Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Finding Faith
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
Because it is an offence against an infinitely holy God.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sin against God merits eternal punishment, never mind the temporal one.
Why?
Yes, since the Fall we are all born with sinful natures.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, as I observed in my time as a prison pastor - the criminals all resented society for putting them in prison.
And we (humans) are all criminals by our very nature?
Quote:
It is an offence for man to kill his fellowman, without proper cause. That makes the Canaanites guilty. But God has full say over when and how we die, as He is our Creator. Just as it is a crime for us to imprison our neighbour but the State may well be just in doing so, one cannot insist that all entities have the same rights. Individuals have one set, Governments another, God supremely so.Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because it is God punishing sin, not man punishing crime.
But God is punishing disobedience in the same manner as the thing he told us not to do. That makes no sense.
If it is a sin to kill a child that is because God has ordered us not to kill children (sin is after all simply not doing what God says we should). Surely if he as told us not to kill children there is a reason behind that, that he does not wish children to die.
Same actions, different reasons. Like an individual abducting and imprisoning his neighbour and the State doing so in the case of his felony.It makes no sense that God would order actions that are the same as the actions he has told us not to do, because there is supposed to be a reason behind his commands in the first place.
I wouldn't, and don't, since He hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have found Him faithful in His dealings with me.
Well you would if you simply ignore when he isn't.
As above - genocide in itself is not immoral. Only if generated by men.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Agreed. But in here God is the main part of the equation.
But why do you think it is likely that God would disagree with you? Surely if you, in your wicked sinful state, think genocide immoral God should, in his perfect high moral state, think so even more
God does not have infinite forgiveness toward the unrepentant. You have been reading too many 'liberal' theologians. God's mercy and patience with the wicked ends if they die unrepentant. Even in this life, His mercy and patience often end and sinners are cut off in their sin. But can He kill innocent babies as a punishment on their parents? Yes, as His discipline on David clearly shows:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It demonstrates His wrath against sin, that it will eventually be punished even if delayed.
Yes but God isn't supposed to be wrathful. He is supposed to be loving and kind and pure and with infinite forgiveness. He isn't supposed to go around killing babies to punish people who kill babies.
2 Samuel 12:13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”
And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.”
Yes, I do get angry when I see pensioners tortured by burglars, children raped, etc. I would expect the State to feel wrath also. I do not expect them to regard the perpetrator with the same spirit as they do a careless driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is an essential part of justice.
"Wrath" is not an essential part of justice (you have a really peculiar sense of right and wrong Wolfsbane)
If that makes me peculiar, I'm happy to have God's mind on wickedness rather than modern 'enlightenment'.
I'm sorry, I know it's not your fault - there is so much nonsense like this coming from even true Christians today that you can hardly be expected to know what the Bible actually teaches. Yes, God removes the wicked eternally from His grace - but that means eternal punishment in the lake of fire:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But it is not meant to demonstrate how just He is regarding its severity; it was meant to punish the wicked and warn others by example that God will certainly punish sin.
But God doesn't punish sin, he simply removes the person from his grace. Hell is where sinful people end up, and it is supposed to pain God that they are there. He certainly isn't supposed to send them on a fast track to Hell.
Matthew 13:49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Does God fast-track some? Sure, everyone who is cut off unrepentant before their 70 years can be said to be 'fast-tracked'. But it is not a catagory that the Bible says much about, since it is one's state at death that counts. Many righteous die young too, God having His good purposes for them.
I do hope I am faithfully stating Biblical dogma, but I assure you it is not merely an intellectual exercise for me. These truths are crucial to both our souls, not dry-as-dust religious details.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The justness of the severity is demonstrated elsewhere by the revelation of God's absolute holiness and man's wickedness. If sin is seen in all its blackness, physical death and spiritual death are seen as a proper reward.
You appear now to be simply quoting back dogma to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know that, I asked why does it merit eternal punishment?Because it is an offence against an infinitely holy God.
You seem to be linking the "infinitely holy" part to the "eternal punishment" part simply because those words are kind of similar, which is a bit ridiculous.
Disobeying an infinite being does not make the disobeying bit infinitely bad just through simple association.
How is a person born with a nature? You mean we have had an instinct embedded in our brains to rebel against God?Yes, since the Fall we are all born with sinful natures.
That isn't what I said.It is an offence for man to kill his fellowman, without proper cause. That makes the Canaanites guilty. But God has full say over when and how we die, as He is our Creator. Just as it is a crime for us to imprison our neighbour but the State may well be just in doing so, one cannot insist that all entities have the same rights. Individuals have one set, Governments another, God supremely so.
God has declared some things a being sinful, such as killing children. He therefore would not kill children himself, because of the reason he made it sinful in the first place, that being that he doesn't want it to happen.
Comparing God to the State is a false analogy, because the State is forced by its own limitations to take measures, such as imprisionment, that it wouldn't if there was another way.
Since God is God there not being another way is an irrelevant concept, all ways are open to him.
So again you get back to the fact that God would never do something that he himself has declared a sin, because it is unnecessary and it goes against his nature.
That doesn't matter. Sin isn't a sin in certain circumstances. There is no "you shall not murder, unless you have elected a democratic mandate that decides you shall"Same actions, different reasons. Like an individual abducting and imprisoning his neighbour and the State doing so in the case of his felony.
Right ... rinse and repeat the comment from my last post :rolleyes:I wouldn't, and don't, since He hasn't.
Genocide in itself is a sin.As above - genocide in itself is not immoral. Only if generated by men.
God would not carry out an action that he has told us not to do (a sin), because in telling us not to do it he has demonstrated that it displeases him.
It is illogical and rather ridiculous to suppose that a god would carry out an action that displeases him, given that a god can do anything.
I didn't claim he did. In your religion a person cannot be forgiven unless they first seek forgiveness.God does not have infinite forgiveness toward the unrepentant.
But there is a difference between not forgiving the unrepentant and being wrathful.
Well you really shouldn't.Yes, I do get angry when I see pensioners tortured by burglars, children raped, etc. I would expect the State to feel wrath also.
Have you never seen the statue of "Justice" being blind folded. with the weighing scales in one hand.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB053013.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B35F732BF-7369-4594-B686-4FCC8E23EDCC%7D
Our system of justice is supposed to judge and sentence without emotion (that includes wrath).
Though if you do feel this way, and would expect such a system of justice, that does at least explain why you are drawn to the concept of a wrathful vengeful God, even though I would question if even your fellow Christians would take that interpretation of God
Well I will leave you and PDN to debate that one.Yes, God removes the wicked eternally from His grace - but that means eternal punishment in the lake of fire:
Personally I see "lake of fire" and "loving God" as two mutually exclusive concepts.I do hope I am faithfully stating Biblical dogma, but I assure you it is not merely an intellectual exercise for me. These truths are crucial to both our souls, not dry-as-dust religious details.
Well yes, but you don't appear to understand what you are saying, and therefore you lack the ability to explain to me why it is supposed to be true in the first place. Anyone can just read back the Bible, or say back what they have learnt from their church, but that does not contribute towards understanding and as such does not contribute towards demonstrating it is true in the first place.0 -
Wicknight said:
The offence and the penalty are laid our in the Bible. Sin brings eternal punishent. The reasoning behind that is mine - sin against an infinitely holy God - but it seems a reasonable deduction. You of course have a different scale of penalty - but wait, you aren't God, nor even a god, so what would you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because it is an offence against an infinitely holy God.
I know that, I asked why does it merit eternal punishment?
You seem to be linking the "infinitely holy" part to the "eternal punishment" part simply because those words are kind of similar, which is a bit ridiculous.
Disobeying an infinite being does not make the disobeying bit infinitely bad just through simple association.
Yes, in as much as our spirits are embedded in our brains. Our spirits are by nature morally twisted.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, since the Fall we are all born with sinful natures.
How is a person born with a nature? You mean we have had an instinct embedded in our brains to rebel against God?
Wrong - God said it was sinful for man to do various things He himself is perfectly entitled to. Even with man, God allows us to kill, imprison etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is an offence for man to kill his fellowman, without proper cause. That makes the Canaanites guilty. But God has full say over when and how we die, as He is our Creator. Just as it is a crime for us to imprison our neighbour but the State may well be just in doing so, one cannot insist that all entities have the same rights. Individuals have one set, Governments another, God supremely so.
That isn't what I said.
God has declared some things a being sinful, such as killing children. He therefore would not kill children himself, because of the reason he made it sinful in the first place, that being that he doesn't want it to happen.
As I said, what is sin for man may not be for God. He is the Maker, the Owner of all. Can you dispose of your property as you see fit?Comparing God to the State is a false analogy, because the State is forced by its own limitations to take measures, such as imprisionment, that it wouldn't if there was another way.
Since God is God there not being another way is an irrelevant concept, all ways are open to him.
So again you get back to the fact that God would never do something that he himself has declared a sin, because it is unnecessary and it goes against his nature.
But to the question, Could He do something other than punish sin? No, for that would be injustice.
An action only becomes sin in certain circumstances, just as an action becomes a crime in some circumstances and not others.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Same actions, different reasons. Like an individual abducting and imprisoning his neighbour and the State doing so in the case of his felony.
That doesn't matter. Sin isn't a sin in certain circumstances. There is no "you shall not murder, unless you have elected a democratic mandate that decides you shall"
No, it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As above - genocide in itself is not immoral. Only if generated by men.
Genocide in itself is a sin.
It displeases him if we kill others without His permission. It does not displease Him to kill the wicked, if He sees fit.God would not carry out an action that he has told us not to do (a sin), because in telling us not to do it he has demonstrated that it displeases him.
The act that is unforgiven causes God to be wrathful toward its perpetrator. For example, murder makes God wrathful toward the murderer. If he remains unrepentant, that wrath remains.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God does not have infinite forgiveness toward the unrepentant.
I didn't claim he did. In your religion a person cannot be forgiven unless they first seek forgiveness.
But there is a difference between not forgiving the unrepentant and being wrathful.
Really? It thought it was to judge impartially, but not without feeling. But you seem to know different. Maybe that explains why so much evil so often gets light sentences?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I do get angry when I see pensioners tortured by burglars, children raped, etc. I would expect the State to feel wrath also.
Well you really shouldn't.
Have you never seen the statue of "Justice" being blind folded. with the weighing scales in one hand.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB05301...FCC8E23EDCC%7D
Our system of justice is supposed to judge and sentence without emotion (that includes wrath).
I'll be interested to hear what they think about the wrath of God. But here's a sample of what God says about it:Though if you do feel this way, and would expect such a system of justice, that does at least explain why you are drawn to the concept of a wrathful vengeful God, even though I would question if even your fellow Christians would take that interpretation of God
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Romans 2:But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
2 Thessalonians 1:5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You misunderstand who and how God loves. You need to read the Bible rather than listen to the opinions of religionists who have long ago abandoned the faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, God removes the wicked eternally from His grace - but that means eternal punishment in the lake of fire:
Well I will leave you and PDN to debate that one.
Personally I see "lake of fire" and "loving God" as two mutually exclusive concepts.
I have shown both the Biblical teaching and the logical conclusions drawn from it. You can at least check the texts, even if you struggle with logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I do hope I am faithfully stating Biblical dogma, but I assure you it is not merely an intellectual exercise for me. These truths are crucial to both our souls, not dry-as-dust religious details.
Well yes, but you don't appear to understand what you are saying, and therefore you lack the ability to explain to me why it is supposed to be true in the first place. Anyone can just read back the Bible, or say back what they have learnt from their church, but that does not contribute towards understanding and as such does not contribute towards demonstrating it is true in the first place. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That's because, by faith, he believes what he wants to believe. Any interpretation of history that recognises anything positive in religion is, in Wicknight's book, automatically wrong.
The same goes for interpreting Bible verses. Any interpretation that encourages Christians to be loving or sensible is contrary to Wicknightian theology and so must be interpreted so as to carry the most sinister meaning imaginable.
I used to argue more with him, but there's little point in arguing with a closed mind. These days I tend to let him rant away.
Wow, I really seem to have annoyed you today PDN ... way to stay objective as a mod :pac:
The problem you guys seem to have is that to you your religion must be good, it must make sense, and it must lead to good things. This is a key component of your religious faith.
I have aways recognized there are nice bits of the Bible, there are some wonderful stories in the Bible, particular the stuff the Jesus was trying to teach (some of it at least).
I would challenge the Christian idea that they are all exclusive to the Bible (and therefore evidence that they come from the word of God, not man), again simply because such an idea does not hold up. The majority of Jesus' teachings of human to human relationships were ideas around at the time, dating from an earlier time. I'm not saying Jesus copied them, it is more likely that they are conclusions that a human would reach if they were a to think about issues of morality in a certain way to emphasis empathy and compassion.
From my point of view anything that originates from man kind can have good and bad elements. Something like the Bible is no different. Some humans are good some are bad, some have good moments and bad moments. Humans are wonderfully complex creatures.
The problem you guys have is that, by definition of religious faith, you can't entertain that there can be anything bad in any part of any of the central pillars of your religion (which for most of you is the passages of the Bible).
This leads to some rather bizarre exchanges.
I do not point out the bad in the Bible, or go on about the bad all the time, to put forward the idea that the Bible is all bad. The Bible is either the product of god and all good, or the product of man and both good and bad.
I do it to counter the idea that the Bible is all good, and can only be all good, and the nonsense that is used to justify that position and it's conclusions (such as saying that the genocide in the Old Testament was moral).
Using an example from the other thread, Jimi commented that he is puzzled as to why God would get the Hebrews to kill the enemies of God, rather than God simply killing them himself quickly and without fuss as he did with the new borns in Egypt.
Because of the above, to you guys that is a genuine puzzle, with most of you seemingly content to admit that it is unanswerable at the moment, and you will wait till you meet God to ask him what was going on there.
To me it is relatively simply. The Hebrews killed these people and then said "God told us to". This was then incorporated into their oral and eventually written history. Such events have taken place in societies through the world for as long as religion has been around. I see no great reason to believe the Hebrews would be any different.
But you guys cannot entertain such a possibility, because it is in direct conflict with your religious faith.
So how do you deal with such "attack" on your religion doctrine?
Well it must be a flaw with me!
I'm close minded. I'm trolling. I'm sinful or wicked or rebellious against god. I want to believe there is no god so I can continue on my hedonistic life style of abortions and pre-marital sex (I wish) etc etc
All these charges have been made against myself and other posters throughout the course of these discussions, mostly when Christians are getting frustrated that we are simply not taking their religious doctrine at its face value.
My own flaws, my sinful nature, must be is why I think these passages are bad or immoral, because they can't be actually be bad or immoral they must be good.
Of course, just like Jimi, I'm a big boy. Keep the charges coming, I've heard nearly all of them before. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Like yourself, iUseVi, I could generalise about what atheists do incorrectly on these forums, but there is little point. In this regard, I will put in a very apt quote: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. Yet, this said, in certain respects I would have to agree that people, myself included, do sometimes become defensive when posting. But I wouldn't think that this defensiveness is a trait of Christians alone. And to my mind, this seems to be the implication of your post. If a debate centres around fundamental beliefs, then you can pretty much be guaranteed that people, at some point, will start to become defensive or aggressive.
When I first began posting here a year or two back, I was under the impression that this was a forum where Christians (amongst others) would discuss Christian matters in a mutually beneficial way. I soon realised that this was a misunderstanding on my part; I found that Christian posters would often feel the need to defend their beliefs from attack - perceived or otherwise - rather than discuss these issues in a free and open manner. Indeed, my posting now is often driven out of the need to defend (that word again!) my belief from what I see as wilful misinterpretation or hostility bent towards it.
In most cases, debate between two opposed parties is not a bad thing, quite the opposite, in fact. But as it stands, any matters of importance to my faith I will now often conduct through PMs rather than create a thread that will invariably descend into the usual arguments. (Please note that the above isn't an attempt at thinly veiled finger-pointing towards any particular side.)
Hey, it certainly wasn't meant to be "thinly veiled", it was intended to be clear and obvious. IMO I think Christians are being overly defensive.
But my point was that there really should be no need. After all, do you not think that you are correct in what you believe? Like I said in my previous posting, you should be able to swat atheists down like flies if it is actually the case that you are correct.
One of my other points was that if a Christian doesn't know an answer to an atheist's question, there's no shame in admitting so, or perhaps waiting for another Christian to answer. I'm sure you can see why people get frustrated when multiple, conflicting answers are just thrown into the fray.
I'm sure as a Christian, that you agree that people should question, and think about why they believe things; not just repeat back word for word what they heard at the pulpit.
I realise that some Christians are frustrated that discussion doesn't go all one way, it's understandable, but on the rare occasion that a serious Christian thread is started, the atheists do tend to leave it alone.
For example kelly1 started a weekly thread - sort of a "word for the week". As far as I recall, no atheists interfered. Mind you, the resident Christians didn't seem terribly interested either.
Also, it's a two way thing. Just as much antagonising occurs on the A&A forum when we are having a discussion. Threats about hell-fire, that we should repent, and such. So no one has it all their own way.
In just the same way that you cannot sit back and let someone ridicule your belief, you cannot expect an atheist to sit back when they see something posted that they find to be ridiculous. But of course trolling should be avoided by both "sides".
But the main point of the post, that you seem to have missed - is that I think we can all have mature, reasonable discussions; without resorting to actions that could be perceived as trolling. In other words, without sounding like too much of as wimp - we can all get along!! 0 -
Hey, it certainly wasn't meant to be "thinly veiled", it was intended to be clear and obvious. IMO I think Christians are being overly defensive.
I was referring to myself, not you.But the main point of the post, that you seem to have missed - is that I think we can all have mature, reasonable discussions; without resorting to actions that could be perceived as trolling. In other words, without sounding like too much of as wimp - we can all get along!!
To clarify: I didn't miss your point. In fact, I mentioned something similar to one of your esteemed brethren only a couple of weeks ago. However, if you are really interested in embarking on such mature discussions, writing 'obnoxious' posts is not the best way to begin.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »To clarify: I didn't miss your point. In fact, I mentioned something similar to one of your esteemed brethren only a couple of weeks ago. However, if you are really interested in embarking on such mature discussions, writing 'obnoxious' posts is not the best way to begin.
<Sigh>
Possibly not, but would you prefer me to lie? I was trying to stop the arguing, but obviously you don't care and prefer the arguments. Fine by me, you crazy fool! 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement