for you, that your unbelief will be replaced by just enough faith to repent."  Um?  Repent?  For what?  Heck, I haven't even had a speeding ticket in 25 years.  Talk to the Christian chaplain at your local prison about the positive power of 'repentence.'  His chapel is full of folks who 'repent,' some for the fifth or sixth time.



Repentance (my definition) - Changing your path that is going away from Christ and turning to Him.  

And this type of repentance requires a measure of faith, albeit a very small amount, which explains why 'prison repentance' (that is, repentance without change) is not repentance at all.

Repentance for you is simple, deny all that you know and have learned and follow Christ and learn His knowledge and His Way.  For you, it has nothing to do with speeding tickets. But I know you won't do that!

But the real point of my comment is that the very title of your post 'The Biggest Lie of All' makes clear your motive. You do not really seek the truth, but only to discredit the Truth of Salvation in Jesus Christ!  This is a open forum and you have that right whatever your motive, but be honest in what you really seek to do.

I'm through wasting my time with you!  Go somewhere where you can seek man's knowledge, since that is what you desire!


----------



## Lowjack (May 14, 2009)

"To the Natural man the things of God are madness"
Now there are some who will seek to prove they are madness or ridiculous and eventually will find the Truth, many a scientist have begun by trying to prove there is no God, in the end if they were sincere ,they found God.
So anyone who is sincere about having a relationship with the one true God , he will make himself available.


----------



## WTM45 (May 14, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> To be honest, I posted from one of the more easily understood version of the Bible because I was afraid you'd have trouble understanding.
> 
> You last sentence proves again that you have no real interest here other than play games.
> 
> ...



Patronizing and grandstanding.
Then the push away.

If you have been angered, it's YOUR problem, not another poster's problem.

Selling Christianity one soul at a time.


----------



## WTM45 (May 14, 2009)

formula1 said:


> I'm through wasting my time with you!  Go somewhere where you can seek man's knowledge, since that is what you desire!



Another push away.

Band together guys.  Everyone should show the same love and concern.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Patronizing and grandstanding.
> 
> ...
> 
> Selling Christianity one soul at a time.





It's almost too much.


----------



## Lowjack (May 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Another push away.
> 
> Band together guys.  Everyone should show the same love and concern.


Yes, Love seems to be scarce around here.

Now  a person that doesn't demonstrate tolerance or love, 
Is he a saved person, Is the Spirit of God within Him ?

I don't know !


----------



## WTM45 (May 14, 2009)

It is interesting.
I'm not the one selling anything.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It is interesting.
> I'm not the one selling anything.




If you aren't interested in the product why did you come into the store????????


----------



## WTM45 (May 14, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> If you aren't interested in the product why did you come into the store????????



To watch those who think they own the store try to run folks out.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> To watch those who think they own the store try to run folks out.




I'm sure that wasn't the reason the forum was begun.
You must have a fulfilling life.


----------



## WTM45 (May 14, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm sure that wasn't the reason the forum was begun.
> You must have a fulfilling life.



I'd agree with your first sentence.  It is interesting what it has become.

My life is fantastic!


----------



## Diogenes (May 14, 2009)

Amazing.  Perhaps a new record.  Out of 55 responses, exactly two tried to actually take up the topic and address it directly.  The rest seem to run off into the standard fear-mongering dogma.  

Um?  Does anyone have anything intelligent to contribute?  (He whispers into the abyss, knowing that it is empty, but hoping at least to hear an echo . . . )


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 15, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Out of 55 responses, exactly two tried to actually take up the topic and address it directly.



You shouldn't be complaining about being direct.  The red-herrings and strawmen in your original post and replies make genuine discussion incredibly laborious.  Paired with the typical antagonism, it's really no wonder that many have chosen not to "play" your game.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 15, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Um? As a basis for morality goes, that one seems a little counter-intuitive.



Just in case you were wondering...here is the flaw in your question.

Being forgiven isn't the basis for morality in the Christian world view.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

Supporting a religious belief system in and of itself is "incredibly laborious" as there are very little to no proofs and evidence to work with.
It is based on faith, and that is as individually interpretive and as subjective as the day is long.

Forgiveness is not the basis, it is the out.  The protection.  The promise to believers only.  The trump card played when things go wrong.
The basis is the requirement for belief only.  Of course the fundamental dogma is going to be for the believer, and against the unbeliever.  That's found in every belief system holding an exclusivism.
The holy book has to support one and condemn the other.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 15, 2009)

> Forgiveness is not the basis, it is the out. The protection. The promise to believers only. The trump card played when things go wrong.



It's no wonder you don't "get" most of what we talk about around here.

If that was all it was, it would be WAY too much effort!  Totally not worth it if that were actually the case.  No wonder you don't understand.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> The basis is the requirement for belief only.  Of course the fundamental dogma is going to be for the believer, and against the unbeliever.



Wrong again.

Care to back-up what follows the underlined portion?


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> Care to back-up what follows the underlined portion?



Every religious belief system that holds a fundamental tenent of exclusivism uses their holy writings to support the believer and to condemn the disbeliever.

Belief is simply the fundamental basis of Christianity.  Belief in Jesus based on John 3:16.  That brings salvation and the ticket to eternal safety.
I was present for many presentations on the very subject in both undergraduate and post graduate work.

Everything else is concerning living a reasonable life.
I do not see that as a bad thing.


----------



## jbrown01 (May 15, 2009)

If your truly saved & the holy spirit resides within your heart you will idealy not give in to the temptations of sin!  BUT everyone does, because that is human nature & christians feel guilt when they have sinned & therefore ask their lord & savior JESUS to forgive them.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

Are un-believers or those who follow other belief systems incapable of feeling guilt and conviction when THEY break laws or do misdeeds?


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Every religious belief system that holds a fundamental tenent of exclusivism uses their holy writings to support the believer and to condemn the disbeliever.
> 
> Belief is simply the fundamental basis of Christianity.  Belief in Jesus based on John 3:16.  That brings salvation and the ticket to eternal safety.
> I was present for many presentations on the very subject in both undergraduate and post graduate work.
> ...



1. Define support.  Make it Christian specific if you don't mind.  I don't know the others well enough to comment on the Scripture you'll use to support it.

2. That's ONE verse that tells you a method towards redemption.  Redemption is the fundamental basis of Christianity.  Eternal safety is not nearly the goal of Christianity.  Perhaps popular Christianity, but not Biblical Christianity.

3.  I'd love to hear more about these presentations...honestly.

4.  What's reasonable about denying your most basic urges and desires?  Without the truth of the exclusive claims about Christ, Christianity is meaningless.  If Christ was not raised, we (Christians) are to be pitied above all men...that's straight from the book.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Define support.  Make it Christian specific if you don't mind.  I don't know the others well enough to comment on the Scripture you'll use to support it.
> 
> 2. That's ONE verse that tells you a method towards redemption.  Redemption is the fundamental basis of Christianity.  Eternal safety is not nearly the goal of Christianity.  Perhaps popular Christianity, but not Biblical Christianity.
> 
> ...



JL, this is a good one for a completely new and seperate thread.  If you start it, I will try to participate as I can this weekend.  I'm headed out of town/state.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Every religious belief system that holds a fundamental tenent of exclusivism uses their holy writings to support the believer and to condemn the disbeliever.
> 
> Belief is simply the fundamental basis of Christianity.  Belief in Jesus based on *John 3:16*.  That brings salvation and the ticket to eternal safety.
> I was present for many presentations on the very subject in both undergraduate and post graduate work.
> ...



If you would, please grab a Bible and turn to John Chapter 3.
Who was Jesus speaking to when He made the 3:16 statement?
What was the purpose of the conversation?
What else did Jesus say to this man?
What did Jesus mean by "born again"?
What happens if one is not born again?


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> If you would, please grab a Bible and turn to John Chapter 3.
> Who was Jesus speaking to when He made the 3:16 statement?
> What was the purpose of the conversation?
> What else did Jesus say to this man?
> ...



Opened, and beside the computer.  It's a KJV, by the way!

Q/A time.

1.  Nicodemus, a leader of the Jewish faith.
2.  To answer his direct question.
3.  According to John, everything that is written in the first half of the chapter.
4.  Belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
5.  Eternal ****ation.

Believe and be saved.  Don't believe and be doomed.
It's exclusive, just like I said earlier.


----------



## gtparts (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Opened, and beside the computer.  It's a KJV, by the way!
> 
> Q/A time.
> 
> ...



Actually, God's provision for redemption is very inclusive. Some choose not to opt in.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Opened, and beside the computer.  It's a KJV, by the way!
> 
> Q/A time.
> 
> ...




You're not a very good reader.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 15, 2009)

What does it say Ronnie?


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You're not a very good reader.




Shall I prepare for the push away?
I was slightly incorrect on answer #3.  I should say "only the red words."  It was a two way conversation, being re-told by a third party.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

It is taught by many that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicient.  He has already chosen His people, knows who will get approval and salvation, and has set everything into place.  He knows all, and therefore accepts that some have been left out of the plan.
Not willing that any should perish?

So, why worry over it?  It can not be changed, right?


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 15, 2009)

Hey man! I want you to take your son to the top of that mountain and cut his head off.......you'll do it if you believe in me!
.......for days the poor man hiked up the mountain knowing that he had to kill his son but when he finally got to the top jesus told him "ahh never mind, I was just kidding man! Here kill this goat instead!

What a nice guy!


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> Hey man! I want you to take your son to the top of that mountain and cut his head off.......you'll do it if you believe in me!
> .......for days the poor man hiked up the mountain knowing that he had to kill his son but when he finally got to the top jesus told him "ahh never mind, I was just kidding man! Here kill this goat instead!
> 
> What a nice guy!



If I heard such a voice, saw a burning bush or had visions I'd seek professional help WAY before loading the packboard, sharpening the knives and puling Junior out of class for the week.

But, remember, keep parables and stories in their right frame of intention.  Being too literal scares people!


----------



## formula1 (May 15, 2009)

*Re:*



WTM45 said:


> Shall I prepare for the push away?



No man can push you away from God except for the man in your mirror my friend. You can continue to blame the believers on here if you like, but it is your fingerprints on the glass!


----------



## Lowjack (May 15, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> Hey man! I want you to take your son to the top of that mountain and cut his head off.......you'll do it if you believe in me!
> .......for days the poor man hiked up the mountain knowing that he had to kill his son but when he finally got to the top jesus told him "ahh never mind, I was just kidding man! Here kill this goat instead!
> 
> What a nice guy!



You mean you don't believe your integrity should be tested ?.
How about taking a lie Detector test to get a Job ?

Why shouldn't God test Abraham to see if he was Worthy of Eternal life ?


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

formula1 said:


> No man can push you away from God except for the man in your mirror my friend. You can continue to blame the believers on here if you like, but it is your fingerprints on the glass!



Formula1, I'm referring to the failed argument tactic of "pushing away" not an individual's choice of subject or religious belief system rejection.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 15, 2009)

One day ....LOL! They won't know when.....but one day I will come back and make good on my promise to send all them non believers to a pit of fire...LOL!.....they won't die from it but just wish they would...Ohhhhh this is gonna be fun!


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 15, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> You mean you don't believe your integrity should be tested ?.
> How about taking a lie Detector test to get a Job ?
> 
> Why shouldn't God test Abraham to see if he was Worthy of Eternal life ?



I'm fine with a lie detector test but I won't kill my son for a job!
I also would not tell my son that he will get an eternal whipping if he does not behead his puppy when he gets home from school!


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> One day ....LOL! They won't know when.....but one day I will come back and make good on my promise to send all them non believers to a pit of fire...LOL!.....they won't die from it but just wish they would...Ohhhhh this is gonna be fun!



Oh boy!
You and Diogenes are gonna have some fun with this!
It will be interesting to watch!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 15, 2009)

I'm still waiting on Skeeter to actually contribute something....

I've got time.  I'm sure he'll get to an actual thought at some point before he gets banned.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 15, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm still waiting on Skeeter to actually contribute something....
> 
> I've got time.  I'm sure he'll get to an actual thought at some point before he gets banned.




I need an example....  Contibute what 
What would they ban me for? I'm just taking part in the spiritual discussions. For the offended people, please take my post as I am a lost soul and need help. Please don't ban me but take this opportunity to turn me into the light!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 15, 2009)

Anything!  Something!  Just try to post an actual contribution.  It might be fun.  We could all have a discussion.

They'll tell you what you got banned for when it happens.  Don't worry.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

SE, you won't get banned just for not following the norm.  Folks get banned when they break the forum rules.  Simple.

It will be fun hearing your ideas, and hearing the replies.  I like your style of delivery and candor.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 15, 2009)

I had to go back and read the original post in order to contribute but anyway here is my contribution to the discussion in hand....

It must work sorta like a hand of black jack...."know when to hold em and know when to fold em" Or like the odds of escaping a lightning bolt by jumping up off the ground when the hair on your arm starts to stand.  So I guess if you can time it just right and ask for forgiveness just before a beer truck runs head on into your Geo Metro then your safe! But there is a better way to improve your odds by asking for it nightly just before you go to sleep, that way your covered up until your next sin.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> So I guess if you can time it just right and ask for forgiveness just before a beer truck runs head on into your Geo Metro then your safe!



OK.  That does it.
Do NOT hint at the loss of even ONE bottle of beer, even in joking or in passing.
Every one of those babies are precious!


----------



## Ronnie T (May 15, 2009)

John Chapter 3 

5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 


14"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 
15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 
16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 
17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.


19"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 
20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 
21"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

35"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. 
36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."


----------



## Dixie Dawg (May 15, 2009)

Madman said:


> If you took the time to study and pray, it would not sound ridiculous at all.




Yes, it does.... even having done all of that.


----------



## gtparts (May 15, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It is taught by many that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicient.  He has already chosen His people, knows who will get approval and salvation, and has set everything into place.  He knows all, and therefore accepts that some have been left out of the plan.
> Not willing that any should perish?
> 
> So, why worry over it?  It can not be changed, right?



Need a program? Just drop in on rare occasions? I'm one of those on here that does not hold to some Calvinist interpretations.  God is not willing that any should perish AND He will not violate the free will of men to reject His Son. In that sense, He exercises His permissive will. His perfect will is extended to believers....who still may choose to be disobedient, robbing themselves of the blessing God intended for them. Everything....yes, everything good begins in Christ. I do not worry, yet I do care about the lost because He wants the lost to choose Him.

Interesting thing is that while I get weary of explaining the Good News to folks who respond with contempt and sarcasm, my commitment is to do His will, regardless of the response I receive. It really is that important to Him and so it is important for me also. When you finally understand, it will be the best day in your life or too late. He does not need to act to exclude you; you are doing just fine on that count all by yourself.


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Need a program? Just drop in on rare occasions? I'm one of those on here that does not hold to some Calvinist interpretations.  God is not willing that any should perish AND He will not violate the free will of men to reject His Son. In that sense, He exercises His permissive will. His perfect will is extended to believers....who still may choose to be disobedient, robbing themselves of the blessing God intended for them. Everything....yes, everything good begins in Christ. I do not worry, yet I do care about the lost because He wants the lost to choose Him.
> 
> Interesting thing is that while I get weary of explaining the Good News to folks who respond with contempt and sarcasm, my commitment is to do His will, regardless of the response I receive. It really is that important to Him and so it is important for me also. When you finally understand, it will be the best day in your life or too late. He does not need to act to exclude you; you are doing just fine on that count all by yourself.



Other than the first two sentences, your first paragraph is excellent.  You are explaining a stance with reasonable thought and opinion based on interpretation.  You had me wanting more of your thoughts.

But the second paragraph reflects a move towards labeling and personal innuendo.
The questions asked (by myself and others here) are being interpreted by YOU as being loaded with contempt and sarcasm.  That's your issue.
That does not mean they were intended as such.  They are the questions found in daily life and can be addressed in such a debate.

If you tire of the talk, take a break.  Do something else.
It ain't personal.


----------



## formula1 (May 15, 2009)

*Re:*



WTM45 said:


> Formula1, I'm referring to the failed argument tactic of "pushing away" not an individual's choice of subject or religious belief system rejection.



So if I understand your definition of 'pushing away', it is when one chooses to deny an argument and its facts as presented because it offends what they know and accept as a truth or reality.  Those who 'push away' refuse to debate the facts of the argument in question, and perhaps even reject the argument outright in a negative way!  Is that what you mean??


----------



## WTM45 (May 15, 2009)

formula1 said:


> So if I understand your definition of 'pushing away', it is when one chooses to deny an argument and its facts as presented because it offends what they know and accept as a truth or reality.  Those who 'push away' refuse to debate the facts of the argument in question, and perhaps even reject the argument outright in a negative way!  Is that what you mean??




No.
It is a clear, unveiled comment not intended at all to address the subject at hand but to attempt to drive someone out of a discussion, forum or setting.  Telling someone they should leave the debate/forum type of response.

A good rule of debate is to address the subject, not the person.  So, if there is nothing a person wants to say about the subject, they probably should not post.  Others just might want to engage, and most often will.

We digress.......apologies Diogenes!


----------



## Diogenes (May 16, 2009)

Oh, do you ever digress . . . folks, the question was pretty simple, and it concerned your own thoughts, if thoughts you have other than those that were provided for you.  It seems to me that you all insult yourselves if the entire depth of your own mind is the ability to dredge up a quote from a book.   Anyone can do that.  Here’s one:  “And he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down!”  

(I got that out of a book, so it is self-evidently correct . . . )

Look, if the question makes you squirm, as it should, then take it home and think about it.  Deflecting it into a new validation of your own avoidance is not much of a discussion, but rather a confirmation of your personal thoughtlessness.

This thread has been saddled, and hampered, by deep thoughts like this:

Jonnylightnin:  “The red-herrings and strawmen in your original post and replies make genuine discussion incredibly laborious.”    Um?  Sir?  Using terms, and understanding them well enough to use them correctly are quite different things.    Then: “Being forgiven isn't the basis for morality in the Christian world view.”    Really?  Now that, right there, is a true straw-man argument – no such thing was stated by anyone other than you, but the false attribution gave you something to argue with --  the question, as stated, was how one resolves the dogma of forgiveness with the exclusive view (stated in this forum so many times that it does not need further attribution) that Christianity holds the franchise on morality.  Read, sir, and think, do not simply react like a common Sunday School student. 

Lowjack:  “Why shouldn't God test Abraham to see if he was Worthy of Eternal life ?”  Um?  Don’t you think that this sort of thing is rather putting the cart before the horse?  In order to responsibly make such a statement (which, in and of itself is far off-topic), one would first need to avoid using a narrative  that says something like, “Twas brillig and the slithy toves . . .” as a demonstration of the truth of itself.  Demonstrate ‘God,’ ‘Abraham,’ and ‘Eternal life,’ and then, sir, you will have something substantive right there.  Failing that, the statement is nonsense.  I could as easily contend that it makes perfect sense for the Martians to test us for our caloric content prior to deciding whether or not to eat us, and hold fast to that ‘belief’ in the absence of definitive proof otherwise.  Make sense, and substantiate your sources rather than blindly quoting them as evidence, or believe in private.  

Huntinfool: “Just try to post an actual contribution. It might be fun. We could all have a discussion.”  I say the same – where, in this thread, is your own contribution to an actual discussion of the topic at hand?  Be very careful about the stones ye cast sir, for sometimes they may ricochet  . . . 

Boy howdy, the badgering and the insults and the Bible quotes aimed at shouting down rather than individually thinking and using your own minds outside of a borrowed phrase sure do change a lot of minds, huh?  I’m not asking what the Bible says – I already know that.  I’m not asking what the dogma and endless gullibility ‘suggests.’  I’m not asking anyone what their Mama or Papa or Preacher taught them that they never looked back and questioned.  I’m not even asking if anyone’s education level progressed beyond mandatory Bible School when they were children.  I am asking YOU, personally, a very simple question.

If, by being a true believer, YOU, and only those who share YOUR belief can possibly enter your own view of eternal bliss; and if  YOU and only YOU hold the key and the morality that makes that possible, with all others excluded;  then why does this rigid, joyless, fear-mongering religion of yours allow itself forgiveness for the things it prohibits to others?


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 16, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> 1. Um?  Sir?  Using terms, and understanding them well enough to use them correctly are quite different things.
> 
> 2. Really?  Now that, right there, is a true straw-man argument – no such thing was stated by anyone other than you, but the false attribution gave you something to argue with --  the question, as stated, was how one resolves the dogma of forgiveness with the exclusive view (stated in this forum so many times that it does not need further attribution) that Christianity holds the franchise on morality.
> 
> 3. Read, sir, and think, do not simply react like a common Sunday School student.



1. Exactly right.  Your thoughts regarding the Biblical words brought up thus far are an excellent example.

2. You most certainly did say that forgiveness was the basis of morality.  That's simply not true.  Even in the quote above you've tied morality with forgiveness.  I'm telling you that you don't get it.  Your characterization of Christianity is not an accurate one.

3. Looks like we've added another fallacious argumentation technique to your arsenal.  Ladies and gentlemen, _ad hominem_!  If at first you don't succeed, call someone a name.

Answering your question is of little use without at least acknowledging the false presuppositions that prompted the question.


----------



## reformedpastor (May 16, 2009)

And they ( atheist, agnostics......) say there's no agenda, just a desire for fruitful discussion??????


----------



## formula1 (May 16, 2009)

*Re:*

This post has been agenda driven from the get-go as I and many of my fellow believers have said previously. We all know before we answer that you have no interest in the answer.  You have already decided what that answer is. And that is not a push away, it is reality!  Many have refused to answer on this basis. It is not possible for any argument to convince the disingenuous!

Nevertheless, here's your answer!

1) Every man is born, lives, seeks knowledge, and dies!
2) All men gain knowledge of their natural world around them! This natural world is what we know and see!
3) Historically, the basis for what we call 'morality' has been developed over time from both religious and secular sources. This moral standard, you could say, defines our shortcomings in life or the natural world.

In this world, there is no need for forgiveness, except forgiveness by man's definition. If the moral code is violated (and man catches you), you pay a penalty! You are effectively forgiven when you satisfy man's payment. End of story, right!

If, as you believe, only the natural world exists, there is no need for forgiveness beyond man's forgiveness! You live, you learn, you die, you pay the penality that man's morality requires, that's all!

_Stop here if you cannot take the leap to at least understand the believers point of view!_

But what if there is something beyond the natural world, a power that is in authority over the natural world!  A spiritual world! Is then man's morality enough? Could there be spiritual life? Spiritual morality? Spiritual rewards and consequences?

As Christians it is our belief, that there is this spiritual world, with spiritual rewards and spiritual consequences. We on our own could never approach a righteous God. 

Therefore, Jesus Christ came to the earth from God as God in the natural world, lived a sinless life, was executed as a sinless man on a cross, rose to life on the 3rd day, and as a result became a sin sacrifice for us, giving us once again access to a righteous God in the spiritual world, to those who are 'born again'.

Born again is simply a reference to be born into the spiritual world, the Kingdom of God, if you will. You are born again by repentance unto God (I have defined this previously), through Jesus Christ, and you gain access to God and the operation of His Spirit in your life.  I believe you must continually walk with His Spirit from the point of repentance, or else a Christian will appear no different than anyone else in the natural world.  

The answer to your question is this: Jesus became sin for us so that we do not face the consequences of sin in the spiritual world. We still face the consequences in the natural world just as you do. But, unlike you, we do not face the consequences of sin in the spiritual world.

1) Is this belief faith-based? Yes!
2) Is it a free gift? Yes, but it cost us ourselves!
3) Can it be understood naturally? The first step, repentance, can be, but the spiritual experience I could not explain. Only that it is genuine!
4) Can it be proven? History at least proves the existance of Jesus of Nazareth.  It is up to you to decide if there was more to it than what is known in the natural world!
5) Does it seem foolish?  It absolutely does seem foolish, to those who are perishing! But to Christians it is powerful!!

It is each man's decision as to what they might do with the truth that is in Jesus Christ.  I have made my choice!


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)




----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

formula1 said:


> This post has been agenda driven from the get-go as I and many of my fellow believers have said previously. We all know before we answer that you have no interest in the answer.  You have already decided what that answer is. And that is not a push away, it is reality!  Many have refused to answer on this basis. It is not possible for any argument to convince the disingenuous!



So, in all of that, you are discounting the ability of the Holy Spirit to do it's work.  Do you not have faith that God and the Holy Spirit can work the heart of any man, just like the Scriptures state?

Everything (which I thought was a well written response)after that opening paragraph was undermined.


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> And they ( atheist, agnostics......) say there's no agenda, just a desire for fruitful discussion??????



There still is that desire for "fruitful discussion."  It is quite hard for them to find it when people have mindreading abilities and discount everything they are not willing to address directly.


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> So, in all of that, you are discounting the ability of the Holy Spirit to do it's work.  Do you not have faith that God and the Holy Spirit can work the heart of any man, just like the Scriptures state?
> 
> Everything (which I thought was a well written response)after that opening paragraph was undermined.



The Holy Spirit does not argue. However He does convict from time to time.


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The Holy Spirit does not argue. However He does convict from time to time.



Then why discount that ability, if you truly believe it?

Why not just respond to the subject of the original poster's questions without the rhetoric?


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> There still is that desire for "fruitful discussion."  It is quite hard for them to find it when people have mindreading abilities and discount everything they are not willing to address directly.



How would you determine if they were under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, seeking "fruitful discussion"? Are you expressing a personal interest in "fruitful discussion" or are you mind-reading others on this forum? Or do we even have an mutually acceptable understanding about what "fruitful discussion" is? If the intent is to pick apart the faith of Christians, I think that individual can expect to be rejected, along with his/her posting.


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Then why discount that ability, if you truly believe it?
> 
> Why not just respond to the subject of the original poster's questions without the rhetoric?



The attitude of the seeker, under conviction of the Holy Spirit, is much different than what has been expressed by some posters here.  I do not discount the power of the Holy Spirit. 

When someone is truly intent upon learning about Christ and being a follower, I will be more than willing to help. I have yet to see anyone......yes, any unsaved person ask for help in coming to Christ on this forum. Period. 

I am not interested in playing games.

I would suggest that this forum is one of the least effective  avenues because it is so impersonal. Such is best undertaken one on one, eyeball to eyeball.....which I am also willing to do. Where is CT? j/k
 Locally is where it needs to happen. That is why God has expanded His influence to all parts of the world, through followers of Christ. 

Grace and peace to you and yours.


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

gtparts said:


> How would you determine if they were under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, seeking "fruitful discussion"?



Exactly my point.  How could anyone determine if they were not?

It is subjective at best.  Best we can do is continue the discussions of the subjects in a reasonable and respectful of others manner.

Peace to you as well.


----------



## formula1 (May 16, 2009)

*Re:*



WTM45 said:


> So, in all of that, you are discounting the ability of the Holy Spirit to do it's work.  Do you not have faith that God and the Holy Spirit can work the heart of any man, just like the Scriptures state?
> 
> Everything (which I thought was a well written response)after that opening paragraph was undermined.



The power of the Holy Spirit far transcends the power of man. It will do it's work in due season.  We are powerless to stop the Will of Almighty God.  I respect your opinion to discount the argument if you so desire, but you must also respect mine to examine the motive of the heart.  I am willing to be corrected by the Holy Spirit if I do error!!!

Many blessings in the Holy Spirit to all who will receive them!!


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I would suggest that this forum is one of the least effective  avenues because it is so impersonal. Such is best undertaken one on one, eyeball to eyeball.....which I am also willing to do.



I'll have to disagree.  It definately gets personal here at times!

Just as you made a minor deduction that the OP does not have an "interest in the answer," others can plainly see intolerance, anger, disgust, impatience and other negative traits exhibited by both believers and non-believers alike.

The internet is a pretty effective form of communication.  Sometimes face to face is less than ideal, if not completely impossible. 
We just have to continue to give each other respect and stick to the subjects.  I think it is a good form of entertainment and social contact when compared to many things!


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

formula1 said:


> I respect your opinion to discount the argument if you so desire, but you must also respect mine to examine the motive of the heart.



When a person questions the motives of others, it can be interpreted by others as a distrust in the very faith they promote.  That being, God and the HS will work in their own way.  Some love to say "you don't have discernment" or "you can't understand" or "you are not enlightened."
Let the message speak for itself.  See what happens.

All you have to do is express your belief and opinion, then let others interpret it and respond.

Peace.


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Exactly my point.  How could anyone determine if they were not?
> 
> It is subjective at best.  Best we can do is continue the discussions of the subjects in a reasonable and respectful of others manner.
> 
> Peace to you as well.



I find subjectivity (based on experience) to be sufficient in many cases from which to arrive at a reasonable conclusion regarding the motives or intentions of others.

Don't poof-pooh subjectivity. You use your impressions, feelings, and opinions perhaps hundreds of times a day and act on them accordingly. Sometimes outside, independent verification is not needed, i.e. if a stranger was to suddenly point a semi-automatic at you, would you seek to determine if the gun was loaded before acquiescing to his demands for your wallet?

As for posts, I look to word choice, syntax, and other cues to determine sincerity and intent. More than once I have sensed ridicule from most of the self-proclaimed atheists on this forum. I take no offense for myself. I am not diminished in the least. I will defend my God and Savior against such ignorant and ill-intended attacks. 


The reason I have never participated in forums dedicated to gays or atheists or gladiola fanciers is quite simple: 

1. My active participation would be unappreciated by those groups. I really have nothing positive to contribute.

2. My true interests run counter to the basic purpose of those forums. I much prefer irises.

Finally, I would point out that your last statement above is opinion, an expression of your subjectivity. Others have and will continue to find the best course for them may not be what you propose.


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Finally, I would point out that your last statement above is opinion, an expression of your subjectivity. Others have and will continue to find the best course for them may not be what you propose.



My last statement (which you highlighted in red) is only a re-statement of one of the established rules of the forum.  It is not opinion.


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> My last statement (which you highlighted in red) is only a re-statement of one of the established rules of the forum.  It is not opinion.



What? No comments on the rest of my post? I'm disappointed.


----------



## gtparts (May 16, 2009)

Hopscotch champ of Hazard Co. and Bubba's first cousin .....and his brother-in-law on his sister's side?


What does the one with the correct answer receive?


----------



## WTM45 (May 16, 2009)

gtparts said:


> What? No comments on the rest of my post? I'm disappointed.




Subjectivity has a very minor place in critical thinking.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 16, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.  Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way.  So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
> 
> I've got to admit, that's a good joke.  If a Christian actually did that, God would forgive them for stealing the bicycle.  Only thing is, that person would have to repent(turn away from their stealing life) as part of their asking for forgiveness.  Part of that repentance would be returning the bicycle to it's rightful owner.
> Additionally, a true Christian's conscience wouldn't allow them to keep the bike.
> ...


Forgiveness of my sin as a Christian is the least of my concerns in my life.  I've sinned so many times and been forgiven so many times that I think I take it for granted.  My life isn't about me and forgiveness.  My life is about Jesus Christ.  My life is about: what else can I do.  I'll never be worth.  But I sure am blessed.

Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world is not rational.
God's forgiveness is not rational.
Analyze it into bits, human thinking can't handle it.

God, the creator of the universe, is the Almighty God.
He isn't just the God of believers.
God is God no matter what.
If I stop believing, God remains God.
If you do not believe, God remains God.

Another amazing fact:      God loved humankind some much that He allowed His only Son to be punished for all the sins of the world.  That is, all those who believe in God's Son.  Those who do believe, will be given eternal life.

Amazing!


----------



## Diogenes (May 16, 2009)

Wow.  So what we have, in a nutshell, is:

1.	 A contention that there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.

2.	An open suspicion that there might be thoughts (an agenda) other than those agendas held to be self-evident, and a pre-emptive mockery of any such position.

3.	A direct accusation that it is only one side that is closed-minded, as a result of an inability to see that the other side is clearly and demonstrably right.

4.	An odd contention that discussion of a topic is not possible unless the prior condition of agreement before the fact is met.

5.	An odder contention that unless someone is actively seeking the ‘help’ of the previously assumed truth, then discussion is fruitless.

6.	An astounding thought that subjectivity (meaning, existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought), is sufficient evidence to draw a hard conclusion.  But, only for one, and not for another.

7.	And a recitation of many of the dogmas that led to the question in the first place.

Convincing set of arguments.  Fellas, if that is all you’ve got, then the next time your wife or girlfriend tells you that, “You just don’t get it,” then you’ll have no choice but to capitulate and tell her that she is absolutely right in whatever she just said.  Because that is the total depth of the arguments you, yourselves, just put forward.


----------



## gtparts (May 17, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow.  So what we have, in a nutshell, is:
> 
> 1.	 A contention that there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.
> 
> ...



More over-the-top conclusions from a heck of a nice guy.

Love you, but your post gets dismissed. 

WTM45, does Dio's post reflect the respectful attitude required of posters, in your opinion. It drips with sarcasm, IMHO. It in no way advances the discussion, introduces nothing new from his position.

I particularly like the conclusion in #1 of his post. Is this an example of logical, critical thinking? Just asking for your opinion, WTM45.


----------



## formula1 (May 17, 2009)

*Re:*



gtparts said:


> More over-the-top conclusions from a heck of a nice guy.



GT,

I'd say the motive of the heart has been successfully exposed. Saddened, as that is some rocky soil right there!!!

On to honor the God of Creation! Good Day!


----------



## WTM45 (May 17, 2009)

gtparts said:


> .
> 
> WTM45, does Dio's post reflect the respectful attitude required of posters, in your opinion.......
> 
> Is this an example of logical, critical thinking? Just asking for your opinion, WTM45.



It is a straight forward, direct, in our face post that uses observation and critical thinking quite well.

It is a very clear interpretation of previous posts and how they responded to his questions.  He is only stating the obvious.

I do believe he has a response ready with more details regarding his position.  He is letting those who disagree, or who hold a different position have the floor first.
And we can clearly see the responses so far.

I'd take it your "dismissal" of his post is the announcement you will not be participating further.  That, I feel, would be a mistake on your part.  The best just might be yet to come!


----------



## gtparts (May 17, 2009)

C'mon, W.



> Wow. So what we have, in a nutshell, is:
> 
> 1. A contention that there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.



Is it your experience that anyone has ever stated on this forum that "there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.", either expressly or implied? If so, I missed it and will apologize and retract as needed.

In any event, there is no reason to believe that Dio meant anything other than to figuratively slap some in the face. Please, don't bother to speak for him. Your opinion is just that....opinion. Allow him to speak truthfully and convincingly as to his motive.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 17, 2009)

In post #115 I gave Diogenes and WTM45 as much of anaccurate answer as I possibly can, yet you don't even acknowledge it.
Diogenes, it's obvious to me that you have an agenda and there'll never be an answer to any of your questions that you'll settle for.  I actually suspect WTM45 is the same.
I spent a lot of time answering the original question even though I knew what would happen.  I won't do it again. I have better things to do.  I'll be working on tonight's Bible lesson while you two play with your new toy here.


----------



## gtparts (May 17, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
> 
> I've got to admit, that's a good joke. If a Christian actually did that, God would forgive them for stealing the bicycle. Only thing is, that person would have to repent(turn away from their stealing life) as part of their asking for forgiveness. Part of that repentance would be returning the bicycle to it's rightful owner.
> Additionally, a true Christian's conscience wouldn't allow them to keep the bike.
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Wow.  So what we have, in a nutshell, is:
> 
> 1.	 A contention that there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.
> 
> ...





Ronnie T said:


> In post #115 I gave Diogenes and WTM45 as much of an accurate answer as I possibly can, yet you don't even acknowledge it.
> Diogenes, it's obvious to me that you have an agenda and there'll never be an answer to any of your questions that you'll settle for.  I actually suspect WTM45 is the same.
> I spent a lot of time answering the original question even though I knew what would happen.  I won't do it again. I have better things to do.  I'll be working on tonight's Bible lesson while you two play with your new toy here.



Ronnie, I concur. 

If the goal of Dio's participation here is something other than securing information heretofore unknown to him, for the purpose of his consideration, then he is at best argumentative and at worst deceitful. Under the guise of debate and discussion, he baits and trolls. 

WTM45's participation may be held as questionably motivated. At this point, I feel no more obligation to respond to either. It can be of no benefit to God's glory to continue in this intractable dialogue and wastes the time of those who seek to make a difference. The time and energy that God grants each of us might be more effectively spent on those who are drawn here by the Holy Spirit than the spirit of dissension that accompanies some to this forum. They have chosen to operate under such self-imposed restraints as to make acceptance of the things of God impossible. God will not save them against their will, nor do I believe we should continue to try to persuade. The desire of their hearts is apparently to remain outside of His will and redemption. Neither has expressed an openness or desire to do otherwise. If they do not experience a change of heart, which is always beyond our feeble attempts to accomplish in our own strength, perhaps God will have mercy upon them yet. I am knocking the dust off of my feet. If there is anything to be gained in heaven, it is for another to water and harvest.

Grace and peace to you, Ronnie T


----------



## WTM45 (May 17, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Please, don't bother to speak for him.



Good grief, I did not and do not speak for him.
I was answering your questions.


----------



## WTM45 (May 17, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> In post #115 I gave Diogenes and WTM45 as much of anaccurate answer as I possibly can, yet you don't even acknowledge it.



I'm still working on it, RonnieT.  
And, I do think it was a fair post.


----------



## WTM45 (May 17, 2009)

gtparts said:


> WTM45's participation may be held as questionably motivated. At this point, I feel no more obligation to respond to either.



Then practice the art of restraint.  Do not post or respond.

It's really none of your concern as to what I do or do not do.

I'd wish that you would stay and continue to keep the discussion moving, even if others have different views.


----------



## reformedpastor (May 17, 2009)




----------



## Diogenes (May 18, 2009)

Gtparts asks: “Is it your experience that anyone has ever stated on this forum that "there is no need to own a dictionary, have an education, or even properly read a question prior to responding quite venomously.", either expressly or implied? If so, I missed it and will apologize and retract as needed.”    

Well, yeah -- Huntinfool stated: “Don't worry about your personal definition. See how it is used in the Scripture. Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...particularly when we have clear examples of how the word is used in the Scripture.”  

Um?  So now the Bible trumps the dictionary concerning the definitions of the words themselves?  Darn.  Pesky thing, that darned dictionary, and all that darned edumacation stuff . . .  words mean what they mean, folks, and I don’t get to make any personal definitions of them anymore than any of you do.

Then goes on: “In any event, there is no reason to believe that Dio meant anything other than to figuratively slap some in the face. Please, don't bother to speak for him. Your opinion is just that....opinion. Allow him to speak truthfully and convincingly as to his motive.”      Indeed.  A literal slap in the face, unsupported and undeserved, deserved and received a figurative one in return, so what makes the one different than the other in your view?  Your opinion is also just that – opinion, and your motives are clearly stated – mine are perhaps more vague, since they are only meant to spark thoughts rather than to enforce ancient superstitions.

Ronnie T states: “Diogenes, it's obvious to me that you have an agenda and there'll never be an answer to any of your questions that you'll settle for.”   Sir, with all due respect, you did not address the question at all.  You simply quoted the party line.  To an objective view, that sort of reaction reveals an actual agenda, and is often used as a deflection and a defense against inconvenient doubts.  Shouting down a question with Biblical posturing is a long cry from actually answering.  Your answer is no answer at all, it is a recitation of a single-minded doctrine that presents itself as an all or nothing proposition.  I simply ask for your own thoughts, where you lecture me with the Word as handed down.    

Gtparts states: “Under the guise of debate and discussion, he baits and trolls.”  Sir, again with all due respect, under the guise of ‘debate and discussion,’ which implies a willingness to talk, think, and perhaps learn from and about disparate viewpoints, what is presented in return is rigid and unwavering evangelical posturing, which will brook no disagreement or discussion of anything other than itself, and rejects the idea of an honest exchange of thoughts out of hand.  Which position can a reasonable mind consider to be the more thoughtful?  (On topic – the lack of an ability to forgive, while relying on forgiveness for yourselves, is all too tangibly revealed, thus far . . . )

So, let us expand the question somewhat – since we certainly all agree that the idea of a God is not a tangible, physical reality, perhaps we need to take this discussion back a few steps --  Since the idea of a God is not physical, then it would be, lacking a better term, metaphysical (meaning, concerned with abstract thoughts or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth).  Fair enough?

In his novel, “Si le grain ne meurt,’ Andre Gide pretty clearly pinpointed one recurrent source of metaphysical thinking.  He writes there of a vague, ill-defined belief that, “something else exists alongside the acknowledged, aboveboard reality of everyday life.”  (Sound familiar?)  This “desire to give life more thickness,” he suggests, elicits “a sort of propensity to imagine a more clandestine side of things.”  The effort, that is to say, to try to comprehend the universe as not simply piece-meal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.  Again, that sounds pretty familiar . . .   

Now, we can all understand, and it is amply demonstrated that the basis of all human intelligence, and perhaps of all animal intelligence as well, can be boiled down to pattern recognition.  Our abilities are rather more highly developed than say, the animals you hunt, who fall for that food plot every time . . . and so we (humans)  are able to break things down into categories, as Dilthey did, such as Factual beliefs, Value-judgments, and a set of Ultimate goals.  (Did I hear someone use the word ‘agenda’?).  So we are saddled with the problem of just what is a Fact, what is a Judgment, and what is our Goal?

Not so easy as it sounds when one small group among all humans wishes to stand up and say that they, and they alone have the answer, huh?  Then another group of humans springs up and says, no you don’t, we do . . .  Then a hundred groups spring up and are trying to fight it out . . . And it is a bit more difficult when all they have to substantiate their own claim is a Book of uncertain origin and a vociferous denial of any questions using only that book as their source of ‘fact’ to deny honest questions.  And each one claims to have a source, a Holy Book, that makes them right, and makes everyone else wrong.  Pretty thoughtful and Divinely created group, all these humans, huh?      

If one studies Van Gogh’s ‘Letters,’ if one reads ‘Les Illuminations’ by Rimbaud, Blake’s ‘Songs of Innocence and Experience,’ or the seventeenth century poets, among many others, one will find oneself confronted by the idea that metaphysical experiences are deeply interrogative and deal in analogies and antitheses, fusions and coincidences.  Similar thoughts, I observe, to many I encounter here, who nonetheless contend that their own ‘knowledge’ is somehow transcendent, and defies those who do not believe and see as they do.  In a sense, of course, for the individual, their own metaphysics is a true as it needs to be, but it is difficult, and actually impossible to find any great thinker for whom it could not be said that he or she was profoundly questioning.  Or, more concretely, that actual thought on an individual level is more concerned with the reconciliation of opposites than with the enforcement of a singular view.  Even the blindest of Christians might see that, at least metaphorically, the doctrine of forgiveness was originally meant to allow folks who disagreed to live in peace, not to hand forgiveness only to oneself while condemning others.

So the original question stands, and remains.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Well, yeah -- Huntinfool stated: “Don't worry about your personal definition. See how it is used in the Scripture. Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...particularly when we have clear examples of how the word is used in the Scripture.”
> 
> Um?  So now the Bible trumps the dictionary concerning the definitions of the words themselves?  Darn.  Pesky thing, that darned dictionary, and all that darned edumacation stuff . . .  words mean what they mean, folks, and I don’t get to make any personal definitions of them anymore than any of you do.



First, it was me that said it.  Second, you're wrong.  Whatever dictionary you have is not the iron-clad, absolute definer of words now, yesterday, and forever.  You're smart enough to understand that.  

In your "definition" of propitiation, you made claims about what the word implies in your opinion.  I don't recall you giving a dictionary definition, but it owuldn't matter if you did.  You were refuting the term propitiation as it is used in Scripture, but you were not examining how it is used in Scripture.

In Scripture, the term isn't used in the way you defined.  That's not me giving it a personal definition, that's me acknowledging how it was used in the first century in the context we were discussing.  To refute it in any other context or usage would be equivocation.  I pointed this out to you earlier.

It doesn't mean we don't need dictionaries, it means we need to discuss the word as it is used in a particular time period amongst a specific group of people.  

Go find another straw man to knock down!


----------



## jimbo4116 (May 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.  Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way.  So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
> 
> Much is said here about the difference between those who are 'saved' and those of us poor non-believers who will suffer all manner of torments for all of eternity and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum . . . and too many times now the idea of morality has been ascribed solely to 'believers,' who have a book to point to and quote from, and that makes all the difference . . .
> 
> ...



I have a question for those who profess no belief in God, Religion or any form of spiritual beliefs.

Why does it prey on your minds that other people do believe?

Seemingly the non-believing individuals are either maniacal about non-existence of any spiritual beings or just have a diabolical need to disprove the existence of spriritual beings and beliefs of believers.

In the first case, can one of you who have no beliefs explain your mania concerning God and those who believe in God.  You have nothing to prove and expect nothing beyond this life.  Because it takes no faith to believe in nothing.

While I will admit a mania on the other side, but in general they are not trying to prove anything exists only the need to have faith in its existence in order to recieve the reward of eternal life. 

Which brings us to the need to prove that God does not exists.  What is wrong with believing in God and Christ. What is wrong in that, whether or not it is true?  What drives one to divert someone else from something that except for the fringes does good and provides peace of mind for believers?

Is it jealousy of that peace of mind or doubt in your own position?

While I will point out that I do believe in God, I do not find it necessary to prove to you that God exists.  God, himself, will do that in due time.

What do you gain by denigrating the spiritual beliefs of others?

Is it a feeling of superiority?  

How does my belief in God negatively affect you?

I hope you do not give me the old argument thay you don't want my religion shoved down your throat. Because that argument runs both ways. To which I answer, the believer is only trying to offer you something, while the non-believer wishes to take something from me.

The argument or debate as you might wish to call it is irrelevant.  Neither side can prove their position.  The only difference is when the proof comes, my Faith offers me opportunity while your beliefs offer you nothing.


----------



## formula1 (May 18, 2009)

*Re:*

Diogenes:

My apologies, sir, as I have been spouting that you have an agenda. That fact is that you do have one, but you are truly unaware of it! 

This is my final statement on the matter and it is meant in truth and not in jest:

Father in heaven, please forgive Diogenes, for he does not know what he is doing!


----------



## Madman (May 18, 2009)

> Um? So now the Bible trumps the dictionary concerning the definitions of the words themselves? Darn. Pesky thing, that darned dictionary, and all that darned edumacation stuff . . . words mean what they mean, folks, and I don’t get to make any personal definitions of them anymore than any of you do....Diogenes



Johnny,

Is that response from Dio one of those "push aways" that we are constantly accused of?  Instead of dealing with the issue just throw out some sophmoric statement, sort of a "drive by" then change the topic.  I've seen no attempt from Dio to learn the meaning of the word propitiation as it is used in the Scriptures, but only to open up the Websters New College Edition and cut and past.

Hope Obama does'nt put him on the Supreme Court, he'll be reinterpreting the constitution.

ORIGINAL INTENT!!!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2009)

> Well, yeah -- Huntinfool stated: “Don't worry about your personal definition. See how it is used in the Scripture. Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...particularly when we have clear examples of how the word is used in the Scripture.”



Uh....pretty sure huntinfool didn't say that bud.  Might want to go back an adjust your quote.


----------



## WTM45 (May 18, 2009)

jimbo4116 said:


> I have a question for those who profess no belief in God, Religion or any form of spiritual beliefs.
> 
> Why does it prey on your minds that other people do believe?
> 
> ...



From my studies and reading I have found those who do not believe in the supernatural or in a deity are curious as to why others do.

Jimbo, your argument for belief sounds very much like Pascal's Wager.

Remember, the burden of proof is for those making the claim of existance.  Not those who disagree.


----------



## jimbo4116 (May 18, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> From my studies and reading I have found those who do not believe in the supernatural or in a deity are curious as to why others do.
> 
> Jimbo, your argument for belief sounds very much like Pascal's Wager.
> 
> Remember, the burden of proof is for those making the claim of existance.  Not those who disagree.


First I am no arguing for belief.  Although I wish that you could come to believe. Once I have offered you my testimony and you have received the testimony of others, you are on your own.

There is no burden of proof for either side.  If I must prove to you that God exists then there is no need for Faith. This is where your argument dies.  If you demand proof then you are unsure that he does not exists. The doubt lies on your side, not mine.

You are asking me to prove to you that God exists, while you cannot provide any proof that he does not.  It is undeniable this is where you find yourself.  Looking for proof of something you say you do not beleive.

As for Pascal's wager, yes it does sound as if I am taking the easy road. The difference is I know that my Faith must be sincere not convenient.  In today's world it is not easy to take the High Road.  It is my faith in God that makes the High Road easier to travel.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 18, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> From my studies and reading I have found those who do not believe in the supernatural or in a deity are curious as to why others do.
> 
> I find no curiousity in Diogenes' ranting.
> 
> ...



"The biggest lie of all" is found in the mind of an atheist who is hel l-bent on proving that the Almighty God doesn't exist.  Get outta here.


----------



## Diogenes (May 18, 2009)

It was, in fact, johnnylightnin and not huntinfool who brought up the definition question.  A thousand pardons for the misattribution . . .


----------



## Huntinfool (May 18, 2009)

Nah....no big deal.  




But you only need ONE pardon from ONE dude.....!


----------



## WTM45 (May 18, 2009)

No, there IS a curiosity as to every facet of human behavior.  Many people study and research it extensively.  And the belief in religious belief systems is a very interesting study.

Why are people Christians?  Why do they choose their denomination?
Why are people Muslim?
Why are people Daoists?
Why are people disbelievers in deities?

Some just want to hear other people's answers to why they choose and accept what they do.  It's really that simple.
If someone claims exclusivity, and stands to present their way as the only "right" way, they must be prepared for questions from others as to why and how.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 18, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, there IS a curiosity as to every facet of human behavior.  Many people study and research it extensively.  And the belief in religious belief systems is a very interesting study.
> 
> Why are people Christians?  Why do they choose their denomination?
> Why are people Muslim?
> ...



What you say might very well be true.  An unbeliever could have some puzzling questions in regards to religion.
But I don't see anything of the sort in Diogenes' posts.


----------



## reformedpastor (May 18, 2009)

Maybe he is living up to his gon-name "Diogenes."  He picked it for a reason and I think what he calls himself gives us a hint into his personality.


----------



## reformedpastor (May 18, 2009)

> Diogenes wrote- reformedpastor asks: "Are you addressing "people" or the historic Christian faith as stated in its creeds and confessions? Two different things." I should think, for a man of your learning, that question would be rhetorical, and beneath a decent level of discussion.



Ok, I will assume you are talking about certain individuals and dismiss your whole statement as nothing more than a rant, which leads to most wasting their time.  



> Then states: "For the most part our doctrine is always better than our practice. This is true for unbelievers too." Here, sir, we agree, and we may, finally, this far down into the thread, begin to address the central topic. If the doctrine allows forgiveness, regardless of sin, and allows even forgiveness for 'infidels' provided they see the one true light that only a very few seem to hold, then what seems to matter most, in this doctrine, is not so much morality, but belief. This seems contradictory. One might believe that the one true light is a little green watering can in Geneva, and folks in this world have worshipped and still do worship odder things. But if that little green watering can will forgive them no matter what they do, so long as they believe in it, then what real reason do they have to behave morally?



It seems you are confused about true or historic christianity teaches about salvation-faith-ethics- etc. This to some degree can be remedied there are several web sites you might visit such web sites as these for a better understanding of Christianity- www.carm.org and www.vincentcheung.com/library/


----------



## Diogenes (May 19, 2009)

Here we are again: 

We have ---

1. A continuing argument that words do not mean what they mean, but rather what someone wishes them to mean in the ‘context’ they alone provide.

2. A paranoid expression of the persecution complex, riddled with insults characterizing any doubters as ‘maniacal,’ ‘diabolical,’ ‘jealous,’ and holding a ‘feeling of superiority.’

3. A direct personal insult that I know not what I’m doing.

4. Another direct insult, that my reading of the actual definition of a word in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, and my pointing out that definition is somehow a ‘sophmoric (sic) push away’ and a ‘drive by changing of the topic.’ (Which definition, I might point out, constituted an entire changing of the topic.)  

5. A valid, but still off topic response to some of the above pointing out the flaw in a Pascal’s Wager sort of argument.  Proper, under the circumstances, but distracted by off-topic nonsense.

6. Another direct insult describing my thoughts as ‘rantings,’ coupled with yet more unsupported and unsupportable assertions that facts not in evidence are nonetheless self-evident.

7. An insight into my personality -- speculative, patronizing, unsupported and unsupportable.

8. And a referral, rather than a personal thought, to a site where I might be able to educate and remedy my ‘confusion’ by immersing myself in the very dogma under discussion.

If I may ask, is every question met only with insult and recitation?  If the idea is to wear folks down by refusing to address the ideas, and only to constantly badger them with rigid dogma repeated endlessly regardless of the point at hand, and to try to scare them off with high-handed, smug, supercilious and pointless insult, then so far ya’ll are doing a fine job.  Avoiding an actual exchange and discouraging the free expression of thoughts seems to be a specialty.  

But yet, the question remains.  And it remains without the self-proclaimed defenders of the faith having done a single thing other than to reject the question and attack the questioner.  In the use of these tactics all that is really revealed is an ancient, nearly tribal closing of ranks in defense of the sanctity of the ill-considered.  Is the question that frightening?

How does the idea of forgiveness, but only for the believers, square with the assertion of a morality that is divinely provided to everyone?   Anybody?  Bueller?


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 19, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> A continuing argument that words do not mean what they mean, but rather what someone wishes them to mean in the ‘context’ they alone provide.
> 
> ...
> 
> How does the idea of forgiveness, but only for the believers, square with the assertion of a morality that is divinely provided to everyone?   Anybody?  Bueller?



Again, a strawman.  It's not the context that they alone provide.  It's an easily studied context from a certain point in history.  Are you really going to argue that your definition of propitiation from your English dictionary is a more accurate reflection of the correct translation of the Greek than to look at how the term was used at the time and in the context?  If you are, you are being foolish.

You initial question was flawed.  It presumed things that were false.  While I have no doubt that you still hold the same false presuppositions, I will answer your question after you give me a clear definition of what you understand this "morality" to be.  After you define the term (using whatever definition you'd like...I will correct it if it doesn't jive with Biblical Christianity), explain what you mean in saying this morality is for everyone.


----------



## Madman (May 19, 2009)

> How, exactly, can you honestly and rationally build a moral basis around a belief that you, personally, do not need to act morally because you will be forgiven, but 'nonbelievers' do?.... Diogenes



Is the above quote the "question" which you refer to in #142?  If it is then it will remain unanswered because, at least from a Christian point of view, the premise is false.


----------



## reformedpastor (May 19, 2009)

Atheism and rationality??? Could you play that again!


----------



## reformedpastor (May 19, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Again, a strawman.  It's not the context that they alone provide.  It's an easily studied context from a certain point in history.  Are you really going to argue that your definition of propitiation from your English dictionary is a more accurate reflection of the correct translation of the Greek than to look at how the term was used at the time and in the context?  If you are, you are being foolish.
> 
> You initial question was flawed.  It presumed things that were false.  While I have no doubt that you still hold the same false presuppositions, I will answer your question after you give me a clear definition of what you understand this "morality" to be.  After you define the term (using whatever definition you'd like...I will correct it if it doesn't jive with Biblical Christianity), explain what you mean in saying this morality is for everyone.



And if the premise is false then all that rest upon that premise is invalid.


----------



## WTM45 (May 19, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> It presumed things that were false.




How do you know what is "true?"

Anyone willing to answer his question?  I see it as pretty valid and straight forward.
If it is not a lie, then refute it.


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How do you know what is "true?"



Because I'm familiar with Orthodox Christianity.  He mischaracterized the basis and practice of Christian morals. 

Madman's post highlights a particularly egregious mischaracterization.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (May 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How do you know what is "true?"
> 
> Anyone willing to answer his question? I see it as pretty valid and straight forward.
> If it is not a lie, then refute it.


 

How do you know that your morality is really moral?

The morality of today(as a Society) is proof of people resting in what they think themselves is moral...

How do so-called Moral people get their Morals?

How do they know that their Morals didn't evolve erronously?

DB BB


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 19, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> How do they know that their Morals didn't evolve erronously?



Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame philosophy prof.) argues that they can't in _Warrant and Proper Function_.  The section is called "An evolutionary argument against philosophical naturalism".


----------



## Ronnie T (May 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How do you know what is "true?"
> 
> Anyone willing to answer his question?  I see it as pretty valid and straight forward.
> If it is not a lie, then refute it.



I answered his original question a while back.  I'll not waste any more on a man with his motives and ....... .
His continued posts tell the whole story about this man.


----------



## Diogenes (May 20, 2009)

johnnylighnin states: "Are you really going to argue that your definition of propitiation from your English dictionary is a more accurate reflection of the correct translation of the Greek than to look at how the term was used at the time and in the context? If you are, you are being foolish."

Okay, this noisome attempt to distract from the thought at hand is becoming particularly tiresome, so let us take this one up and dispose of it.  First of all, sir, your KJV was not written in Greek.  It was badly translated, at least in the Old Testament, from Ancient Hebrew.  (So every time you read the words, “I am the alpha and the omega,” which appears numerous times, you are reading words that could not have been written.)  I could get all scholarly here, and work you through ancient semantics, translations, errors in same, and all the like, but your eyes would glaze over and I would use a mile of bandwidth and way more time than the misinterpretation deserves.  Nobody, in the place and time contemporaneous with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, spoke Greek.  Further, the root of the word that you ask me for a correct translation of, from the Greek, has no Greek origins. 

Since you insist -- the word, 'propitiate' derives from the early Latin, 'propitiatus,' which was a participle of the word 'propitiare,' meaning 'to appease.'  The noun form 'propitiation' arrived first in Middle English around 1350, and was meant to denote the act of conciliation, and the word was adopted in late Latin as spelled, 'propitiation,' a synonym of 'propitiatio,' which meant, then and now -- appeasement. And it might be noticed that Latin was also not the language of the time and place.   

You might also notice, as a scholar of language and proper usage and translations of same, (which you must clearly be, since you deem yourself able to hijack a thread based only on your definition of a single word), that the word did not come into any common usage until about the early 1500’s.  Just about when, historically, all sorts of folks decided to rewrite everything they, personally, felt to be heretical.  A scholar, such as yourself, would know well what resulted.

Words, as symbols of thoughts, are hardly random and cannot, as some might wish, be conveniently redefined.  It might serve your own argument to do so, but you do not have that option available.  

Anything to say that is on-topic, then?


----------



## Diogenes (May 20, 2009)

Q: How does the idea of forgiveness, but only for the believers, square with the assertion of a morality that is divinely provided to everyone? 

“the premise is false”

“And if the premise is false then all that rest upon that premise is invalid.”

 Um?  Which premise?  That ‘believers,’ and believers alone can count on divine forgiveness?  If that premise is false, then nearly everything that has been said here in condemnation of ‘nonbelievers’ is false, so it certainly can’t be that one . . . 

Could it be the part about morality being divinely handed down by God alone?  Is that false?  It has been asserted time and again, and if that moral basis is not, in fact, divinely provided, then every argument made here in recent weeks is equally false.  So it certainly can’t be that one . . .

But those are the only two thoughts in opposition, in the question as posed.  So perhaps you might now tell me, which of those two thoughts is the ‘false premise’?


----------



## Diogenes (May 20, 2009)

(I know, I'm just being 'foolish' . . . .) And so Ronnie will leave the thread for the second or third time . . .


----------



## johnnylightnin (May 20, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> First of all, sir, your KJV was not written in Greek.  It was badly translated, at least in the Old Testament, from Ancient Hebrew.



I don't own a KJV, sir.  1 John 2:2 was most certainly written in Greek.  I care not for the English (or latin) propitiation, only the Greek word that is translated propitiation.  I could transliterate here for you, but your eyes would just glaze over (or whatever you said).

As for the rest of your drivel, it will have to wait until later.


----------



## gtparts (May 20, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Q: How does the idea of forgiveness, but only for the believers, square with the assertion of a morality that is divinely provided to everyone?
> 
> “the premise is false”
> 
> ...



Actually Dio, as written, the confusion arises out of you asking about "squaring" the two ideas.



> Q: How does the idea of forgiveness, but only for the believers, square with the assertion of a morality that is divinely provided to everyone?



Second things first. God not only has provided a written moral code and the perfect example, Jesus Christ, He has given us our consciences. It is divinely provided and intended for everyone.

Forgiveness is the God-ordained result of confession and repentance. In our relationship to God, the C & R are our parts, the forgiveness......His part. In personal (people-to- people) relationships, we , at times, are to forgive, at others, to confess and repent.

The connection of the two concepts is this:
Without an awareness of violating God's expressed will concerning our thoughts and behavior, we do not know what to confess and repent for. Without knowing His nature, we can't fully understand and appreciate the effects and impending consequences of our transgression. When we understand our sin in that light, we should be moved to confession and repentance.

Finally, those who reject His moral code, who reject His Son and His Son's substitutionary death on the cross and His resurrection, and deny God's very existence, are completely without remedy for their sin. The just, holy, and righteous God will stand and judge those guilty and pronounce the punishment prepared for Satan and his demons.

And that is how it works.

There! Squared!


----------



## Diogenes (May 21, 2009)

“1 John 2:2 was most certainly written in Greek.”   

Once more, I take this up mainly out of boredom, since it is ridiculously off topic and falls into the category of minutiae.  But really?  You have, in your possession, or to your own certain knowledge, a Book of the Bible that was originally written in Greek?  Well raise my rent and put me in the oven and call me a biscuit!  So, which John was that exactly?  John the Apostle?  John the Caterer?  John from down the hall with the odd girlfriend? There are a lot of Johns, and it gets confusing . . .     But we have a few problems.  First, the Latin derivation is more likely, historically, since the territory in question was ruled by Herod Antipas at the time, who had inherited those lands from his father, Herod the Great, in about 4 BC.  They were Samarians, and Herod’s rule was largely conducted as a Roman client state, making it a pretty sure bet that the common language under a Samarian ruler would not have been Greek.  So a few of the better educated folks would have needed to know Latin, as a condition of survival, what with all the Romans looking over their shoulders and all.  But that hatches another problem, commonality of language aside – the ‘disciples,’ were common folks.  Illiterate, in other words, in an era where the literacy rate was less than 2%.  It didn’t matter much which language they spoke – they couldn’t read or write anyway.

“I care not for the English (or latin) propitiation, only the Greek word that is translated propitiation.”  Wait.  Did you not say, “Arguing based upon your opinion of what a word implies is weak...?”  Remember, please, that I did not pick this single word as a reason to make a stand – you picked that one up and decided to run with it.  So now you only care for the Greek word, which you have not provided, that is ‘translated’ to mean propitiation? (Which has been demonstrated to be a word that is rooted in Latin.)   Translated by who, and from what?  Substantiate this.  Provide the actual Greek word which ‘translates’ as another word that has an actual and irrefutable meaning.  

And while that is (fruitlessly) occupying yet more bandwidth, you might look back and notice that every single usage and derivation of the word itself does not change the meaning of that word which I originally pointed out.  Appeasement.  Plain and simple.

(Etymology is a nice hobby, and I commend it, but it is rather an exacting pursuit, and ought not be pursued by amateurs.) 

And concerning my "drivel," I thank you for the insult, and wish you a scholarly evening.


----------



## Phoelix (May 21, 2009)

Forget it, he is a well versed advocate of the "enemy"....I believe what I believe because I have him in my heart, and I personally know that...He has made his presence known, and has shown me the way after 47 years of wandering around in the dark...All of these threads mean nothing, all that matters is what's in your heart...I love, fear, and follow.


----------



## WTM45 (May 21, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Forget it, he is a well versed advocate of the "enemy"....I believe what I believe because I have him in my heart, and I personally know that...He has made his presence known, and has shown me the way after 47 years of wandering around in the dark...All of these threads mean nothing, all that matters is what's in your heart...I love, fear, and follow.



No, these threads do mean something.
People will doubt the existance of anything that is inexplainable, borderline mythological and emotionally based.
Why not Islam?  Why not Hinduism?  Why not follow Confucious?  Zeus?  A empty Michelob bottle?

How is an unbeliever the "enemy?"  Are not they the ones believers are tasked with "spreading the message" to?

Those who have researched and studied the evolution of the Bible have found clear examples of change for sake of change, translation to shape then end result, and outright rejection of some complete books and works that at one time were accepted and followed.

Diogenes, remember, you do not have the gift of discernment!


----------



## Diogenes (May 23, 2009)

Discernment, yeah.  Also known as discrimination, or acuteness of judgment and understanding.  I’ve been told that I do lack that quality, and it is too bad.  Because if I did possess that quality, I might have started out by telling you about Strabo, who tells us that the Galicians had no notion of a higher being.  And that when the missionaries wanted to talk of God with the natives of the West Indies (as Acosta recounts, and he was also a Jesuit), they could only use the Spanish word Dios, because there was no such word as God in the local language.  This was a rather common problem amongst those who set out to zealously convert far-flung native peoples, by force if necessary – few of them, it turned out, had a concept of a God.  I might have suggested that if the idea of God is unknown to people in a state of nature, that idea must then be a human invention.  But then, those who actually do possess the quality of acuteness of judgment and understanding might have argued that the God who does not exist in nature, even as an idea, is proven to exist because a very, very few people actually do have the quality of discernment, and so nature is wrong, and so is the vast majority of the people on the planet who, they argue, also lack those qualities that they alone possess.  

I might have observed that when the missionaries arrived to forcibly convert the godless heathen, they were rather startled to discover that even aboriginal tribes with no word for a God had a surprisingly well developed moral code, in the sense of the body of rules and obligations that bind an individual to the set of ideals of the society he occupies.  I might have observed that morality consists of a knowledge of the nature of ones purposive acts, of the consequences of actions and of the order of social relations.  I might have observed that the odd dictum put forward here time and again that morality admits of no discoveries can hardly be justified in any manner.  Morality has clearly changed and progressed, which argues against any rigid or Divine codification that is immutable and unchanging.  I might have said that the natural common sense of propriety (moral sense) is straightforward sympathy, with the motive of the agent being one that any normal person would have in the circumstances, while the sense of virtue, far from defining morality, accrues only to a sense of personal self-aggrandizement, and is an admiration (self-worship) for a motive that goes far beyond what is merely proper.  I might have pointed out that actual moral codes far predate the grand-standing pretensions of the self-glorification and prideful displays of personal virtue that aim only to elevate one individual over another, and serve no other possible purpose.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, I might have observed, is the canceling out or the pardon of an indebtedness.  The opposition of the idea of morality as virtue and the doctrine of a pardon available only to the virtuous presents a rather powerful paradox, I might have observed.  Similar, one might notice, to certain lawmakers even in modern times believing that the laws they make apply only to others, and that they, themselves, are held-harmless.  The arrogance involved in elevating only oneself to the level of ‘virtuous,’ while condemning others, I could have said, required a built-in escape hatch, since even those who claim such a position realized that sooner or later their own human failings would be noticed.  So they gave themselves, and only themselves, a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card, and called it Forgiveness.  Rather a clear acknowledgment of their sense of indebtedness, even while having transcended such a concept by elevating themselves to ‘virtuous.’   

I might have said that religion itself clearly exists, for a strong and noble purpose, much as kings and governments exist, and I respect each in their turn so long as the work they achieve is to good ends, but that each exists at the hand of man and it is well demonstrated in history that each will be disposed of by man when that purpose is no longer to serve the subjects but rather to gain advantage at their expense.  So beware of claims of superior virtue over your fellow men due only to the doctrine you, personally, wish to follow and espouse.  I would have said that the first quality of an honest man is contempt for religions, kings, and governments, which would, each in their own way, have us live in fear.  I would quote the theologian who accidentally, trying to make his own case, said, “Strong is a king who destroys all, stronger still is a woman who obtains all, but strongest is the truth and those who speak it.”  Amen Brother.  You said a mouthful.

I might even have been deliberately provocative to a few, and asked simply, how can one preach a doctrine that says in the same breath that we must forgive our neighbor, and He need not?  How can you ask anyone to worship a divinity that desires our eternal suffering only to appease his rage?  

But, of course, since I lack discernment (acuteness of judgment and understanding), I would not be in a position to actually say any of those things.   A big load off my mind, I’m telling ya, this lacking discernment thing . . .   So pay no attention, folks . . . nothing to see here . . . go back to whatever you were doing . . .  The folks with discernment have it all under control . . .


----------



## formula1 (May 23, 2009)

*Re:*

The love of God has been presented to all mankind in the person of Jesus Christ to all men who believe.  The rage of God is only for those who by choice reject Him.  I will still be praying for you to realize this simple foolishness of His grace. Good Night!


----------



## Diogenes (May 23, 2009)

"The rage of God is only for those who by choice reject Him."

Time to start counting, I guess.  We'll call this Validation #1 of those things I might have said . . .


----------



## WTM45 (May 24, 2009)

formula1 said:


> The love of God has been presented to all mankind in the person of Jesus Christ to all men who believe.  The rage of God is only for those who by choice reject Him.  I will still be praying for you to realize this simple foolishness of His grace. Good Night!




Think about what Diogenes said for a second.

"I might even have been deliberately provocative to a few, and asked simply, how can one preach a doctrine that says in the same breath that we must forgive our neighbor, and He need not? How can you ask anyone to worship a divinity that desires our eternal suffering only to appease his rage?"

How does your comment, formula1, align itself with II Peter 3:9?


----------



## cathooker (May 24, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> This is another example as to why I don't beleive, it all sounds pretty ridiculous!



I will pray for you that you will someday see and feel the love of our Lord.


----------



## formula1 (May 24, 2009)

*Re:*

II Peter 3  
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,* not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

WTM45:

No conflict at all! 

God is not willing for you to perish and He is longsuffering.  He gave you a 'choice' and as such He has limited Himself by that.  He does NOT desire our eternal suffering!  You choose it if and only if you reject Jesus Christ! Is 2000+ years longsuffering enough?  If not, how long should it be?

Am I that hard to understand?

I say again:

The love of God has been presented to all mankind in the person of Jesus Christ to all men who believe. God made the provision for you to avoid His Judgment. He is waiting on you to receive it. 

How about Verse 7? Will God judge?  The assumption of course is that you believe this scripture to be true.

And how about forgiveness! Jesus Christ is the door to that forgiveness.  

John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

WTM45, I know you have studied these things, surely you know what I say is true from the perspective of the scriptures, whether you believe them yourself or not!

I willing to discuss the Christian perspective with anyone who will listen or wants to know in honest dialogue.

Any more questions?*


----------



## Diogenes (May 24, 2009)

Moo.


----------



## formula1 (May 24, 2009)

*Re:*

Quack!


----------



## WTM45 (May 24, 2009)

Exclusive salvation.

http://www.amadan.org/atheism/****ation.html


----------



## formula1 (May 25, 2009)

*Re:*

I say 'Inclusive Salvation', no matter what you call it! 

You posted a very cleverly written argument!   Does your hope lie in a very clever argument? Maybe it will work for you, but the love, mercy and grace of Jesus Christ works for me!

There are 100's of scriptures which completely refute the argument, but of course I cannot convince you, only God through His Spirit can.  It each man's right to choose the path that he sees fit.  I wish for you and all others to understand this wonderful hope that I have.  

My choice has been made and Jesus Christ is my Savior and Lord.  It is available to anyone who will!  It does not sound exclusive to me!

Who will save you in the end? Your works? Perhaps your knowledge? Or perhaps your high moral standard?  Or perhaps your understanding of the foolishness of religions?  Or maybe even your self-righteous take on the character of God? Or maybe your hope is that you won't have to be concerned with it, because God isn't real anyway? Or maybe your love and respect for people and other cultures? Or maybe your open mind? Or maybe your wisdom in pointing an accusing finger at the fundamentalist? Or maybe you have identified the evil things done by Christians throughout history, as if God doesn't already know? Surely one of these will get you on God's good side!

Life is a chance for you to study for the test!  I hope your choices allow you to pass! And I hope that you don't run out of study time.


----------



## WTM45 (May 25, 2009)

Do you discredit those who have beliefs in other deities and follow other religious belief systems?  Do you believe their "peace" and "hope" is not real to them?  Then you are following the tenet of  exclusive salvation.


----------



## Diogenes (May 25, 2009)

Quack?  How interesting.  I’m familiar with Moostianity, and I outlined a short history here a little while ago, but Quackstianity is a new one.  Is that the one where the silver-tongued Preacher with the shiny suit and the shinier teeth talks old ladies out of their life savings for the greater glory of his half-interest in the local Cadillac dealership?  The one where the fella with a wife, two mistresses, four illegitimate children and a choir-boy hidden in the basement preaches fiery sermons about purity and the sins of the flesh?  Or am I confusing that with the one where the Preacher demands a tithe in order to further the good word that his investment counselor gave to him?  Or is that the Nashville-style one with all of the live entertainment and the surround-sound system and the Broadway lighting effects in the state-of-the-art theater (I mean, church)?  Or maybe the one where the fella moves quickly from town to town, ‘healing’ the sick and passing the hat?  Could it be the one conducted entirely on television, that takes credit cards?  Or maybe the one that offers a relic of a true Saint for only three easy payments of $49.95 each?  

Hard to tell.  There are so many to choose from.  Enlighten me, please, on the nature of the one true Quackstianity.  I yearn to see the light, and be saved from it.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 26, 2009)

Pretty simple to me....
Just like my heavenly Father, my earthly father forgives me and loves me unconditionally. I may get punished for my transgressions, but I am still loved uncondtionally and forgiven. My earthly father has mercy and grace on me, just like my heavenly Father. My earthly father asks me not to do certain things for certain reasons....I may still do those things and suffer a consequence, either from my father or the circumstance....but my earthly father still loves me and I belong to him,to protect me and save me from harm and helps me learn from my mistakes or sins....just like my heavenly Father.


----------



## formula1 (May 26, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Enlighten me, please, on the nature of the one true Quackstianity.  I yearn to see the light, and be saved from it.



Moo adds nothing to the debate and neither does Quack, which was precisely my point! Sorry, if you didn't follow that one!


----------



## formula1 (May 26, 2009)

*Re:*



WTM45 said:


> Do you discredit those who have beliefs in other deities and follow other religious belief systems?  Do you believe their "peace" and "hope" is not real to them?  Then you are following the tenet of  exclusive salvation.



No. 
No.
Then it must be No!  

This is not a religious belief system, though you still believe it to be so. This is an offer of relationship with the one true God, to be born to God, to walk and experience the Law of Faith, to follow Christ, to live for Him. To walk with Him in the cool of the day and the dark of the night.  To have love beyond measure and the awesome gift of forgiveness! To know Him through His Spirit and experience the 'Kingdom of God' on earth as it is in Heaven. To have an advocate, our Father in Heaven.  

To see people from God's perspective and not man's!

As I see you!  Searching and struggling with the surface exclusivism you seem to see in this tenet.  That is the problem with man's thoughts! They are not God's thoughts!   It is a hard thing for man to let go of himself!  And I agree with you in this sense, as I have been there myself!  

But I had to let go of myself to receive it. And now, I cannot discount the wonderful grace and mercy of God that I have received through the free gift of Salvation in Christ. It has opened my life to new understanding, a walk far beyond what is tangible.  God is love and He is knowable.  He desires all men and women to know Him!  I now want to know Him and I wish that for all!  

I cannot describe the riches of His Kingdom in a way that you would understand them fully from the outside.  But this I know - God made a way for EVERY MAN to know Him and that way is the way of Christ.  He said, 'Follow me!' 

If God exists, would He create many ways to know Him?
If the message of Christ is truth, can all men know Him?

I say inclusive!!! A free gift to all who will receive it! That is my definition of inclusive!

Matthew 13
44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.


----------



## WTM45 (May 26, 2009)

formula1,
Enjoy your belief system.
It is exclusive, as it sees all other systems as being wrong and it is the only way that it right.
I'm not searching and struggling with anything.  Thanks.


----------



## Diogenes (May 27, 2009)

“Moo adds nothing to the debate and neither does Quack, which was precisely my point! Sorry, if you didn't follow that one!”

Actually, sir, the single response, “Moo,” was not random or in any way off-topic, but connected back to the ‘Moostianity’ thread I put up a little while ago, and so the comment actually provided a referent that was hard to miss.  The implication being that the continuous following of the herd in the form of quoting Bible text and singular dogma in the absence of actual, personal thoughts is a weak form of argument, and is, in fact, no argument at all.  That is to say – if I, personally, believe that Spiderman is the Deity, and my only reference is the Spiderman comic books to prove that, then I quickly become a laughable and easily dismissed figure.  I would not insult your intelligence by persisting in my claim that my book is the only book.  But, that is precisely the argument you present.  That is all you present.  Your Book, and quotes from same.  

So, it was the ‘Quack,’ that was out of context and off-topic.  Idiotic, reactionary, and typical of the level of thought displayed.  If it is a debate you actually want, then set aside the lectures about how there are “100's of scriptures which completely refute the argument,” and tell us about what you, personally, think the argument is, if you can remember.  Add something other than trying to shout down the point by telling me that your viewpoint, and yours alone is, “an offer of relationship with the one true God.”   I respect that that idea may be true for you, and I respect that you may feel the need to repeat that view endlessly, as you have done, but give us a break huh?  Do you honestly believe that you are in a position to make such an offer?  If you have nothing to say about the relationship between the ideas of morality and forgiveness, then you are really doing nothing more than wasting bandwidth.  We know quite well what you believe – we want to know what you think, if you are able to think.  So put down the book of quotations and use your own mind. 

Sorry, if you can't follow that one . . .


----------



## formula1 (May 28, 2009)

*Re:*

I have already told what I think in previous posts, so there's no need to repeat it.  I only quoted scripture to WTM45, when he quoted scripture to question me.  I simply answered.

I know little or nothing about previous post that you might have created. So 'Moo' meant nothing to me.  Sorry if you didn't like my response, but it is meant to say it added nothing to the current argument for me. Trivial, Yes!

I know you are intelligent and at least think yourself to be unbiased and thoughtful in your arguments. That I respect! 

I cannot separate my life and my belief from the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God that bears witness to that Scripture.  It is life to me and has become 'what I think' from your point of view.  It is much more than just a book to me!  

I cannot add anything further that hasn't already be said! 
So, I'll avoid taking bandwidth from you further.

Best wishes as you seek the answers you seek.  Perhaps you will find God in them one day!


----------



## Diogenes (May 28, 2009)

"I cannot separate my life and my belief from the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God that bears witness to that Scripture."  

Understood.  And respected.  Many of us can separate our lives from Scripture, and most on the planet we all occupy have no idea of the Scripture that is your own guiding principle.  Your belief is your own, and if that works for you then that is quite enough -- for you.  Insulting and attempting to bully others who do not believe as you do (and they are clearly in the majority) is something that I must gently observe takes the thought of personal belief to the level where we part company.  I will state my views, and you will state yours, and we can talk about those different views without acrimony, if we are civilized men.

I understand that the entire realm of the 'Spiritual' raises passionate emotions, so much so that some folks in this world strap bombs to themselves in a misguided attempt to enforce their beliefs.  I understand that some take the very idea of disagreement as a personal attack, though it is not meant as such, and tend to react rather than to think.  That is inevitable, and expected.  

But, "I cannot add anything further that hasn't already be said!" is quite wrong.  If I did not think that many here have the intellect to genuinely ponder a problem, and think for themselves rather than continuously quoting the party-line, then I really wouldn't bother.  Fortunately, but very thinly, there are some thoughtful folks here, but it seems that they are intimidated, or rather, disgusted by the constant and thoughtless harangue of the 'Fire and Brimstone' folks who refuse to allow a discussion to progress on terms other than their own.  

So I will ask, yet again, morality stands in opposition to forgiveness, and this is an individual problem, and one that bears some thinking and perhaps some honest discussion.  How do these two things live comfortably in the same doctrine?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 28, 2009)

formula1 said:


> I have already told what I think in previous posts, so there's no need to repeat it.  I only quoted scripture to WTM45, when he quoted scripture to question me.  I simply answered.
> 
> I know little or nothing about previous post that you might have created. So 'Moo' meant nothing to me.  Sorry if you didn't like my response, but it is meant to say it added nothing to the current argument for me. Trivial, Yes!
> 
> ...



Don't ever believe this man is seeking answers.  He didn't come here seeking answers.  No answer will ever be good enough for him.
It is the "game" that he is enjoying.  This man's use of words and phrases is remarkable.  He writes in ways that almost call Christians "stupid" to their faces, yet if you respond to aggressively, he pulls the trigger on you.  Right in your face.
There are no answers for him.
Now, he's going to respond to me with this enormous rant.  Watch.


----------



## formula1 (May 29, 2009)

*Re:*



Diogenes said:


> So I will ask, yet again, morality stands in opposition to forgiveness, and this is an individual problem, and one that bears some thinking and perhaps some honest discussion.  How do these two things live comfortably in the same doctrine?


Diogenes,

Believe me, I take no personal offense to you or anything else said on this forum.  It is at best very impersonal! I hope you will grant me the same reprieve!

I do believe I answered your question pretty well in Post #98 and feel no need to rehash that as a result.

This is your post and your question, so you tell me, What in my answer  in Post #98 does not fully respond to your question? What do you think is missing?


----------



## Diogenes (May 30, 2009)

Post #98 – states:

“This post has been agenda driven from the get-go as I and many of my fellow believers have said previously. We all know before we answer that you have no interest in the answer. You have already decided what that answer is. And that is not a push away, it is reality!”   

So, Post#98 begins with a prejudgment and an assumption, punctuated with an exclamation point, to add force to the ‘reality’ of the prejudice.   Sir, whether or not I, personally, hold a viewpoint concerning the question does not in any way make it less of a question, as posed.  If the possibility of my disagreement is too intimidating, or if your lack of clear thought concerning the paradox is somehow limiting, then the option exists to leave the topic alone, and move on to another.  Additionally, pretending to read my mind and my intentions in order to argue with those assumptions that you, alone, made in your opening sentence will always be a poor idea.

(And no, in answer to whoever it was who tried to insult me with the admonition to ‘learn how to use the ‘quote’ button,’ I notice that the option is available to respond and edit within the ‘quote,’ itself, and that sort of usage is too easily open to abuse, and has been abused, so I will continue in my own method.  By my own hand, if I misquote someone, it stands as a fair misreading, for which I will and have apologized.  It is all too easy to go back and edit yourself here, and easier to modify the words of another, and I prefer to play fair.)

Then: “Historically, the basis for what we call 'morality' has been developed over time from both religious and secular sources. This moral standard, you could say, defines our shortcomings in life or the natural world.”    Well, this is partly right in my view.  Historically, morality predates religious sources, and that is easily demonstrated, but the statement establishes a position, and a personal one, which is refreshing.

I might also say that a moral standard, since it changes quite often, does not so much define our ‘shortcomings’ so much as it establishes standards for our behavior in the society we happen to occupy.  Different groups hold different standards, which are valid for them, and enforceable by them.  I think that is a fair statement, and is neither dogmatic nor hyperbolic.

 “If, as you believe, only the natural world exists, there is no need for forgiveness beyond man's forgiveness! You live, you learn, you die, you pay the penality that man's morality requires, that's all!”   Indeed.  A succinct statement that I may not have been able to say better.

“But what if there is something beyond the natural world, a power that is in authority over the natural world! A spiritual world!”   Aside the use of exclamation points rather than question marks, here is where you stray far from the question by avoiding it.  What if there is?  Having already strayed from the idea of a ‘Divine’ morality, and admitting that morality has been developed over time, the leap back to the ‘spirit’ world is especially difficult.  If the morality has been developed, by men, then how can the ‘forgiveness’ be anything other?  The two ideas, of a Divinely provided morality and a Divine forgiveness are inextricably linked, and neither idea can be separated without denying one or the other.

The balance of post #98 I will not belabor. As a statement of your personal beliefs, it is valid for yourself, and I have no argument.  But, honestly, your answer really avoids linking the two ideas, and genuinely, on the morality side, refutes itself.  On the forgiveness side, your answer avoids the thought, and falls back rather than advancing.  So, in truth, it really was no answer at all.  As a statement of your own beliefs, I accepted that, but as a thoughtful consideration of the problem – well . . . not so much.  

(An aside, If I may, to Ronnie T: “Now, he's going to respond to me with this enormous rant. Watch.”  Sorry to disappoint you, sir, but it might do to change the pronouns slightly, and place a mirror in the room at the same time . . . )

“Believe me, I take no personal offense to you or anything else said on this forum. It is at best very impersonal! I hope you will grant me the same reprieve!”  Done.  It is quite difficult to communicate effectively in a forum such as this, lacking the nuance of the wink and the smile and the tone of voice that often tells more than the words themselves.  Arguments arise that would not have arisen if we were sitting together with a case of beer, talking like humans talk, and so a large dose of thoughtfulness in a place like this is the best we have . . . I thank you for realizing that, and avoiding the automatic rancor that some seem to bring as their only substitute  for discussion.


----------



## formula1 (Jun 1, 2009)

*Re:*

Dio:

Yes, I attacked your motive in the post.  That is absolutely true.  It is only to point out what seems a biased point of view, much like you will most likely consider my point of view as equally prejudicial.  As you point out though, the question is still a valid one for consideration.  So let's see if we can stretch our discussion a bit!

I think we got to a fairly good consensus on the definition of morality, at least as you understand it.  Perhaps we are progressing a little.

Your response to my moving the understanding of forgiveness to a spiritual world said:

What if there is? Having already strayed from the idea of a ‘Divine’ morality, and admitting that morality has been developed over time, the leap back to the ‘spirit’ world is especially difficult. If the morality has been developed, by men, then how can the ‘forgiveness’ be anything other? The two ideas, of a Divinely provided morality and a Divine forgiveness are inextricably linked, and neither idea can be separated without denying one or the other.

You have at least this one misconception about my definition of morality.  Yes we have consensus on a definition, except I would include our agreement is upon what I term 'man's morality'.  I will stretch this further that there is also 'God's morality' (A Divine Morality to use your words), something I did not come right out and say.  In this light, perhaps you will at least understand that I do not feel it a 'leap' to discuss forgiveness as it relates to the spiritual.  Indeed, the only way to truly discuss forgiveness is in the spiritual as I am convinced that man's forgiveness, if there is a definition, is historically weak at best and provides no permanent benefit to man's existance.

You might find some historical evidence to some level of a 'forgiveness' in operation by man, defined by man, and approved by man.  However, I do think that there is enough evidence to show that any forgiveness that man has defined is at best weak historically and probably of little or no lasting value.  You only need to go as far as this forum to know that man's idea of forgiveness is poor at best.  

Just because morality as you define it can be shown to be created by man does not necessarily mean that forgiveness has also been created wholy by man. Nor does it mean that there is not a higher morality, a 'Divine morality' in operation.  It is here where we get into an area of difficulty, because (seemingly to me) you cannot allow your own accepted level of knowledge and learning to fathom that possibility.  Please allow me to make this statement here, that I have been on the side of unbelief and the side of belief, so I am not as unfamiliar with your difficulty as you might suppose.

Divinely provided morality and Divine forgiveness 'are inextricably linked' to use your words. But you also said 'and neither idea can be separated without denying one or the other'.  How so?  

If Divine morality is possible, then Divine forgiveness can also be possible.  That is not a difficult leap, IMHO.  Perhaps a better way of saying it is 'Divine Morality includes a method of forgiveness or payment for it's violation'. This is not in disagreement with man's morality as forgiveness or payment to man's standard is built into the moral code.

So where is the paradox?  

We established man's morality, of which there is a payment for violation (or a way to forgiveness, if you will) of such built into the moral code.

If there is a Divine morality, cannot the Divine set that moral standard as the Divine wills? And can't the Divine also set the payment or forgiveness for said violation of that standard?

Isn't the real issue still the existance of the Divine and the desire to show the Divine as parodoxical and thereby, false?  If so, I don't believe you have shown this by any reasonable argument.

Well that's all for now.  I am still open to discussion if you wish to take it further!


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 6, 2009)

“I will stretch this further that there is also 'God's morality' (A Divine Morality to use your words) . . .  In this light, perhaps you will at least understand that I do not feel it a 'leap' to discuss forgiveness as it relates to the spiritual.”   Therein, in the ‘stretch’ as you say, lies the dilemma.  There is no demonstration that the ‘Divine’ morality really differs in any fashion from man’s morality, long extant and previously codified.  I understand the leap, but I find it difficult to support in light of the fact that morality is easily demonstrated to be malleable, and ever-changing at the whims of man.  Formalized religious systems, from Islam to Christianity, have historically done little more than take man’s already well-developed sense of reasonable behavior and raised that to a ritualized and extreme set of dictatorial ‘mystical’ codifications that could only be interpreted and administered by the ‘Chosen.’  Similar to, and often worse than Kings and Emperors, religions have sought to enforce these extreme demands upon their subjects (us) whether we agree or do not.  Unfortunately, the ‘Chosen’ have always turned out to be other people.  Perhaps it is right at this juncture that we part company.

When people, my peers, claim to hold a mystical, spiritual key to something that I was not provided with, but will be if only I do exactly what they say, then all of my long-range nonsense detectors light up at once.  Transcending this mortal plane is a long held fantasy of man’s intelligence, and an understandable one.  But anyone who claims to have done it must, of reason, be opposed to others who make similar, competing claims.  Either one sectarian argument is correct, or all are, or none are.  

“Indeed, the only way to truly discuss forgiveness is in the spiritual as I am convinced that man's forgiveness, if there is a definition, is historically weak at best and provides no permanent benefit to man's existance.”   Please notice that I make no claims concerning forgiveness except to say that the concept is man’s alone.  Man’s forgiveness is, as you say, weak and conditional.  (I would observe that the Bible’s forgiveness is rather conditional and weakly supported as well.) But any ‘permanent’ benefit lasts only so long as a man lives, since that lifespan is the whole measure of his permanence.  I, personally, can forgive a man for his misdeeds against me, but his life is stained by that forgiveness, because he will never forget those misdeeds and neither will I.  His humiliation lasts to his grave.  For that same man to claim that there is a higher power to relieve his humiliation for his misdeeds is rank rationalization, and that claim and rationalization adds no benefit, temporary or ‘permanent’ to his existence.  All the claim of a ‘spiritual’ forgiveness adds is a hubris, and one that says that no other man may judge – and personally, I have teenage children, and have heard that particularly nonsensical line of reasoning before . . . 

“If Divine morality is possible, then Divine forgiveness can also be possible.”   True, as a statement that follows only from its own premise.  But one cannot leap from the possible to the certain with such alacrity.  It is an old Arthur Conan Doyle thing that once the impossible has been eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true.  Divine morality, though seductively simple when taught from the pulpit, has no basis.  There isn’t a lick of evidence to support it.  So the statement itself becomes a non-sequitur.  Morality did not derive from religion.  Religion derived from morality.  That is demonstrable.  

So the real issue is not the existence of the Divine, since I do not believe in any such thing, and thus have no motive to show an imaginary being as paradoxical.  The real motive is to show the doctrines of men to be paradoxical and irresolvable internally.  And perhaps to spark the thought that it is certainly not non-believers, having no belief in a promise of spiritual forgiveness, who lack a reason to behave morally in this life, but quite the opposite.  Remember, here, that the Islamic suicide bombers truly believe that they will be rewarded in the ‘next life.’  

So, in context of the behavior and ‘belief’ of men, who all claim to adhere to their Holy direction, I have no need to show the Divine as false – the believers have a responsibility to show the Divine as true.


----------



## formula1 (Jun 6, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Perhaps it is right at this juncture that we part company.
> 
> So, in context of the behavior and ‘belief’ of men, who all claim to adhere to their Holy direction, I have no need to show the Divine as false – the believers have a responsibility to show the Divine as true.



I appreciate your candor and honesty in your point of view. I have always known you don't believe and you made that very clear in your comments.  At least, you have been truthful as I have tried to be also.

It is not, as you suppose, the believers responsibility to show the Divine as true, nor is it the Divine's responsibility to show the Divine as true, though he did come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and reveal himself to us.

It is man's responsibility to reach to God, so that God might make himself known to you.  I know from your own words that you have no such intent.  Though I respect your thoughts, I do not share them.

It is my hope that at some point in your life,  you might rethink your position and reach to God.  But until then, as you have requested, we shall part ways!

Good luck in your endeavors!


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 6, 2009)

“It is not, as you suppose, the believers responsibility to show the Divine as true . . .”   On the contrary.  The responsibility to demonstrate a proposition lies entirely with the individual making the proposition.  

If I make a claim that gravity exists, and you doubt that proposition, then it remains my responsibility to hold a brick several feet above your head, drop it, and demonstrate quite dramatically that it will not hover in midair.  The burden of proof is mine, though the results of that proof might be yours, in that instance . . . But you know what I mean – one cannot make an assertion, and demand that it be disproved.  That is ridiculously illogical.


----------



## Israel (Jun 7, 2009)

Just as one can never see gravity, nor the wind (an example used by one far wiser than either of us) you can feel it, and measure its effects.
So it is with the Lord.
A man speaks or writes of him, (if you prefer) and you remain the perfect example of the effect of which he had long ago spoken.
Scoffers will resist his truth, men compelled by the spirit of death to speak against the Prince of Life.
You have no more choice about speaking against the Lord Jesus than the apple I dropped yesterday had to resist hitting the floor.
These are spiritual axioms. Till you love him, you will hate him.
That I can see his mercy in this far more precious to me than his ability to maintain the physical laws that keep myself and loved ones glued to the floor rather than banging around inside this house. 
For through you he displays his mercy and patience in his gracious maintenance of what denies him.
You are a tool being used with remarkable precision.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 7, 2009)

Literally millions have existed (and currently exist) in harmony with nature and others without the indroduction of Biblical teaching.
One can not disbelieve what they have never heard of.  And they were not all living their lives without meaning.
And the deity wants to condemn them for eternity?


----------



## Israel (Jun 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Literally millions have existed (and currently exist) in harmony with nature and others without the indroduction of Biblical teaching.
> One can not disbelieve what they have never heard of.  And they were not all living their lives without meaning.
> And the deity wants to condemn them for eternity?



Good question.
But, no, he wants to save them.
Indeed, he is the only one who can.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 7, 2009)

Israel said:


> Good question.
> But, no, he wants to save them.
> Indeed, he is the only one who can.



But will he?
He commands followers to forgive others, yet he will willingly send everyone else to torment for eternity?

We are back to the OP's original question.


----------



## Israel (Jun 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But will he?
> He commands followers to forgive others, yet he will willingly send everyone else to torment for eternity?
> 
> We are back to the OP's original question.



Do you love mercy?
He is the God of all mercy.
Do you love "being right" and exacting judgment upon others when they are not?
You can see that side of him if you prefer.
I need mercy.
Each man will have what he loves.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But will he?
> He commands followers to forgive others, yet he will willingly send everyone else to torment for eternity?
> 
> We are back to the OP's original question.




He will UNwillingly send everyone else (those who have rejected the Son) to torment for eternity. 


Because He is Holiness, His very character will not abide the unholy in His presence. Where He is, heaven is. And so by simple reasoning, the unrepentant  can not, will not, enter His presence. When sovereign God authored salvation, He made it completely conditional. Anyone who chooses not to comply with the conditions, has made the choice to enter the place of eternal torment for him or herself.

How is it that you can't understand that the unrepentant sinner has the responsibility for his own eternal destination?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But will he?
> He commands followers to forgive others, yet he will willingly send everyone else to torment for eternity?
> 
> We are back to the OP's original question.




More correctly, it is we who choose.
There could be no reward for a believer if the unbeliever received the same.


----------



## Israel (Jun 8, 2009)

The good news is that all sin is forgiven, men have unrestricted and unhindered access to the God of creation through Jesus Christ.
To know him as a father, and he to know you as a son.
The man who rejects this truth but instead embraces the lie "I have nothing of which to be forgiven, I have no need of this 'father' you preach..." will receive to themselves the result of their 'faith'.
You see, God has set men free through the gospel to take whatever position they care to relative to him, son or stranger.
To the son he says certain things and has decreed certain things.
Likewise to the stranger.
Before life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel, men had their own darkness in which to hide and had no ability to choose.
The gospel has in itself the power to open men's eyes and set them free to see their true condition and make a decision. 
God's word has power in it.
And the word we preach of redemption and glad tidings also has an admonition:
Know that if you refuse him who speaks of mercy to you, you have just as surely made a choice to not only reject mercy, but he who offers it.
To reject he who is the truth will leave you clinging to a lie, and believing a lie also has eternal consequences for which, in the day of Jesus' revelation, will leave you without response.
God will not have to "do" anything to you to ensure a miserable eternity, he will let you continue in what you have chosen.
The only difference will be that all those things of which you were so confident were either your own, or didn't need; you will discover were only the result of the Lord's proximity...light, goodness, fellowship, and peace, and when, according to your own wishes this God you find offensive removes himself from your presence, you will be left, as Judas "in your own place".
You will know all the things you took for granted are gone, all the things you thought were ridiculously needless are removed...and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Be free as you are.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 20, 2009)

"Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around."
Penn Juliette

Forgiveness is found in various cultures, some of which do not even recognize a deity.
How can forgiveness be purely a Christian tenent?  Do believers think they have invented and defined the concept?


----------



## brownceluse (Jun 21, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Emo Phillips once told a great joke (pretty surprising all by itself), and it went like this -- "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.  Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way.  So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
> 
> Much is said here about the difference between those who are 'saved' and those of us poor non-believers who will suffer all manner of torments for all of eternity and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum . . . and too many times now the idea of morality has been ascribed solely to 'believers,' who have a book to point to and quote from, and that makes all the difference . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> "Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around."
> Penn Juliette
> 
> Forgiveness is found in various cultures, some of which do not even recognize a deity.
> How can forgiveness be purely a Christian tenent?  Do believers think they have invented and defined the concept?



No, I don't believe Christians invented it or anything else.  I hope no one told you otherwise.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But will he?
> He commands followers to forgive others, yet he will willingly send everyone else to torment for eternity?
> 
> We are back to the OP's original question.



Everyone has free will, each one of us can choose whether we want to be with God or be seperated from Him for eternity.

He says in His word

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


My earthly father was a just and fair man. If we disobeyed we got punished, if we didn't disobey we didn't get punished.
Why should the disobedient get rewarded just as the obedient? My earthly father would rather us all be obedient and not have to punish us. But since we have free will, we can do as we please and suffer the consequences.

You can use any scenerio for this. If you have good grades you graduate, if you don't you don't. That's your choice. Has nothing to do with mercy. Would it be fair for someone to graduate with failing grades and the rest that failed didn't graduate.
Is it fair for the ones who choose to do the work to graduate and the ones who choose not to to graduate, too?

It's as simple as that.
We get what we choose.
If we know before hand that God will take us to heaven or let us go to hades, but it's our choice....than it's our choice.
You do have the choice....just like everything else in life, we are FREE to choose.

I thank Him and praise Him that I can see that. I was once blinded to that....and I mean in deep darkness. Not even I'm pretty good, maybe I'll be ok...I'm talking deep darkness.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Forgiveness is found in various cultures, some of which do not even recognize a deity.
> How can forgiveness be purely a Christian tenent?  Do believers think they have invented and defined the concept?



Right, forgiveness is nothing exclusive to Christians.
Even though some can easily forgive, not all can. There are things that I don't think someone should be forgiven for, but I forgive them anyway, because I've been forgiven and/or I'm convicted to do so.
Does that mean they shouldn't be punished regarding the law? no it does not...not in any culture that I know of either...how about you? 

You may not recognize a deity but you can still forgive. If someone molested your child, would you forgive them to the point of dropping charges against them? Or do you think the right thing to do is to forgive them on a personal basis but get them off the street lawfully, as not to harm another child?
And if you press charges does that mean you don't really forgive them?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> I don't own a KJV, sir.  1 John 2:2 was most certainly written in Greek.  I care not for the English (or latin) propitiation, only the Greek word that is translated propitiation.  I could transliterate here for you, but your eyes would just glaze over (or whatever you said).
> 
> As for the rest of your drivel, it will have to wait until later.



I do own  KJV and digonese still makes my eyes glaze over...LOL. Reading the posts is like winding yarn...round and round and round, over and over and over.

Of course it was written in Greek, is Greek untranslateable...(is that a word?) or a lost language or something? LOL
Even Hebrew can be translated.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> No, I don't believe Christians invented it or anything else.  I hope no one told you otherwise.




What I have been told is it is only available to believing Christians, as far as being on the receiving end.


----------



## wholenotem (Jun 22, 2009)

For the life of me, I cant figure out why atheists bother with us believers. It's as if you're trying to convert us to something that you don't have. If there's no God, as you claim, what's the use in convincing me or others? and what's the harm of me believing in God if I want to.  
Could it be that you have the slightest twinge of doubt yourself, causing an internal turmoil that can only be comforted by causing strife in the life of others?
Now, if you do have a doubt ,would that make you agnostic? in which case, there would be hope for you, and I would be willing to converse with you and try to help you understand the Grace of God. You must first man up to your doubt, and quit lieing about being an atheist, and just admit your not sure! 
Now, if your sure that there is no God, then hang a sign around your neck saying I'm a fool, and I personally will not ask you about believing in God.


----------



## earl (Jun 22, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> For the life of me, I cant figure out why atheists bother with us believers. It's as if you're trying to convert us to something that you don't have. If there's no God, as you claim, what's the use in convincing me or others? and what's the harm of me believing in God if I want to.
> Could it be that you have the slightest twinge of doubt yourself, causing an internal turmoil that can only be comforted by causing strife in the life of others?
> Now, if you do have a doubt ,would that make you agnostic? in which case, there would be hope for you, and I would be willing to converse with you and try to help you understand the Grace of God. You must first man up to your doubt, and quit lieing about being an atheist, and just admit your not sure!
> Now, if your sure that there is no God, then hang a sign around your neck saying I'm a fool, and I personally will not ask you about believing in God.





Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the christians on here firmly believe that if you don't believe as they do that you are an atheist .They lump agnostics,hindus bhuddist,and muslims in with atheist. After a while you get tired of correcting their ignorance and let the atheist tag stay.
That being said ,will you really stop trying to convert ? Will you be content to discuss or debate the difference without the common christian attitude that only your version of God is the right one ? Some how I greatly doubt it . You will then be guilty of exactly what you accuse the ''atheist '' of.
I enjoy being PROVEN wrong ,so , surprise me. It won't hurt my feelings.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 22, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> For the life of me, I cant figure out why atheists bother with us believers. It's as if you're trying to convert us to something that you don't have. If there's no God, as you claim, what's the use in convincing me or others? and what's the harm of me believing in God if I want to.
> Could it be that you have the slightest twinge of doubt yourself, causing an internal turmoil that can only be comforted by causing strife in the life of others?
> Now, if you do have a doubt ,would that make you agnostic? in which case, there would be hope for you, and I would be willing to converse with you and try to help you understand the Grace of God. You must first man up to your doubt, and quit lieing about being an atheist, and just admit your not sure!
> Now, if your sure that there is no God, then hang a sign around your neck saying I'm a fool, and I personally will not ask you about believing in God.



How can you be so sure you are the one who is right?  Because the book says so?
Other holy books and religious belief systems say you are wrong.


----------



## wholenotem (Jun 22, 2009)

Ignorance is bliss! As to the point of proving you wrong, I need to fully understand what you believe. Oh, my bad, I forgot you don't believe, in anything! right? because if you believed in something then you would have faith, right? and if you don't have faith in "nuttin" why would you keep arguing this point. Honestly if you don't believe in God or the presence of a higher power, why waste your time on this forum?


----------



## earl (Jun 22, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> Ignorance is bliss! As to the point of proving you wrong, I need to fully understand what you believe. Oh, my bad, I forgot you don't believe, in anything! right? because if you believed in something then you would have faith, right? and if you don't have faith in "nuttin" why would you keep arguing this point. Honestly if you don't believe in God or the presence of a higher power, why waste your time on this forum?



.


What ??????????????


----------



## Madman (Jun 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> "The rage of God is only for those who by choice reject Him."



The "rage" of God is for everyone, believers and non-believers.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2009)

earl said:


> Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the christians on here firmly believe that if you don't believe as they do that you are an atheist .They lump agnostics,hindus bhuddist,and muslims in with atheist. After a while you get tired of correcting their ignorance and let the atheist tag stay.
> That being said ,will you really stop trying to convert ? Will you be content to discuss or debate the difference without the common christian attitude that only your version of God is the right one ? Some how I greatly doubt it . You will then be guilty of exactly what you accuse the ''atheist '' of.
> I enjoy being PROVEN wrong ,so , surprise me. It won't hurt my feelings.



Earl, the basic belief system of a Christian is this:

God, Jehovah, is the only God.  There are no others.
During the 1st century A.D. God sent His son into the world
for Him to become the Lord and Savior of all who would believe in God thru Jesus Christ.
All those who believed would give their lives to God and live as His Children.

As a Christian, I MUST believe all of the above.  I cannot acknowledge other God's or other Saviors.  It isn't a matter of my being unwilling to listen to the beliefs of others.  It's a matter of my staying true to the Almighty God who has shown mercy to me.
I cannot discuss the possibility that I am wrong.  Why?  Because I know that I'm right.
Why do I know but you don't?  I could tell you what God says about it.......... but you wouldn't like it.


----------



## earl (Jun 22, 2009)

See       WTM45's post #203
I think that sort of sums up a lot of my posts today ?
The rest of them address your basic belief system. I can accept and understand your explanation ''As a christian...''. The part of the ''basic belief system ...'' gets murky very quickly as more and more  christians weigh in with their particular spin on the basics. How can one book ,more or less, cause so much difference of opinion ?
 If your answer to what I wont like is the Holy Spirit , I think others will claim the same only He tells them something different than he told you.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 22, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> Ignorance is bliss! As to the point of proving you wrong, I need to fully understand what you believe. Oh, my bad, I forgot you don't believe, in anything! right? because if you believed in something then you would have faith, right? and if you don't have faith in "nuttin" why would you keep arguing this point. Honestly if you don't believe in God or the presence of a higher power, why waste your time on this forum?




Because it is interesting to see the answers of those who have sold out fully for their belief system.
It is astonishing.  It is intriguing.  It is one of the oldest subjects of discussion since man developed the ability to communicate.


----------

