PDA

View Full Version : Christopher Hitchens gets what many liberal Christians don't



Pages : [1] 2

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 06:33 PM
I can across this on another blog and thought I'd share. If an atheist can understand this basic tenet of Christianity why do so many liberal Christians struggle with it?



"Maryiln Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

"Christopher Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."


At this blog on the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODljOGU4ZjFiNjlmMmY3YjMyYzQyOGYzOGVlOTI4OTM=)

megimoo
02-16-2010, 06:38 PM
I can across this on another blog and thought I'd share. If an atheist can understand this basic tenet of Christianity why do so many liberal Christians struggle with it?



At this blog on the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODljOGU4ZjFiNjlmMmY3YjMyYzQyOGYzOGVlOTI4OTM=)Th ose are the 'openers' to being a Christian !

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 06:40 PM
Those are the 'openers' to being a Christian !

He understands it better than the liberal "Christian" with whom he is debating. She believes in none of it and yet calls herself a Christian.

Apache
02-16-2010, 06:57 PM
He understands it better than the liberal "Christian" with whom he is debating. She believes in none of it and yet calls herself a Christian.

She's one of those "deeds and acts christians". Boy is she in for a surprise...

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 07:38 PM
What is a "liberal Christian"?

Constitutionally Speaking
02-16-2010, 07:39 PM
Sheese!!! I thought that those were the bare minimums to be regarded as a Christian!!! :confused:

Apache
02-16-2010, 07:49 PM
What is a "liberal Christian"?

We're warned about them in the Bible...

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 08:08 PM
We're warned about them in the Bible...

Maybe I missed something that Jesus said, but I am pretty sure that he said something about not judging, lest you be judged. I am also reasonably sure that Jesus was a Jew and was considered a serious problem by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the fundamentalists at the time, because Jesus' teachings were too...well...liberal for their liking. Correct me if I am wrong.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 08:19 PM
I'm of the firm belief there are as many types of Christians as there are Christians!

Constitutionally Speaking
02-16-2010, 08:22 PM
Maybe I missed something that Jesus said, but I am pretty sure that he said something about not judging, lest you be judged. I am also reasonably sure that Jesus was a Jew and was considered a serious problem by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the fundamentalists at the time, because Jesus' teachings were too...well...liberal for their liking. Correct me if I am wrong.


I think Apache was referring to false prophets etc.


I would also disagree that the Pharasees and Sadducees were fundamentalists - they were more like the hypocrites who were more into show than actual faith.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 08:22 PM
Maybe I missed something that Jesus said, but I am pretty sure that he said something about not judging, lest you be judged. I am also reasonably sure that Jesus was a Jew and was considered a serious problem by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the fundamentalists at the time, because Jesus' teachings were too...well...liberal for their liking. Correct me if I am wrong.

We are not to judge but aren't we to discern good from bad? That is one of the most misunderstood and misused used concepts that gets repeated. Christ tells us to be aware of false prophets and those who claim to come in His name but teach something different than He did. How are we to do that if we do not judge or discern?. Read the passage that it is from (Matthew 7:1-5) and it refers to judging hypocritically. Judging others of the sins that you are guilty of as well. The whole beam and mote thing.

Christ described what it takes to follow him, to believe that He died for our sins and to be obedient to His commands. If one does not believe that Christ is the son of God nor that he died and rose again to atone for the sins of man kind, how can that person be considered a Christian in the eyes of other Christians.

Apache
02-16-2010, 08:29 PM
Maybe I missed something that Jesus said, but I am pretty sure that he said something about not judging, lest you be judged. I am also reasonably sure that Jesus was a Jew and was considered a serious problem by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the fundamentalists at the time, because Jesus' teachings were too...well...liberal for their liking. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think CS and Fla pretty much summed up what I was talking about...

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 08:33 PM
What is a "liberal Christian"?

Generally those who espouse a social gospel.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 08:41 PM
Two useful precepts I try, and often fail, to balance:

1. By their fruits ye shall know them. (Concerning Judging.)


The Gospel according to
St. Matthew 7



1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Same chapter...


A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them



And..Concerning Works...

2. Faith without works is dead. James Chapter 2.


15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[d] works, and I will show you my faith by my[e] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[f] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g]And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 [B]For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I also happen to believe that works without faith are pretty dead too, as in just as inadequate in a Christian sense.

For me, faith and works of necessity must go hand in hand.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 08:44 PM
I think Apache was referring to false prophets etc.

So liberal Christians are false prophets because...?



I would also disagree that the Pharasees and Sadducees were fundamentalists - they were more like the hypocrites who were more into show than actual faith.

While they were certainly hypocrites, I can assure you that they were fundamentalist Jewish clerics. It seems that fundamentalism and hypocrisy are joined at the hip, no? It abounds in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and oddly enough in every other religion or cult that claims to know the truth.

Please keep in mind who it was that Jesus rebuked. He was a Jew rebuking the leaders of his religion, even as he dined with those that religion considered unworthy.

Consider that.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 08:46 PM
Christ described what it takes to follow him, to believe that He died for our sins and to be obedient to His commands. If one does not believe that Christ is the son of God nor that he died and rose again to atone for the sins of man kind, how can that person be considered a Christian in the eyes of other Christians.

Care to offer a quote where Jesus himself said that?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 08:51 PM
Generally those who espouse a social gospel.

I am quite certain that Jesus' gospel was pretty damned socially oriented and even radical when viewed in historical religious and societal context. You can't ignore the context of the gospels or you miss the entire message, IMO.

Apache
02-16-2010, 08:56 PM
So liberal Christians are false prophets because...?


Because they twist the Bible and make believe it says something that it does not. Just like Ms.Deeds and Acts. They actually don't have a clue as to what they are preaching about...

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 08:57 PM
I am quite certain that Jesus' gospel was pretty damned socially oriented and even radical when viewed in historical religious and societal context. You can't ignore the context of the gospels or you miss the entire message, IMO.

I disagree. Christ's message was not about this world - but about gaining access to the next.

Apache
02-16-2010, 08:58 PM
I am quite certain that Jesus' gospel was pretty damned socially oriented and even radical when viewed in historical religious and societal context. You can't ignore the context of the gospels or you miss the entire message, IMO.

More politcal than social...

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:00 PM
More politcal than social...

His message was neither political NOR social. It was eternal. You want the political/social message - look to Moses.

Speedy
02-16-2010, 09:03 PM
She's one of those "deeds and acts christians". Boy is she in for a surprise...

"Deeds and acts Christians" are much like Muslims in that they judge others by how Christian they are in their eyes. Muslims, hell Islam is about how you are pervieved by other Muslims and whether you keep your head or not is in the hands of those doing the judging.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:04 PM
Because they twist the Bible and make believe it says something that it does not. Just like Ms.Deeds and Acts. They actually don't have a clue as to what they are preaching about...

I see. Sadly enough that is too true of many people that teach from the scriptures. They know only enough to satisfy what they wish to believe, while there is greater truth within scripture than they can perceive.

I did not wish to turn this thread into a religious/scriptural debate; one I am well equipped for. I simply wanted to point out that none of us should be too hasty at stone gathering.

Peace.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:05 PM
His message was neither political NOR social. It was eternal. You want the political/social message - look to Moses.

Um..what? Are you serious?

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:06 PM
His message was neither political NOR social. It was eternal. You want the political/social message - look to Moses.

Why look to one to the exclusion of the other? If Christ came to fulfill the Law (of Moses) and not to overthrow it doesn't that mean that the Gospel and the mission of the Church have social and political implications as well as religious ones?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:06 PM
Ok, I gotta step away from this one for a bit. Wow.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:07 PM
Why look to one to the exclusion of the other? If Christ came to fulfill the Law (of Moses) and not to overthrow it doesn't that mean that the Gospel and the mission of the Church have social and political implications as well as religious ones?

Implications does not equate to purpose. Christs message was one of salvation.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:07 PM
Care to offer a quote where Jesus himself said that?

Let's start with this


Joh 12:44 Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.
Joh 12:45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.
Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
Joh 12:47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
Joh 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
Joh 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
Joh 12:50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:09 PM
Implications does not equate to purpose. Christs message was one of salvation.

Nonsense. In addition to saving people from sin he fed the hungry and healed the sick. And he did this as an example for his disciples to follow.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:09 PM
Um..what? Are you serious?

Very. Christ's message was in how to attain eternity - a message of salvation. There are social ramifications but that does not make the message social. Point to me one thing that Christ said that was political or social.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:10 PM
Nonsense. In addition to saving people from sin he fed the hungry and healed the sick. And he did this as an example for his disciples to follow.

And why did he do these things? So that people can be happy here? nope. He did those things to build faith so that people would accept the real message of the Gospel - forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:14 PM
And why did he do these things? So that people can be happy here? nope. He did those things to build faith so that people would accept the real message of the Gospel - forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

Did it ever occur to you that he did these things, like feeding the hungry and healing the sick, because HE KNEW THEY WERE IMPORTANT?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:16 PM
Ok, one more for the road. ;)



POP QUIZ (no Googling or you are a liberal Christian and God will know and will...will... do something):

What is this passage from the Bible referring to?

Ecclesiastes 11:1 - Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.



Ready? Set? Go!

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:18 PM
Did it ever occur to you that he did these things, like feeding the hungry and healing the sick, because HE KNEW THEY WERE IMPORTANT?

Only in so far as they meet the ultimate goal of uniting people with God. We do good things 1 because of how it affects us, and because of the effects it can have in others with regards to salvation. What good is giving a man the whole world if he lose his eternal soul?

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:20 PM
Nonsense. In addition to saving people from sin he fed the hungry and healed the sick. And he did this as an example for his disciples to follow.

That isn't what He said...


And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--He said to the paralytic,"I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."


"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:25 PM
What is a "liberal Christian"?

That phrase is used to describe someone that claims to be a Christian, but has never actually studied the Gospel...so falls for "health and wealth prosperity" messages, or says dumb things like Obama did when quoting the Old Testament without understanding the differences between ancient Jews and Christians.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 09:26 PM
Only in so far as they meet the ultimate goal of uniting people with God. We do good things 1 because of how it affects us, and because of the effects it can have in others with regards to salvation. What good is giving a man the whole world if he lose his eternal soul?

I'll leave his soul to God, God alone saves. I will help him care for his body and show him to God.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 09:29 PM
I'll leave his soul to God, God alone saves. I will help him care for his body and show him to God.

and the only point of doing good for him in the flesh is to show him God.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:30 PM
So liberal Christians are false prophets because...?




While they were certainly hypocrites, I can assure you that they were fundamentalist Jewish clerics. It seems that fundamentalism and hypocrisy are joined at the hip, no? It abounds in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and oddly enough in every other religion or cult that claims to know the truth.

Please keep in mind who it was that Jesus rebuked. He was a Jew rebuking the leaders of his religion, even as he dined with those that religion considered unworthy.

Consider that.

Those "fundamentalists" had, over generations, added thousands of man-written rules to the Rules given by God. They had taken His Word and warped it out of all meaning. They enriched themselves on the backs of the poor instead of caring for them. They disdained those they were commanded to assist. They weren't "fundamentalists," they were politicians.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:35 PM
The Gospel deals with many things. Some are social (care for the poor, love you brother, obey your leaders), some are behavioral (be humble, forgive your enemy), some are eschatological (end time events) and soteriological (salvation doctrine). Neither can be taken without acknowledging the other.


Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former

Matthew 23:23

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:35 PM
That phrase is used to describe someone that claims to be a Christian, but has never actually studied the Gospel...so falls for "health and wealth prosperity" messages, or says dumb things like Obama did when quoting the Old Testament without understanding the differences between ancient Jews and Christians.

With all due respect, madam, do you understand the difference between the "ancient Jews" and Christians? If so, please elaborate.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:35 PM
Only in so far as they meet the ultimate goal of uniting people with God. We do good things 1 because of how it affects us, and because of the effects it can have in others with regards to salvation. What good is giving a man the whole world if he lose his eternal soul?

We do good things because we are commanded to do so. It isn't a utilitarian motive or something that is done because of its effect on us.

Christ's words are there to bring salvation just as the example of His life are there to guide our actions, our works.

Faith without works is just as dead as works without faith. What do these verses from James 2 mean to you?


14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 09:38 PM
and the only point of doing good for him in the flesh is to show him God.
No I will help people that as far as I know have no hope of ever entering a church and if they don't want to hear it I won't talk religion to them. The holy spirit convicts men and brings them to Christ, when the spirit directs someone to ask me a question I will answer it for them. I never help someone with the motive of converting them, I help them because they need help.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:39 PM
Those "fundamentalists" had, over generations, added thousands of man-written rules to the Rules given by God. They had taken His Word and warped it out of all meaning. They enriched themselves on the backs of the poor instead of caring for them. They disdained those they were commanded to assist. They weren't "fundamentalists," they were politicians.

Wait. Let me read that again. Ok, reread it. Do you know anything about the history of the Bible on your bed stand, MrsSmith? How it arrived to you in that form?

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:39 PM
Ok, one more for the road. ;)



POP QUIZ (no Googling or you are a liberal Christian and God will know and will...will... do something):

What is this passage from the Bible referring to?

Ecclesiastes 11:1 - Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.



Ready? Set? Go!

It means the fish aren't hungry

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:40 PM
With all due respect, madam, do you understand the difference between the "ancient Jews" and Christians? If so, please elaborate.

Quickest answer...the New Testament.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:41 PM
We do good things because we are commanded to do so. It isn't a utilitarian motive or something that is done because of its effect on us.

Christ's words are there to bring salvation just as the example of His life are there to guide our actions, our works.

Faith without works is just as dead as works without faith. What do these verses from James 2 mean to you?

If you have true faith, works will follow. You cannot love Jesus without wanting to care for His children.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:42 PM
Wait. Let me read that again. Ok, reread it. Do you know anything about the history of the Bible on your bed stand, MrsSmith? How it arrived to you in that form?

Reading your reply here it seems that do not exemplify the humble spirit that Christ asks us to have. Is that me judging you? Perhaps. Does that change the fact that you are being insulting and rude. No.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:42 PM
Wait. Let me read that again. Ok, reread it. Do you know anything about the history of the Bible on your bed stand, MrsSmith? How it arrived to you in that form?

Yes. Do you have any understanding of the things the Jewish leaders were doing wrong by the time of Christ?

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:43 PM
If you have true faith, works will follow. You cannot love Jesus without wanting to care for His children.

I absolutely agree with that. :)

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 09:45 PM
I absolutely agree with that. :)

:)

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:47 PM
Works are a fruit of the spirit as is forgiveness and humility and caring for the welfare of those in need of care.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:48 PM
It means the fish aren't hungry

Heh. Good answer, but no cigar.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:48 PM
No I will help people that as far as I know have no hope of ever entering a church and if they don't want to hear it I won't talk religion to them. The holy spirit convicts men and brings them to Christ, when the spirit directs someone to ask me a question I will answer it for them. I never help someone with the motive of converting them, I help them because they need help.

Good answer.

I believe that one plants, another waters, and God gives the increase.

In the course of a person's life, who knows what a kind word or a hand up offered in love and in the name of Jesus can mean to a person? Sometimes that small, or large, gesture plants a seed that may come to fruition later in life with the Spirit moving the person and God receiving the Glory?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:50 PM
Reading your reply here it seems that do not exemplify the humble spirit that Christ asks us to have. Is that me judging you? Perhaps. Does that change the fact that you are being insulting and rude. No.

How have I been insulting or rude?

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 09:51 PM
That isn't what He said...

Perhaps I misunderstood his intent.

I'm sorry if I did.

Poli is a good guy and I believe him to be sincere. I also find this to be a very interesting discussion.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 09:53 PM
Yes. Do you have any understanding of the things the Jewish leaders were doing wrong by the time of Christ?

I have an opinion, but a full understanding? No. Do you?

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:54 PM
Heh. Good answer, but no cigar.

Is it somehow important that that I understand that it deals with the inability of a person to know the future out come of his generous behavior but that he or she should trust that good deeds usually return to the doer. That the fish aren't hungry seems like an equally fine observation.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 10:00 PM
Ok, one more for the road. ;)



POP QUIZ (no Googling or you are a liberal Christian and God will know and will...will... do something):

What is this passage from the Bible referring to?

Ecclesiastes 11:1 - Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.



Ready? Set? Go!
I'll take a stab at it; To me it would mean if you feed the fish you haven't wasted your bread. You can eat the fish later!

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:04 PM
I'll take a stab at it; To me it would mean if you feed the fish you haven't wasted your bread. You can eat the fish later!


:D

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 10:04 PM
No I will help people that as far as I know have no hope of ever entering a church and if they don't want to hear it I won't talk religion to them. The holy spirit convicts men and brings them to Christ, when the spirit directs someone to ask me a question I will answer it for them. I never help someone with the motive of converting them, I help them because they need help.

and yet the purpose of doing good is for salvation. We live it so that the truth of the message will be seen, understood and accepted. Those that preach a social gospel preach that we can have aspects of heaven here on earth.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 10:05 PM
Is it somehow important that that I understand that it deals with the inability of a person to know the future out come of his generous behavior but that he or she should trust that good deeds usually return to the doer. That the fish aren't hungry seems like an equally fine observation.

It is probably more important, with all due respect, that you understand that casting bread upon the water is a ritual of Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement). The bread cast represented one's sins for the past year. The scripture suggests that such humbleness would return to you better things.

I am not trying to be rude in any way. I am simply trying to point out that, without historical or religious context, you lose some of the beauty of Jesus' teachings.

I will back off now.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:08 PM
and yet the purpose of doing good is for salvation. We live it so that the truth of the message will be seen, understood and accepted. Those that preach a social gospel preach that we can have aspects of heaven here on earth.

You are not saying that salvation depends on the good work are you?

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:10 PM
It is probably more important, with all due respect, that you understand that casting bread upon the water is a ritual of Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement). The bread cast represented one's sins for the past year. The scripture suggests that such humbleness would return to you better things.

I am not trying to be rude in any way. I am simply trying to point out that, without historical or religious context, you lose some of the beauty of Jesus' teachings.

I will back off now.

The whole Bible on the nightstand comment seemed a bit sarcastic to me. If I misunderstood you intent then I apologize.

As to the 11:1, I believe that it signifies doing good for the sake of good even if seems you are wasting the effort because good deeds return to us. I didn't realize it was a Hebrew custom. Thank you for the new information.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 10:12 PM
You are not saying that salvation depends on the good work are you?

Nope.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 10:13 PM
It is probably more important, with all due respect, that you understand that casting bread upon the water is a ritual of Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement). The bread cast represented one's sins for the past year. The scripture suggests that such humbleness would return to you better things.

I am not trying to be rude in any way. I am simply trying to point out that, without historical or religious context, you lose some of the beauty of Jesus' teachings.

I will back off now.
ignorance of Jewish customs is a problem in the body of Christ. :(

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 10:20 PM
I can across this on another blog and thought I'd share. If an atheist can understand this basic tenet of Christianity why do so many liberal Christians struggle with it?

At this blog on the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODljOGU4ZjFiNjlmMmY3YjMyYzQyOGYzOGVlOTI4OTM=)

Many Christians struggle with much of what is in the Bible because much of what is in the Bible is preposterous. Ask Christians if they believe in God and they trip over each other to declare their faith. Ask Christians if they believe in the talking snake and a lot of them go wobbly.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 10:27 PM
I have an opinion, but a full understanding? No. Do you?

Probably not a full uinderstanding, but I do know that they had added several hundred rules to the ones given by God, causing the Law to be not just impossible to fulfill, but also an intolerable burden. The point to the Law was so that each human could come to understand the impossibility of self-salvation, of "works" if you will, so that they would understand their absolute need for God. It wasn't to be something that wouild, for example, cause a tailor to incur punishment from the religious leaders for carrying a needle on the Sabbath. The leaders during Jesus time on Earth...exactly as during the times when the Christian church went astray...were mostly politicians, using the role for power instead of as servanthood. They turned the role of priest upside down...and Jesus called them on it. You'll know that He ate with some of the priesthood, those that carried enough of the true office to choose redemption.

The "snakes and hypocrites" were not "fundamentalists." Fundies are those that stick to the fundamental truths of the faith...not those that warp and destroy the message.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 10:27 PM
Many Christians struggle with much of what is in the Bible because much of what is in the Bible is preposterous. Ask Christians if they believe in God and they trip over each other to declare their faith. Ask Christians if they believe in the talking snake and a lot of them go wobbly.

It is amazingly preposterous unless it is absolutely true.

I'll go with the latter but I am not offended if you go with the former.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 10:29 PM
Many Christians struggle with much of what is in the Bible because much of what is in the Bible is preposterous. Ask Christians if they believe in God and they trip over each other to declare their faith. Ask Christians if they believe in the talking snake and a lot of them go wobbly.

Ask Christians if they understand the difference between the Law of the ancient or Orthodox Jew and the Christian faith...and they'll give a far more accurate answer than TNO, because he has no clue.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 10:30 PM
Many Christians struggle with much of what is in the Bible because much of what is in the Bible is preposterous. Ask Christians if they believe in God and they trip over each other to declare their faith. Ask Christians if they believe in the talking snake and a lot of them go wobbly.

And this from a slobbering fool that worships at the feet of Al Gore!:rolleyes:

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:31 PM
Many Christians struggle with much of what is in the Bible because much of what is in the Bible is preposterous. Ask Christians if they believe in God and they trip over each other to declare their faith. Ask Christians if they believe in the talking snake and a lot of them go wobbly.

I see the blind are now giving their opinion of art.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:31 PM
And this from a slobbering fool that worships at the feet of Al Gore!:rolleyes:

He can't help it. He has an unhealthy obsession with things he can't understand like faith and long range weather forecasting.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 10:32 PM
He can't help it. He has an unhealthy obsession with things he can NOT understand like faith and long range weather forecasting.

fixed :)

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 10:40 PM
Ask Christians if they understand the difference between the Law of the ancient or Orthodox Jew and the Christian faith...and they'll give a far more accurate answer than TNO, because he has no clue.

The Law is meant for everyone. Keep in mind that the Bible teaches that the Law is good, not that the Law is good for ancient Jews. LOL! Jesus taught that following the Law is only part of the path to salvation but that doesn't mean he abolished it.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:45 PM
The Law is meant for everyone. Keep in mind that the Bible teaches that the Law is good, not that the Law is good for ancient Jews. LOL! The message of Jesus was that the following of the Law is only part of the walk to salvation but that doesn't mean that the Law no longer applies.

Read through Romans when you get a chance. If you've already read it then read it again but this time do it slowly and pay attention. Following the law for the sake of the law brings no one to salvation.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 10:47 PM
Read through Romans when you get a chance. If you've already read it then read it again but this time do it slowly and pay attention. Following the law for the sake of the law brings no one to salvation.

The book of Hebrews is pretty instructive too.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 10:47 PM
Read through Romans when you get a chance. If you've already read it then read it again but this time do it slowly and pay attention. Following the law for the sake of the law brings no one to salvation.

Perhaps you should slow down and pay attention when you read my posts. I'll repeat myself: The message of Jesus was that following the Law is only part of the walk to salvation. I didn't claim that Jesus taught that following the Law brings salvation. LOL!

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:55 PM
Perhaps you should slow down and pay attention when you read my posts. I'll repeat myself: The message of Jesus was that following the Law is only part of the walk to salvation. I did not claim that the Law brings salvation. LOL!

You claimed that it was part of the walk and that implies that it is a part of salvation. Christians are not under the law because the are not judged by the law. They are a law unto themselves.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 10:55 PM
Perhaps you should slow down and pay attention when you read my posts. I'll repeat myself: The message of Jesus was that following the Law is only part of the walk to salvation. I didn't claim that Jesus taught that following the Law brings salvation. LOL!

Actually, Jesus taught that He fulfilled the Law. As has been mentioned, you've somehow missed Romans and Hebrews...along with His own words on the subject.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 10:58 PM
Perhaps you should slow down and pay attention when you read my posts. I'll repeat myself: The message of Jesus was that following the Law is only part of the walk to salvation. I didn't claim that Jesus taught that following the Law brings salvation. LOL!

Just curious....What do you claim?

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:00 PM
You claimed that it was part of the walk and that implies that it is a part of salvation. Christians are not under the law because the are not judged by the law. They are a law unto themselves.

Christians are not judged by the Law but they are expected to follow it as Jesus did.

1 John 3:4 (King James Version)

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 11:01 PM
Just curious....What do you claim?

He mocks, he knows the truth you can tell by how he phrases things. Don't throw your pearls in front of him.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:03 PM
Christians are not judged by the Law but they are expected to follow it as Jesus did.


And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.

:)

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:03 PM
Just curious....What do you claim?

He claimed that the law as a part of salvation...


The message of Jesus was that following the Law is only part of the walk to salvation.

His own words shows that he understands little of what he is talking about.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:04 PM
Christians are not judged by the Law but they are expected to follow it as Jesus did.

1 John 3:4 (King James Version)

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is the transgression of the law, but that does not say that Christians are now under the Law.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:07 PM
Christians are not judged by the Law but they are expected to follow it as Jesus did.

1 John 3:4 (King James Version)

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Again you don't understand. They are expected to do nothing but believe. That they follow the law is a consequence of believing not a requirement of believing.

That quote was made to Jews who were under the law at the time it was made and who are under the law now because they don't believe.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 11:07 PM
His own words shows that he understands little of what he is talking about.
He is picking his words carefully just to oppose you, he knows more about justification by faith then you realize.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 11:10 PM
Probably not a full uinderstanding, but I do know that they had added several hundred rules to the ones given by God, causing the Law to be not just impossible to fulfill, but also an intolerable burden. The point to the Law was so that each human could come to understand the impossibility of self-salvation, of "works" if you will, so that they would understand their absolute need for God. It wasn't to be something that wouild, for example, cause a tailor to incur punishment from the religious leaders for carrying a needle on the Sabbath. The leaders during Jesus time on Earth...exactly as during the times when the Christian church went astray...were mostly politicians, using the role for power instead of as servanthood. They turned the role of priest upside down...and Jesus called them on it. You'll know that He ate with some of the priesthood, those that carried enough of the true office to choose redemption.

The "snakes and hypocrites" were not "fundamentalists." Fundies are those that stick to the fundamental truths of the faith...not those that warp and destroy the message.

Just for the sake of argument, at least indulge me by watching this, as well as the rest of the series...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

You may dismiss it as you see fit, but at least watch it.

We can go from there with mutual respect. :)

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:10 PM
He is picking his words carefully just to oppose you, he knows more about justification by faith then you realize.

TNO and I have a long history of these discussions.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:10 PM
He mocks, he knows the truth you can tell by how he phrases things. Don't throw your pearls in front of him.

Why not call me what your master would have called me? Perhaps you're classier than he was. :D

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:11 PM
He is picking his words carefully just to oppose you, he knows more about justification by faith then you realize.

He exhibits zero understanding of the basic tenets of Christianity, as opposed to those of Judaism. Admittedly, it's a complex subject...one must actually study it from something besides anti-Christian websites.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:13 PM
Just for the sake of argument, at least indulge me by watching this, as well as the rest of the series..

You may dismiss it as you see fit, but at least watch it.

We can go from there with mutual respect.

You do realize that the History Channel does not understand the subject, right? That they, as you, took most of their information from incorrect sources?

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:13 PM
Sin is the transgression of the law, but that does not say that Christians are now under the Law.

Christians are most certainly under the Law but they are expected to understand that following it does not provide a complete path to salvation.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:16 PM
Why not call me what your master would have called me? Perhaps you're classier than he was. :D

Child?

Unless you are actually a Rabbi, and a hypocritical one, at that?

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:17 PM
Christians are most certainly under the Law but they are expected to understand that following it does not provide a complete path to salvation.


And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.


He says differently.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:19 PM
Christians are most certainly under the Law but they are expected to understand that following it does not provide a complete path to salvation.



So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Gal 3:24-25

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 11:20 PM
You do realize that the History Channel does not understand the subject, right? That they, as you, took most of their information from incorrect sources?

Incorrect sources? Explain.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:20 PM
Child?

Unless you are actually a Rabbi, and a hypocritical one, at that?

Can we just get the inane insults out of the way and discuss the matter at hand?

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 11:22 PM
He exhibits zero understanding of the basic tenets of Christianity, as opposed to those of Judaism. Admittedly, it's a complex subject...one must actually study it from something besides anti-Christian websites.

He is yanking your chain. I can tell.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:22 PM
Gal 3:24-25

There you go. The Law is part of the path to salvation through Christ.

Here is how Mrs. Smith's good friend Dinesh D'Souza once explained salvation: The Law is a ladder we build to try to get to God... but the ladder is too short. Only through God's grace is the critical distance bridged.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:25 PM
There you go. The Law is part of the path to salvation through Christ.

You stated that Christians were under the law. That quote disputes it.

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 11:26 PM
Matthew 5:18 (King James Version)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:28 PM
Incorrect sources? Explain.

Anti-Christian disinformation scholars...like those that question the authorship of the Gospel and the Mosaic books. The same kind of "scholars" that were questioning the history in the Old Testament, and have been proven wrong time and again by archeological evidence that proves the biblical account. Seriously, discernment is necessary.

Bubba Dawg
02-16-2010, 11:29 PM
He mocks, he knows the truth you can tell by how he phrases things. Don't throw your pearls in front of him.

Thanks.

My hope is, if anyone is asking in sincerity....then that one is seeking a real answer and will find what his heart desires......

I have known doubt, and lived with it.

Doubt is not an enemy or an adversary. Doubt is a step...perhaps a tiny halting and angry step...but none-the-less a real step.... in the direction toward truth.

In any case, it isn't up to me and the wisdom of my words. God will do what He will do in the life of any individual.

All I can do is say what is in my heart. Beyond that, it isn't up to me.

The most important thing about The Night Owl is this......that he is asking. He hasn't closed the door. He is angry and mocking and ....well...interesting. But....He is asking.

Been there. Done that.

Who knows what God will do?

Hey Night Owl, sorry to talk about you like you aren't here but this is all very interesting and I wanted to discuss it.

Sleep on it, Noble Mon.

I'm gonna crash now.

Peace. :)

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:29 PM
Can we just get the inane insults out of the way and discuss the matter at hand?

What? Christ WOULD call you Child. Unless you were a hypocritical rabbi, then He might call you a viper.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:30 PM
What? Christ WOULD call you Child. Unless you were a hypocritical rabbi, then He might call you a viper.

Who said anything about a child? Jesus would have called me a swine. This was the term he used to describe infidels.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:31 PM
There you go. The Law is part of the path to salvation through Christ.

Here is how Mrs. Smith's good friend Dinesh D'Souza once explained salvation: The Law is a ladder we build to try to get to God... but the ladder is too short. Only through God's grace is the critical distance bridged.

Tsk, tsk, are we going to have to re-post everything multiple times?

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:33 PM
Who said anything about a child? Jesus would have called me a swine. This was the term he used to describe infidels.

Well, if you prefer that term...your call.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:33 PM
Who said anything about a child? Jesus would have called me a swine. This was the term he used to describe infidels.

Actually Jesus would have called you to repentance :D

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 11:34 PM
Anti-Christian disinformation scholars...like those that question the authorship of the Gospel and the Mosaic books. The same kind of "scholars" that were questioning the history in the Old Testament, and have been proven wrong time and again by archeological evidence that proves the biblical account. Seriously, discernment is necessary.

Ok then. I guess that settles that.


http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/Epic1.jpg

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 11:34 PM
It's been fun but I'm off to bed!

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:35 PM
You stated that Christians were under the law. That quote disputes it.

The message of Galatians 3:25 is that believers follow the law of their own volition, as opposed something they're forced to follow.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:36 PM
And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.

...


Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

MrsSmith
02-16-2010, 11:42 PM
As with FlaGator, I'm gone. :)

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:47 PM
And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.

...


Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

The believer is no longer under supervision of the Law because the believer follows the law of his or her own volition.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 11:47 PM
Ok then. I guess that settles that.

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/Epic1.jpg


hey I answered your pop quiz earlier, what am i chopped liver?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 11:51 PM
hey I answered your pop quiz earlier, what am i chopped liver?

You are more like Spam. No offense.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 11:54 PM
You are more like Spam. No offense.

Spam is good , I'll settle.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 11:58 PM
For whatever it's worth, I think the meaning of Galations 3 is clearer in the KJV than in that crap NIV version:

Galatians 3:24-25 (King James Version)

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

FlaGator
02-17-2010, 08:05 AM
For whatever it's worth, I think the meaning of Galations 3 is clearer in the KJV than in that crap NIV version:

Galatians 3:24-25 (King James Version)

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Proof texting... how convenient. Your still wrong but hey, what can one expect from a pagan?

wilbur
02-17-2010, 10:23 AM
Proof texting... how convenient. Your still wrong but hey, what can one expect from a pagan?

Prooftexting was popularized by the Protestants, just so you know...

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 10:37 AM
Proof texting... how convenient. Your still wrong but hey, what can one expect from a pagan?

Hey, if you don't think you're expected to follow the Ten Commandments then don't follow them. I think a lot of them are silly anyway.

Gingersnap
02-17-2010, 10:55 AM
I don't suppose anybody wants to return to the OP's original question, do they?

"Christians" who reject the divinity of Christ, atonement, and salvation are really just cultural Christians. Just as there millions and millions of cultural Jews, cultural Muslims, cultural Buddhists, and so on, there are people who enjoy some elements of a religious lifestyle and identity but who will have nothing to do with the purpose of the identity.

I think these people enjoy socializing with each other and working on charity efforts together. They like celebrating some of the holy days. They feel more secure in having a religious reason to modify their behavior than they would in simply deciding to behave in a different way.

I think that liberal Christians are going down the same road to irrelevance that cultural Jews took in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those people were atheists or agnostics who dearly loved Jewishness as a heritage but they didn't love it enough to engage in it or to pass it along to their children. Their children were even less interested.

Now, the cultural Jews are elderly and many are beyond the top of their game in terms of popular relevance. Their grandchildren are completely secularized and assimilated. I think the same thing will happen to liberal Christians although it will happen much faster.

noonwitch
02-17-2010, 11:50 AM
I don't suppose anybody wants to return to the OP's original question, do they?

"Christians" who reject the divinity of Christ, atonement, and salvation are really just cultural Christians. Just as there millions and millions of cultural Jews, cultural Muslims, cultural Buddhists, and so on, there are people who enjoy some elements of a religious lifestyle and identity but who will have nothing to do with the purpose of the identity.

I think these people enjoy socializing with each other and working on charity efforts together. They like celebrating some of the holy days. They feel more secure in having a religious reason to modify their behavior than they would in simply deciding to behave in a different way.

I think that liberal Christians are going down the same road to irrelevance that cultural Jews took in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those people were atheists or agnostics who dearly loved Jewishness as a heritage but they didn't love it enough to engage in it or to pass it along to their children. Their children were even less interested.

Now, the cultural Jews are elderly and many are beyond the top of their game in terms of popular relevance. Their grandchildren are completely secularized and assimilated. I think the same thing will happen to liberal Christians although it will happen much faster.



You're right, in a lot of ways. The mainline protestant churches have been abandoned by younger generations-their services are boring, and some churches try too hard to be culturally relevant to everyone, which makes them relevant to no one. That doesn't mean the end of liberal christianity, though, it just means that younger liberal christians are attending different kinds of churches-i.e. emergent churches, which are liberal churches that accept the divinity of Christ and salvation through Christ.


I recognize that a lot of more traditional christians have issues with the emergent churches, and claim that they are not truly christian. If a traditional christian believes that there are certain doctrines beyond believing in the salvation offered by Jesus that are essential to being a christian, he or she is going to have issues with emergent christianity. A good example of that kind of issue is whether the Bible is the absolute word of God, uncorrupted by human writers and translators.

FlaGator
02-17-2010, 12:18 PM
Hey, if you don't think you're expected to follow the Ten Commandments then don't follow them. I think a lot of them are silly anyway.

I follow them, but what does that have to do with you proof texting?

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 03:47 PM
Christopher Hitchens versus Ken Blackwell on the decline of Christianity in the United States - MSNBC Hardball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p45Ut9Iizi0

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 05:52 PM
All I will say that if one chooses to debate Hitchens, they had better do their homework.

MrsSmith
02-17-2010, 06:20 PM
Hey, if you don't think you're expected to follow the Ten Commandments then don't follow them. I think a lot of them are silly anyway.

We are to follow the Ten Commandments, Christ made that clear. He also made clear that much of the Law does not apply.

MrsSmith
02-17-2010, 06:25 PM
The believer is no longer under supervision of the Law because the believer follows the law of his or her own volition.

The believer follows the commands of Christ of his or her own volition, with the help of the Holy Spirit. In some cases, these commands are the same as the Law, as with the Ten Commandments. In many cases, they are different, as with "love your enemy and do good unto them that persecute you" instead of killing them. He made it clear that foods and clothing do not defile a person, rather that person is defiled by the evil they say or think or do. This is why so many sound so foolish when they quote Old Testament Law and get all huffy about what today's Christians actually do...or should do. :D

MrsSmith
02-17-2010, 06:37 PM
Galatians 3 says a lot more than the verses quoted so far...

(In NASB)

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
Gal 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."
Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
[ Gal 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "—
Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. (The redemption by faith is based on the promise given to Abraham BEFORE the covenant with the Children of Israel that involved the Law. It PRE-dates the Law.)
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
Gal 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (The promise that PRE-dates the Law.)

wilbur
02-17-2010, 06:49 PM
The believer follows the commands of Christ of his or her own volition, with the help of the Holy Spirit. In some cases, these commands are the same as the Law, as with the Ten Commandments. In many cases, they are different, as with "love your enemy and do good unto them that persecute you" instead of killing them. He made it clear that foods and clothing do not defile a person, rather that person is defiled by the evil they say or think or do. This is why so many sound so foolish when they quote Old Testament Law and get all huffy about what today's Christians actually do...or should do. :D

Or one could interpret it simply as inconsistency - and therefore evidence that Christ fulfilled no prophecy, as it was written. You guys sure disbelieve global warming for much less.

MrsSmith
02-17-2010, 10:19 PM
Or one could interpret it simply as inconsistency - and therefore evidence that Christ fulfilled no prophecy, as it was written. You guys sure disbelieve global warming for much less.

No, we disbelieve MAN MADE global warming because the evidence is flimsy, at best, and fraudulent at worst. Climate change has always happened and, according to evolutionists, is responsible for the world being the way it is today. :D

Rockntractor
02-17-2010, 10:22 PM
No, we disbelieve MAN MADE global warming because the evidence is flimsy, at best, and fraudulent at worst. Climate change has always happened and, according to evolutionists, is responsible for the world being the way it is today. :D
If there is evolution and Wilbur evolved how did the simpler form of Wilbur know enough to eat and breathe?:confused:

wilbur
02-17-2010, 11:06 PM
No, we disbelieve MAN MADE global warming because the evidence is flimsy, at best, and fraudulent at worst.

Well then you should be alarmed - because the case for global warming is *far stronger* than the case for Christianity.

Rockntractor
02-17-2010, 11:10 PM
Well then you should be alarmed - because the case for global warming is *far stronger* than the case for Christianity.
Loosen your helmet a little Wilbur, it's blocking you circulation!

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 11:24 PM
Well then you should be alarmed - because the case for global warming is *far stronger* than the case for Christianity.

You didn't think that one all the way through, did you?

Rockntractor
02-17-2010, 11:26 PM
You didn't think that one all the way through, did you?
I think he applied both cells!

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 11:52 PM
It's probably not a coincidence that the one thing I need to believe in Christianity is the one thing Christianity says I don't need.

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 11:55 PM
It's probably not a coincidence that the one thing I need to believe in Christianity is the one thing Christianity says I don't need.


It's also probably no coincidence that you feel compelled to evangelize anyway.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 12:12 AM
It's also probably no coincidence that you feel compelled to evangelize anyway.

Heh. Evangelizing is the opposite of what I do. I'm guessing that what you mean to accuse me of is proselytizing.

wilbur
02-18-2010, 12:42 AM
You didn't think that one all the way through, did you?

Sure I did - and its a serious statement.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 12:08 PM
Heh. Evangelizing is the opposite of what I do. I'm guessing that what you mean to accuse me of is proselytizing.

Same/same.


evangelize, evangelise [ɪˈvændʒɪˌlaɪz]
vb
1. (Christianity / Protestantism) to preach the Christian gospel or a particular interpretation of it (to)
2. (intr) to advocate a cause with the object of making converts

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 12:16 PM
Sure I did - and its a serious statement.


Well then you should be alarmed - because the case for global warming is *far stronger* than the case for Christianity.

Christianity most certainly exists, the existence of global warming (esp. AGW) is highly debatable and becoming more so as time passes. Perhaps you meant "the case for" each? If so, you then the validity of your statement is still in question since both remain a matter of faith at this point.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 01:21 PM
I don't suppose anybody wants to return to the OP's original question, do they?

"Christians" who reject the divinity of Christ, atonement, and salvation are really just cultural Christians. Just as there millions and millions of cultural Jews, cultural Muslims, cultural Buddhists, and so on, there are people who enjoy some elements of a religious lifestyle and identity but who will have nothing to do with the purpose of the identity.

I think these people enjoy socializing with each other and working on charity efforts together. They like celebrating some of the holy days. They feel more secure in having a religious reason to modify their behavior than they would in simply deciding to behave in a different way.

I think that liberal Christians are going down the same road to irrelevance that cultural Jews took in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those people were atheists or agnostics who dearly loved Jewishness as a heritage but they didn't love it enough to engage in it or to pass it along to their children. Their children were even less interested.

Now, the cultural Jews are elderly and many are beyond the top of their game in terms of popular relevance. Their grandchildren are completely secularized and assimilated. I think the same thing will happen to liberal Christians although it will happen much faster.

I think you have it backwards. As science and humanism progresses, believers who see the Bible as a literal account of events become increasingly irrelevant. Believers who make accommodations for modernity stay relevant.

Consider: How many Christians are willing to believe that their God summoned a global flood which drowned men, women, children? Probably far less than were willing to believe it say 100 years ago.

The Zeitgeist is changing. Christianity today is not really Christianity. It's more a mixture of humanism and deism... and it's better for it. I mean, does anyone want to go back to the days of burning witches and heretics?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 01:30 PM
I mean, does anyone want to go back to the days of burning witches and heretics?


Gimme a minute, I'm thinking.

FlaGator
02-18-2010, 01:44 PM
I think you have it backwards. As science and humanism progresses, believers who see the Bible as a literal account of events become increasingly irrelevant. Believers who make accommodations for modernity stay relevant.

Consider: How many Christians are willing to believe that their God summoned a global flood which drowned men, women, children? Probably far less than were willing to believe it say 100 years ago.

The Zeitgeist is changing. Christianity today is not really Christianity. It's more a mixture of humanism and deism... and it's better for it. I mean, does anyone want to go back to the days of burning witches and heretics?

So humanism and science are bringing us forward and to this I will agree, but what are we as a society progressing to?

Some denominations are becoming more secular and most are loosing members to those that maintain doctrines and beliefs closer to those outlined in the Bible. This does not mean that a return to witch burning is inevitable and the execution of heretics a forgone conclusion. I believe that those who executed witches and heretics were acting outside the scope of the New Testament and the teachings of Christ.

I feel that the root of you problem with understanding God is your instance on applying human attributes and characterists to him. You view is actions through the lens of a finite being with a limited knowledge of what reality actually is. You also operate with no knowledge of future events. Question. If you where king of the world and you had a contingency of subjects who constantly challenged your authority to the point of disrupting your plans for the grow of your kingdom how would you handle them?

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 02:38 PM
I feel that the root of you problem with understanding God is your instance on applying human attributes and characterists to him. You view is actions through the lens of a finite being...

Stop right there. I know I'm supposed to take it for granted that God is infinite but what exactly do you mean when you suggest that God is infinite?

FlaGator
02-18-2010, 02:44 PM
Stop right there. I know I'm supposed to take it for granted that God is infinite but what exactly do you mean when you suggest that God is infinite?

Without beginning and without end. Not bound by time or the limitations of a physical/temporal realm.

wilbur
02-18-2010, 02:57 PM
Christianity most certainly exists, the existence of global warming (esp. AGW) is highly debatable and becoming more so as time passes. Perhaps you meant "the case for" each? If so, you then the validity of your statement is still in question since both remain a matter of faith at this point.

I did say *the face for*.

Neither is a matter of faith, but of probability - and in all probability, global warming is a reasonably accurate theory, while in all probability Christianity is false.

FlaGator
02-18-2010, 02:59 PM
I did say *the face for*.

The face for what? :D

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:07 PM
Stop right there. I know I'm supposed to take it for granted that God is infinite but what exactly do you mean when you suggest that God is infinite?

What is zero?

FlaGator
02-18-2010, 03:12 PM
What is zero?

:D

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:33 PM
Without beginning and without end. Not bound by time or the limitations of a physical/temporal realm.

Okay. So, if I'm an omnipotent being, I'm not limited to any one solution for any given crisis, right? Right. So, if I don't have to harm my creations then why would I? I would do so because I want to.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:36 PM
Okay. So, if I'm an omnipotent being, I'm not limited to any one solution for any given crisis, right? Right. So, if I don't have to harm my creations then why would I? I would do so because I want to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JgpARGvBnc

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:36 PM
What is zero?

Zero is a symbol for the concept of nothing. Why?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:37 PM
Zero is a symbol for the concept of nothing. Why?

Why do we need a concept for zero?

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JgpARGvBnc

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:45 PM
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

I didn't say it was true, I simply used it as an illustration. I am well aware of Einstein's beliefs.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:46 PM
Why do we need a concept for zero?

I'm not sure we do need zero... but it sure is useful.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:48 PM
I'm not sure we do need zero... but it sure is useful.

You don't need zero, but what exactly is it so useful for?

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:50 PM
You don't need zero, but what exactly is it so useful for?

Zero is useful in arithmetic and in the communicating of arithmetic. Is there a point to this line of questioning?

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:51 PM
I didn't say it was true, I simply used it as an illustration. I am well aware of Einstein's beliefs.

Okay. I'll assume you know that Albert Einstein described himself as a pantheist of sorts.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:51 PM
Zero is useful in arithmetic and in the communicating of arithmetic. Is there a point to this line of questioning?

I'll ask the questions here. Useful in what way exactly?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 03:52 PM
Okay. I'll assume you know that Albert Einstein described himself as a pantheist of sorts.


Let's not bring his sex life into this.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:58 PM
I'll ask the questions here.

I'm pretty sure we both get to ask questions here.


Useful in what way exactly?

Zero can be used to represent a nil amount and as a placeholder.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 03:58 PM
Let's not bring his sex life into this.

LOL!

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 04:02 PM
I'm pretty sure we both get to ask questions here.



Zero can be used to represent a nil amount and as a placeholder in digits.

Oh, ooookay, you can ask questions too, guy that I am.

So essentially zero is something (a concept) that one doesn't have to have, but comes in handy. It represents something and nothing at the same time, depending on how you look at it. It acts as a reference point and is very good as a placeholder to connect the relationship of numbers that represent something that is there. Have I got that right so far?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 05:30 PM
I guess my work here is done.

The Night Owl
02-18-2010, 05:43 PM
Oh, ooookay, you can ask questions too, guy that I am.

So essentially zero is something (a concept) that one doesn't have to have, but comes in handy. It represents something and nothing at the same time, depending on how you look at it. It acts as a reference point and is very good as a placeholder to connect the relationship of numbers that represent something that is there. Have I got that right so far?

That sounds about right. So?

hampshirebrit
02-18-2010, 05:48 PM
I don't suppose anybody wants to return to the OP's original question, do they?

"Christians" who reject the divinity of Christ, atonement, and salvation are really just cultural Christians. Just as there millions and millions of cultural Jews, cultural Muslims, cultural Buddhists, and so on, there are people who enjoy some elements of a religious lifestyle and identity but who will have nothing to do with the purpose of the identity.

I think these people enjoy socializing with each other and working on charity efforts together. They like celebrating some of the holy days. They feel more secure in having a religious reason to modify their behavior than they would in simply deciding to behave in a different way.

I think that liberal Christians are going down the same road to irrelevance that cultural Jews took in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those people were atheists or agnostics who dearly loved Jewishness as a heritage but they didn't love it enough to engage in it or to pass it along to their children. Their children were even less interested.

Now, the cultural Jews are elderly and many are beyond the top of their game in terms of popular relevance. Their grandchildren are completely secularized and assimilated. I think the same thing will happen to liberal Christians although it will happen much faster.

Now that's a good post, one of the few in this thread. It describes to a tee what I have seen though my travels. A few believers, fundamentalists, if you like. A lot of fellow travellers. Even more "card carrying" so-called followers of all of the three MidEast religions. And a general shift of the general population toward the middle-ground secularist group.

I find the fundamentalists the most dangerous. We see that with all religions, lately, with one in particular standing out amongst the others, but all of them are dangerous, all of them. I've said it here before, I have travelled to the so called Holy Land, and found it anything but holy. If you really need to see for yourself the effect of excessive religiosity, you need go no further than Jerusalem, or if that journey is a bit too arduous for you, the site of the former World Trade Center in Manhattan.

Fundamentalists, not all of them (most of them limit themselves to posts on internet websites), but the whackjob fringes, have a tendency to hijack commercial aircraft and fly them into commercial buildings, and cut off the heads off people who don't acknowledge the supremacy of their point of view, burn them at the stake and otherwise do things that do not advance humanity in any way.

It is quite amusing to me that this thread has been titled with the name of one of the best anti-theists of our time. Personally, I warmly commend Mr Hitchens's work to you, and I hope he benefits from the additional publicity the thread title brings.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 05:55 PM
That sounds about right. So?

So, think of God as zero. It is, but yet it isn't anything; it can represent nothing or, when made manifest by that which is, can make one into a million, or a billion, or a trillion, into...well..infinity. Of course it can only do this if you believe it can, and you want it to.

Capiche?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 06:08 PM
Now that's a good post, one of the few in this thread.

Hey, that hurt my only feeling. :(

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 06:14 PM
Hey, that hurt my only feeling. :(

atheists don't have feelings. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 06:33 PM
atheists don't have feelings. :rolleyes:

You think I am an atheist? Heh.

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 09:41 PM
You think I am an atheist? Heh.

Am I mistaken?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 09:49 PM
Am I mistaken?


Of course you are, it is your forte.

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 09:51 PM
Of course you are, it is your forte.

then what is your faith?

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 09:58 PM
then what is your faith?


Um... (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25410)

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 10:00 PM
Um... (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25410)

Your answers there do not answer the question I've asked. :)

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 10:10 PM
Your answers there do not answer the question I've asked. :)

I am an agnostic.

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 10:16 PM
I am an agnostic.

Meh. Same difference. :p

MrsSmith
02-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Now that's a good post, one of the few in this thread. It describes to a tee what I have seen though my travels. A few believers, fundamentalists, if you like. A lot of fellow travellers. Even more "card carrying" so-called followers of all of the three MidEast religions. And a general shift of the general population toward the middle-ground secularist group.

I find the fundamentalists the most dangerous. We see that with all religions, lately, with one in particular standing out amongst the others, but all of them are dangerous, all of them. I've said it here before, I have travelled to the so called Holy Land, and found it anything but holy. If you really need to see for yourself the effect of excessive religiosity, you need go no further than Jerusalem, or if that journey is a bit too arduous for you, the site of the former World Trade Center in Manhattan.

Fundamentalists, not all of them (most of them limit themselves to posts on internet websites), but the whackjob fringes, have a tendency to hijack commercial aircraft and fly them into commercial buildings, and cut off the heads off people who don't acknowledge the supremacy of their point of view, burn them at the stake and otherwise do things that do not advance humanity in any way.

It is quite amusing to me that this thread has been titled with the name of one of the best anti-theists of our time. Personally, I warmly commend Mr Hitchens's work to you, and I hope he benefits from the additional publicity the thread title brings.Just to make one thing clear, Fundamentalist Christians study a text that teaches us to love our enemies, pray for them and do good for them. It teaches us to turn the other cheek (as individuals, not as countries, because you can't fairly turn your neighbor's cheek.) It teaches charity and the value of every human life, regardless of age, location, development, etc. It teaches humility and servanthood. It teaches our young adults to read the Bible, go to church for fellowship, remain pure until marriage and monogamous after, to avoid divorce, to raise their children with the Word of God, to make God the center of their lives, and to pray when in doubt.

Never, in any way, does true Christianity (as opposed to ancient Judaism) teach that it is permissible "to hijack commercial aircraft and fly them into commercial buildings, and cut off the heads off people who don't acknowledge the supremacy of their point of view, burn them at the stake and otherwise do things that do not advance humanity in any way." Those who have warped and distorted the Word, as do so many anti-Christians and atheists, are NOT fundamentalists. In fact, they are those like TNO that have so lilttle understanding, yet so much intelligence, and also a driving need to control and a need to have political power(...which, in all fairness, TNO may not have.)

It is not amusing that in countries with the freedom to worship and the freedom to learn, so many are so wrong.

Rockntractor
02-18-2010, 10:18 PM
Meh. Same difference. :p
An atheist is a god unto himself. An agnostic gives an honest I don't know.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 10:21 PM
An atheist is a god unto himself. An agnostic gives an honest I don't know.

Indeed.

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 10:23 PM
An atheist is a god unto himself. An agnostic gives an honest I don't know.

Meh. Perhaps some. Most of the agnostics I have experienced - I used to be staff on the single largest Christian message board on the internet - are actually atheists - just unwilling to admit it. AA may be the exception.

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 10:23 PM
Meh. Same difference. :p

What's your difference? Hmmm?
(http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25410)

Rockntractor
02-18-2010, 10:48 PM
Meh. Perhaps some. Most of the agnostics I have experienced - I used to be staff on the single largest Christian message board on the internet - are actually atheists - just unwilling to admit it. AA may be the exception.

Do you know any actual people, I mean in the flesh average height people?

PoliCon
02-18-2010, 10:50 PM
Do you know any actual people, I mean in the flesh average height people?

One or two. :p

Rockntractor
02-18-2010, 11:05 PM
One or two. :p

Yeah same here. They make me nervous!:D

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 11:10 PM
You two are skeert.

Rockntractor
02-18-2010, 11:14 PM
You two are skeert.

Better safe than sorry, just sayin'

Articulate_Ape
02-18-2010, 11:16 PM
Better safe than sorry, just sayin'

Fraidy cat.

Rockntractor
02-18-2010, 11:22 PM
Fraidy cat.

You don't know what it's like going through life being made of the most delicious substance known to mankind,BACON!

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 12:05 AM
So, think of God as zero. It is, but yet it isn't anything; it can represent nothing or, when made manifest by that which is, can make one into a million, or a billion, or a trillion, into...well..infinity. Of course it can only do this if you believe it can, and you want it to.

Capiche?

I guess one could say that God is zero in the sense that God is what humans tend to evoke in the absence of knowledge. In that regard, God is the ultimate placeholder.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 12:06 AM
You don't know what it's like going through life being made of the most delicious substance known to mankind,BACON!

Christopher Hitchens on why Heaven hates ham:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSKmCFP7d-A

Rockntractor
02-19-2010, 01:17 AM
Christopher Hitchens on why Heaven hates ham:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSKmCFP7d-A

Okay do you just get off on being totally friggen bored or whats the deal?:confused::rolleyes:
I thought there was going to be something vaguely humorous there, it was like reading Wilbur!

FlaGator
02-19-2010, 07:56 AM
Okay. So, if I'm an omnipotent being, I'm not limited to any one solution for any given crisis, right? Right. So, if I don't have to harm my creations then why would I? I would do so because I want to.

I didn't say you were an omnipotent being. I just stated that you were king of the world and utterly human.

FlaGator
02-19-2010, 07:58 AM
I guess one could say that God is zero in the sense that God is what humans tend to evoke in the absence of knowledge. In that regard, God is the ultimate placeholder.

I posted an article from Uncommon Decent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/)the other day. Perhaps you should read through it. You might find it interesting.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 09:30 AM
I didn't say you were an omnipotent being. I just stated that you were king of the world and utterly human.

Oh, I see. Well, I despise the concept of monarchy. So, if I were king, I would give it up.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 09:31 AM
I posted an article from Uncommon Decent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/)the other day. Perhaps you should read through it. You might find it interesting.

I did read the article. It was a bit of a jumble but interesting nonetheless.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 10:01 AM
I guess one could say that God is zero in the sense that God is what humans tend to evoke in the absence of knowledge. In that regard, God is the ultimate placeholder.

What is the difference between that and humans, in the absence of knowledge, claiming there is no god?

FlaGator
02-19-2010, 10:05 AM
Oh, I see. Well, I despise the concept of monarchy. So, if I were king, I would give it up.

That is a cop out and an obvious evasion.

FlaGator
02-19-2010, 10:09 AM
I did read the article. It was a bit of a jumble but interesting nonetheless.

I am going to order the Quantum Enigma book. It looks to be an interesting read.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 10:10 AM
That is a cop out and an obvious evasion.

To be fair, I think he meant his head would be on a pike.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 10:35 AM
It teaches charity and the value of every human life, regardless of age, location, development, etc.

To the Christian way of thinking, life itself is not valuable... except as a staging ground for the afterlife. According to the Bible, God expects us to hate our lives, hate our familes, and hate the world around us. In that regard, Christianity is a nihilistic religion.

noonwitch
02-19-2010, 11:07 AM
To the Christian way of thinking, life itself is not valuable... except as a staging ground for the afterlife. According to the Bible, God expects us to hate our lives, hate our familes, and hate the world around us. In that regard, Christianity is a nihilistic religion.


That is just one interpretation, especially if you literally interpret Revelation or some of the Old Testament prophecies and divorce them from other teachings in the Bible.

Jesus repeatedly tells his followers "The Kingdom of God is at hand". He doesn't say it's here tomorrow, or next week, He said it's at hand. He said the He came that mankind may have life and have it abundantly. He didn't just mean life after death, He meant life here and now can be transformed into something deeper and better.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 11:07 AM
To the Christian way of thinking, life itself is not valuable... except as a staging ground for the afterlife. According to the Bible, God expects us to hate our lives, hate our familes, and hate the world around us. In that regard, Christianity is a nihilistic religion.


Oddly enough it is you that is taking scripture literally, and out of context at that. If you read the passage that your comment is related to in its context you will see that it is essentially a warning to those who might choose to follow Jesus. Like any leader he was explaining what the risks of following him would be in terms of one's family relationships and even one's very life. In short, he was saying that what he was embarking upon was not for the faint of heart and those who chose to do so had better be prepared to lose everything.


I would add that, given what happened to those who became his disciples, he was correct to warn them.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 12:20 PM
Oddly enough it is you that is taking scripture literally, and out of context at that. If you read the passage that your comment is related to in its context you will see that it is essentially a warning to those who might choose to follow Jesus. Like any leader he was explaining what the risks of following him would be in terms of one's family relationships and even one's very life. In short, he was saying that what he was embarking upon was not for the faint of heart and those who chose to do so had better be prepared to lose everything.


I would add that, given what happened to those who became his disciples, he was correct to warn them.

For the record, my post refers to at least 3 separate verses in the Bible.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 12:26 PM
That is just one interpretation, especially if you literally interpret Revelation or some of the Old Testament prophecies and divorce them from other teachings in the Bible.

I think the message of the Bible is clear-- have your head in the afterlife because life, indeed your very flesh, serves no purpose but to put the promise of eternal life in jeopardy.


Jesus repeatedly tells his followers "The Kingdom of God is at hand". He doesn't say it's here tomorrow, or next week, He said it's at hand. He said the He came that mankind may have life and have it abundantly. He didn't just mean life after death, He meant life here and now can be transformed into something deeper and better.

I've read a lot of your posts and I feel the need to tell you that Christianity is not as nice as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that we're talking about a philosophy which doesn't recognize the innocent child as a legitimate concept.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 12:39 PM
For the record, my post refers to at least 3 separate verses in the Bible.



Care to share them?

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 12:46 PM
Care to share them?

John 12:25 (King James Version)


25He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

1 John 2:15 (King James Version)


15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)


26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

noonwitch
02-19-2010, 01:29 PM
I think the message of the Bible is clear-- have your head in the afterlife because life, indeed your very flesh, serves no purpose but to put the promise of eternal life in jeopardy.



I've read a lot of your posts and I feel the need to tell you that Christianity is not as nice as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that we're talking about a philosophy which doesn't recognize the innocent child as a legitimate concept.



Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are not always on the same page. Christianity is the organized religion, and has a lot of beliefs thrown in that are not of Christ. Jesus urged children to come to him, and told those adults listening that anyone who caused a child to sin is better off being dropped into the water with a millstone tied around his neck.


Anyways, the catholic church recently did away with the whole limbo thing for unbaptized babies. It took them a couple of thousand years, but they did it.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 03:05 PM
John 12:25 (King James Version)


25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

And in context?


20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

See my previous post regarding Jesus' cautioning those who were keen to follow him.




1 John 2:15 (King James Version)


15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The context...



7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Just for the record, this is a letter generally attributed to John, not the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, it is rather clear that the author is admonishing the reader(s), telling them to remember the temporal nature of one's existence on Earth and that being overly attached to the ephemeral trappings of that existence only acts to detach you from the eternal.


Luke 14:26 (King James Version)


26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I addressed this passage already.

I should point out that I am not necessarily endorsing such doctrine, but I think to remain intellectually honest one should consider the context, the circumstances at the time, and the audience being addressed. When you do that, whether you agree or disagree with the scripture or teaching, at least you better understand what is being said and why.

FlaGator
02-19-2010, 03:18 PM
John 12:25 (King James Version)

25He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
1 John 2:15 (King James Version)

15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


I don' think that you understand them. None of those are about a hatred of life. Christ is referring ot (among other things) the need to die to our sinful nature. That everyone who does this gains life eternal. It is also establishes that there is something beyond thi slife.

The second verse is that Christians are not to be come attached to the pleasure of this world. We are simply passing through it and that to be come enamored of the shinny things at best distracts us for obiedence to God.

The last verse is hyperbole. It is to establish the pecking order. Christ is first above all things. Take care of that relationship and the rest God will take care of.

The Night Owl
02-19-2010, 04:50 PM
I don' think that you understand them. None of those are about a hatred of life. Christ is referring ot (among other things) the need to die to our sinful nature. That everyone who does this gains life eternal. It is also establishes that there is something beyond thi slife.

The second verse is that Christians are not to be come attached to the pleasure of this world. We are simply passing through it and that to be come enamored of the shinny things at best distracts us for obiedence to God.

The last verse is hyperbole. It is to establish the pecking order. Christ is first above all things. Take care of that relationship and the rest God will take care of.

How do you know? If the meanings of words are as flexible as you seem to think they are then how can you know that your interpretation of scripture is superior to mine? I mean, if Jesus was using hyperbole when he advised followers to "hate" their families then how do you know he wasn't using hyperbole when he spoke of say everlasting life and everlasting damnation?

Molon Labe
02-19-2010, 09:27 PM
To the Christian way of thinking, life itself is not valuable... except as a staging ground for the afterlife. According to the Bible, God expects us to hate our lives, hate our familes, and hate the world around us. In that regard, Christianity is a nihilistic religion.

I don't see how anyone who has actually studied the religion objectively can suggest that is primarily about nihilism. Although it is indeed revolutionary, If anything Christianity is primarily a relgion based in focusing on the present and living in the now. Hatred of things of the world are more a product of trying to live in the now. In that regards, life is very valuable to the Christian.

Articulate_Ape
02-19-2010, 10:23 PM
I don't see how anyone who has actually studied the religion objectively can suggest that is primarily about nihilism. Although it is indeed revolutionary, If anything Christianity is primarily a relgion based in focusing on the present and living in the now. Hatred of things of the world are more a product of trying to live in the now. In that regards, life is very valuable to the Christian.

Ok, no offense, but that confused even me, and I am pretty confused most of the time.

MrsSmith
02-19-2010, 11:36 PM
I think the message of the Bible is clear-- have your head in the afterlife because life, indeed your very flesh, serves no purpose but to put the promise of eternal life in jeopardy.



I've read a lot of your posts and I feel the need to tell you that Christianity is not as nice as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that we're talking about a philosophy which doesn't recognize the innocent child as a legitimate concept.As usual, totally wrong. :rolleyes:

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;

We are told to reborn like innocent children.


life, indeed your very flesh, serves no purpose...??? The point to life is to become Christlike. That can take a long time. :)

MrsSmith
02-19-2010, 11:39 PM
I don't see how anyone who has actually studied the religion objectively can suggest that is primarily about nihilism. Although it is indeed revolutionary, If anything Christianity is primarily a relgion based in focusing on the present and living in the now. Hatred of things of the world are more a product of trying to live in the now. In that regards, life is very valuable to the Christian.

Living in the now...as in not worrying because all things work together for the good of those that love Christ? I can see that..but we are also to be eternally minded, having abundance here is worth nothing compared to what we will have someday, so don't hoard it, help others with it.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 02:46 PM
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;


In Matthew 18, Jesus called on followers to be as children. This was a way of saying that the most humans can hope for is to be as children-- relatively innocent compared to adults but not perfectly innocent.


We are told to reborn like innocent children.

The term innocent children is not found in any part of Matthew 18. There is no passage in the Bible which describes children as being completely innocent. This is by design. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus and Mary were the only humans born innocent and to suggest otherwise undermines the premise of the New Testament.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 03:03 PM
In Matthew 18, Jesus called on followers to be as children. This was a way of saying that the most humans could hope for is to be as children-- relatively innocent compared to adults but not perfectly innocent.



The word innocent is not found any part of Matthew 18. There is no passage in the Bible which describes children as being completely innocent. This is by design. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus and Mary were the only humans born innocent.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was born innocent. She was "full of grace" because grace is the forgiveness of sin. You have obviously spent way too much time in Catholic tradition and way too little in Scripture. No wonder you have so much trouble with the simplest Protestant beliefs.

As far as "THE WORD INNOCENT," there are many concepts in all kinds of writings that do not necessarily have one exact word attached. :) That does not negate the underlying truth.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 03:11 PM
As far as "THE WORD INNOCENT," there are many concepts in all kinds of writings that do not necessarily have one exact word attached. :) That does not negate the underlying truth.

Huh? You sould like a politician. A newborn is either completely innocent or it is not. To my way of thinking, newborns are completely innocent. The Bible suggests that newborns are not completely innocent. Where do you stand on this? Do you or do you not believe in the concept of original sin?

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 04:11 PM
Huh? You sould like a politician. A newborn is either completely innocent or it is not. To my way of thinking, newborns are completely innocent. The Bible suggests that newborns are not completely innocent. Where do you stand on this? Do you or do you not believe in the concept of original sin?

Where?

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 04:34 PM
Where?


Romans 5:12-21 (King James Version)

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here is what John Calvin wrote about the concept of original sin:


Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.

nightflight
02-20-2010, 04:48 PM
Where?


The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 04:58 PM
Romans 5:12-21 (King James Version)

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here is what John Calvin wrote about the concept of original sin:


Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.

Until the time of Christ, possibly. After, while all have a "sin nature," Christ Himself says that the little children come to Him. You have to choose to reject the gift of life, it's not automatic.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 05:04 PM
Until the time of Christ, possibly. After, while all have a "sin nature," Christ Himself says that the little children come to Him. You have to choose to reject the gift of life, it's not automatic.

You're dodging the question. Do you or do you not believe in the concept of original sin?

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 05:22 PM
You're dodging the question. Do you or do you not believe in the concept of original sin?
Of course, all humans have human nature...even before birth. That just doesn't mean that innocent children are not innocent before they are old enough to understand sin and the path to righteousness. A person cannot sin if he or she has no concept of sin...as you already quoted:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 05:47 PM
Of course, all humans have human nature...even before birth. That just doesn't mean that innocent children are not innocent before they are old enough to understand sin and the path to righteousness. A person cannot sin if he or she has no concept of sin...as you already quoted:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law

In your view, what happens to infants who die before being baptized? Do their souls end up in Heaven, Hell, or Limbo? Are they all saved or just some of them?

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:28 PM
In your view, what happens to infants who die before being baptized? Do their souls end up in Heaven, Hell, or Limbo? Are they all saved or just some of them?

I repeat...you have to have the concept of sin to be responsible for sin, and you have to choose to go to Hell to get there. Infants have neither the concept or the ability to choose. Therefore, as Christ said, the little children to go Him...
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

And for the baptism, the thief on the cross made it quite clear that baptism is done for obedience, not for salvation.

wilbur
02-20-2010, 11:28 PM
The idea that unbaptized infants don't go to hell is a fairly recent one - a doctrine really a result of populism and free-will theodicies - but not scripture.

If I remember correctly - FlaGator takes scripture at its word, and believes that unbabtized newborns (or fetuses and zygotes) gnash their teeth in hell for eternity. Great stuff eh?

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:30 PM
The idea that unbaptized infants don't go to hell is a fairly recent one - a doctrine really a result of populism and free-will theodicies - but not scripture.

If I remember correctly - FlaGator takes scripture at its word, and believes that unbabtized newborns (or fetuses and zygotes) gnash their teeth in hell for eternity. Great stuff eh?

You are confusing Catholic traditional beliefs with Scriptural beliefs.

Rockntractor
02-20-2010, 11:31 PM
The idea that unbaptized infants don't go to hell is a fairly recent one - a doctrine really a result of populism and free-will theodicies - but not scripture.

If I remember correctly - FlaGator takes scripture at its word, and believes that unbabtized newborns (or fetuses and zygotes) gnash their teeth in hell for eternity. Great stuff eh?

Perhaps you will know for sure someday.

Rockntractor
02-20-2010, 11:33 PM
You are confusing Catholic traditional beliefs with Scriptural beliefs.
Wilbur is simply trying to be inflammatory. He mocks God and all that is good. I wouldn't feed him or any of his little buddies he seems to have picked up along the way!

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:36 PM
Wilbur is simply trying to be inflammatory. He mocks God and all that is good. I wouldn't feed him or any of his little buddies he seems to have picked up along the way!

Wilbur and I have gone rounds several times. I have hopes that someday he'll decide to learn enough to defeat me. :)

Rockntractor
02-20-2010, 11:39 PM
Wilbur and I have gone rounds several times. I have hopes that someday he'll decide to learn enough to defeat me. :)

He continues to make comments about babies like that and he will likely get the ban hammer and be posting somewhere else. That is uncalled for!

wilbur
02-21-2010, 01:03 AM
He continues to make comments about babies like that and he will likely get the ban hammer and be posting somewhere else. That is uncalled for!

What the heck are you on about here? I certainly don't believe unbaptized newborns who die, roast in a pit of fire for all eternity. I have nothing but indignation for such stupidity.

wilbur
02-21-2010, 01:07 AM
Wilbur and I have gone rounds several times. I have hopes that someday he'll decide to learn enough to defeat me. :)

Been there, done that... many times.

Defeating you in argument is usually somewhat of a hollow victory though - because every time, I realize you don't even have the cognitive faculties to understand a defeat when it occurs - you simply have no idea, and plod along with blissful unawareness. Hell, you can't even follow a moderately involved conversation competently - our abortion discussions serve as shining examples of that. I'd tell you to go re-read them, but it wouldnt help.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2010, 01:40 AM
Been there, done that... many times.

Defeating you in argument is usually somewhat of a hollow victory though - because every time, I realize you don't even have the cognitive faculties to understand a defeat when it occurs - you simply have no idea, and plod along with blissful unawareness. Hell, you can't even follow a moderately involved conversation competently - our abortion discussions serve as shining examples of that. I'd tell you to go re-read them, but it wouldnt help.

You are a legend. (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/zjtpjytlpz--The-Time-For-Honoring-Yourself-is-at-an-EndGladiator-Russell-Crowe-Maximus-)

FlaGator
02-21-2010, 08:00 AM
You are a legend. (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/zjtpjytlpz--The-Time-For-Honoring-Yourself-is-at-an-EndGladiator-Russell-Crowe-Maximus-)

wilbur decides who wins debates by stating that the arguments that defeat his are invalid and then declares victory in spite of the facts. He is the only one who sees it this way but hey can't let reality get in the way of a good victory celebration.

wilbur
02-21-2010, 11:16 AM
wilbur decides who wins debates by stating that the arguments that defeat his are invalid and then declares victory in spite of the facts. He is the only one who sees it this way but hey can't let reality get in the way of a good victory celebration.

Of course, every time you boast this sort of thing, you never have anything to show - just allusions to all these mysterious times in the past when you claim I have done such things....

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 11:27 AM
I repeat...you have to have the concept of sin to be responsible for sin, and you have to choose to go to Hell to get there. Infants have neither the concept or the ability to choose. Therefore, as Christ said, the little children to go Him...

And for the baptism, the thief on the cross made it quite clear that baptism is done for obedience, not for salvation.

Okay. It seems obvious now that you don't believe in the concept of original sin and I think this is to your credit but many Christians do believe in the concept. For instance, Flagator has stated in no uncertain terms that the souls of infants who die unbaptized end up in Hell. So, what would you say to Flagator? That he is not a true Christian? And, if John Calvin is to be believed, then the souls of at least some infants end up in Hell regardless of whether or not they are free of original sin. So, what would you say to Calvin? That he is not a true Christian?

BadCat
02-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Wilbur and TNO in the same thread.

Religion bashing will now reach a new low.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:47 AM
Wilbur and TNO in the same thread.

Religion bashing will now reach a new low.

There is no need to bring threads over from DU anymore. We have plenty over here!

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2010, 02:06 PM
Discussions are pretty boring if everyone agrees.

FlaGator
02-21-2010, 02:38 PM
Of course, every time you boast this sort of thing, you never have anything to show - just allusions to all these mysterious times in the past when you claim I have done such things....

You know its true and everybody on this message board knows you do this. I don't save your messages because watching you stroke your ego isn't all that important to me but you always assume you win by declaring you win. How about you show me a post where you conceded defeat? I bet you can't find one.

djones520
02-21-2010, 02:39 PM
Of course, every time you boast this sort of thing, you never have anything to show - just allusions to all these mysterious times in the past when you claim I have done such things....

And neither do you. An argument that has been going on for 2000 years is not going to be resolved on this board.

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 09:35 PM
Okay. It seems obvious now that you don't believe in the concept of original sin and I think this is to your credit but many Christians do believe in the concept. For instance, Flagator has stated in no uncertain terms that the souls of infants who die unbaptized end up in Hell. So, what would you say to Flagator? That he is not a true Christian? And, if John Calvin is to be believed, then the souls of at least some infants end up in Hell regardless of whether or not they are free of original sin. So, what would you say to Calvin? That he is not a true Christian?

I would state that we disagree about this and ask for the scriptures that back up their premise. :D

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 09:39 PM
Been there, done that... many times.

Defeating you in argument is usually somewhat of a hollow victory though - because every time, I realize you don't even have the cognitive faculties to understand a defeat when it occurs - you simply have no idea, and plod along with blissful unawareness. Hell, you can't even follow a moderately involved conversation competently - our abortion discussions serve as shining examples of that. I'd tell you to go re-read them, but it wouldnt help.

If you could make an argument based on fact, it would help. Your long-winded philosophy screeds are basically flawed in that you believe you can presume whatever you choose to be a factual basis for your argument. As it stands, your opinion of something...anything...is of no more weight than anyone else's, and of a lot less weight than an opinion based on proven fact. So yeah, your "victories" are totally hollow...just like your "facts."

Just as in our abortion discussions. Your opinion of when a human becomes "real," and the value of a human before your magic point are just that...hollow opinion.