Mr Judas

14-01-2009 10:22pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That's because Jammy I have responded to all your points and your response is pretty consistent: Well, I dont believe that.

You have not responded to even half of my points. This is typical of somebody when, in my opinion, they lose a debate.

I'd just like somebody else to come in and say who they consider to have "won", because I know my points weren't incoherent ramblings like you imply. It's frustrating to argue with somebody of your mentality: It doesn't matter what I say, or what anybody says, you'll always consider your own beliefs to be the correct ones.

Fanny Cradock · 14-01-2009 10:24pm

Lets all count backwards form 10...

THIS IS NOT A REQUEST!

:pac:

14-01-2009 10:31pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lets all count backwards form 10...

THIS IS NOT A REQUEST!

:pac:

It's ok, I'm relaxed! It's just frustrating to have a post dismissed so quickly when you put a lot of time into it, as I'm sure you know!

Anyway, what can ya do!

Fanny Cradock · 14-01-2009 10:38pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's ok, I'm relaxed! It's just frustrating to have a post dismissed so quickly when you put a lot of time into it, as I'm sure you know!

Well, not to take sides, but welcome to the internetz!

philologos · 14-01-2009 10:39pm

JammyDodger, God loved you so much that He gave His only begotten Son to atone for your sins.

As for "Would you want your child to be punished in hell?" that isn't relevant. That is God's authority, it isn't any less true because we wouldn't want it to happen. It's the equivalent of saying "Would you want your child to go to jail?" the answer would also be no in most cases.

BrianCalgary · 14-01-2009 10:40pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You have not responded to even half of my points. This is typical of somebody when, in my opinion, they lose a debate.

I'd just like somebody else to come in and say who they consider to have "won", because I know my points weren't incoherent ramblings like you imply. It's frustrating to argue with somebody of your mentality: It doesn't matter what I say, or what anybody says, you'll always consider your own beliefs to be the correct ones.

Maybe list the points that haven't been addressed and we can go from there.

Absolutely I'll always consider Christianity to be 100% true and factual. Imake no secret of that. Jesus is God with us, He suffered, died and was buried and on the third day He rose again. He is the way, the truth and th elife, the only way to the Father is through Him.

philologos · 14-01-2009 10:48pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd just like somebody else to come in and say who they consider to have "won", because I know my points weren't incoherent ramblings like you imply. It's frustrating to argue with somebody of your mentality: It doesn't matter what I say, or what anybody says, you'll always consider your own beliefs to be the correct ones.

When you are discussing faith matters, it isn't really about winning of losing. It's about the discussion that is being had, and about what we can hear from eachother if we are willing.

14-01-2009 10:56pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, not to take sides, but welcome to the internetz!

Jakkass wrote: »

JammyDodger, God loved you so much that He gave His only begotten Son to atone for your sins.

Do theists not understand that saying this to an atheist is pointless? I understand what it means, and it's a nice sentiment; but since I don't believe it, it doesn't alter any opinion that I have.

As for "Would you want your child to be punished in hell?" that isn't relevant. That is God's authority, it isn't any less true because we wouldn't want it to happen. It's the equivalent of saying "Would you want your child to go to jail?" the answer would also be no in most cases.

It is relevant, at least to the line of argument I was taking. A parent would never want it to happen to a child, and they have limited love; how could a god even consider letting it happen to his "children" when he's supposedly omnibenevolent? It's a contradiction. And, I understand that it's an argument of theodicy.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Maybe list the points that haven't been addressed and we can go from there.

No it's ok. I've lost all will to continue with this particular argument. It's lost any of the integrity it had, in my opinion. The points are in posts overhead, they're there to be read if you wish.

Absolutely I'll always consider Christianity to be 100% true and factual. Imake no secret of that. Jesus is God with us, He suffered, died and was buried and on the third day He rose again. He is the way, the truth and th elife, the only way to the Father is through Him.

That's my point. There is absolutely no point in arguing with somebody with that standpoint, with all due respect.

Jakkass wrote: »

When you are discussing faith matters, it isn't really about winning of losing. It's about the discussion that is being had, and about what we can hear from eachother if we are willing.

Yes, you're right. It was just some frustration emerging when I posted that. Of course that's the purpose of a debate, I completely agree.

philologos · 14-01-2009 11:21pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Do theists not understand that saying this to an atheist is pointless? I understand what it means, and it's a nice sentiment; but since I don't believe it, it doesn't alter any opinion that I have.

Well, JammyDodger, you have questioned Biblical principles and you have questioned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for having eternal damnation. I think it is only fair that I can raise an argument based on the Biblical teachings that does show that God is a compassionate being. If we are going to discuss the Bible, let's discuss it, if we are not, let's not.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It is relevant, at least to the line of argument I was taking. A parent would never want it to happen to a child, and they have limited love; how could a god even consider letting it happen to his "children" when he's supposedly omnibenevolent? It's a contradiction. And, I understand that it's an argument of theodicy.

God has given you an entire lifetime to make the choice. God has offered you the Holy Bible to seek Him and to seek His truth and as a light to the world. God has given you His elect to share the Word of God, Jesus Christ with you. God has shown you His creation, God has given you life, and God has given you acceptance. His existence is evident, it's just a matter of whether or not you want to accept it. You act as if God is a being who is to submit to the demands of men. No, rather humanity is to honour His existence. God has done all of this for you, and you do not see any form of benevolence. All He asks of you is to love Him and to follow His commandments. Just put it all into perspective, and you start to see how much you are taking for granted.

I could enter into the philosophical debate about the Problem of Evil, with the evidential argument, theodicies, logical argument and so on. However, I know you are going to ignore them. If you want to deal with the Philosophy of Religion, I would suggest that you get "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Brian Davies, it also deals with atheistic arguments by writers such as J.L Mackie, and Rowe etc. The theists bring a lot more to the table in the evil discussion than they do in a lot of areas of philosophy.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, you're right. It was just some frustration emerging when I posted that. Of course that's the purpose of a debate, I completely agree.

Well, let's just calm down and take the tone down a notch. Let's keep Fanny Craddock and PDN happy :pac:

16-01-2009 5:20pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There seems to be a barrier to your understanding of what most Christians believe. God doesn't wants us to be eternally contrite and in a perpetual state of grovelling. I believe it's quite the opposite - at its simplest, God forgives and forgets our sins - we then move on!

I can understand that, but, I've fundamental a few fundamental problems with it. I'm sure you know what many of them are from many other posters, so, I won't bore you by posting them again. But, they're along the lines of an omni-potent god shouldn't need to us to repent etc.

Hell is not something I think much about, TBH. But my own opinion is that it is a real place (metaphysical, even) as opposed to something nebulous like 'a state of mind' or whatever. Though I'm open to the suggestion that it is not eternal. (Better discussed in another thread.)

You may have heard the phrase 'God is good'. Well, I actually think that there is slightly more depth to the phrase than might otherwise be assumed. It not that God is good - like ice-cream or the sun is good, it's that God is good - as in He is the causal agent or the primacy for everything good. Bearing this in mind - and you are free to disagree :pac: - hell would be the place devoid of God's presence and therefore devoid of all good.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And, it actually makes sense. But, I've one flaw with it. If there was a place void of God's presence, would that not mean that He lacks omnipresence? Again, this is a problem of theodicy, and should, I suppose, be left to the theodicy thread.:pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, JammyDodger, you have questioned Biblical principles and you have questioned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for having eternal damnation. I think it is only fair that I can raise an argument based on the Biblical teachings that does show that God is a compassionate being. If we are going to discuss the Bible, let's discuss it, if we are not, let's not.

Ok, lets.

God has given you an entire lifetime to make the choice. God has offered you the Holy Bible to seek Him and to seek His truth and as a light to the world.

I do not trust the Holy Bible, as it was written by Man. Perhaps conveyed to Man by God, but, nonetheless, written by Man. It has been translated numerous times and altered countless times; I would never trust what's written in it.

His existence is evident, it's just a matter of whether or not you want to accept it.

I doubt that it is. If it were, why would there be so many people of different religions on Earth? Why would there be atheists? His existance is far from evident. Very far indeed.

You act as if God is a being who is to submit to the demands of men. No, rather humanity is to honour His existence. God has done all of this for you, and you do not see any form of benevolence. All He asks of you is to love Him and to follow His commandments. Just put it all into perspective, and you start to see how much you are taking for granted.

Oh, if it's true I see a lot of good in it indeed, but I don't see benevolence. The way the world is, and the idea of a benevolent god, don't, in my eyes, seem very compatable. But again, that's a theodicy argument, and we've seen how far an argument on theodicy gets us in the other thread.

I could enter into the philosophical debate about the Problem of Evil, with the evidential argument, theodicies, logical argument and so on. However, I know you are going to ignore them. If you want to deal with the Philosophy of Religion, I would suggest that you get "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Brian Davies, it also deals with atheistic arguments by writers such as J.L Mackie, and Rowe etc. The theists bring a lot more to the table in the evil discussion than they do in a lot of areas of philosophy.

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll definitely look into them.

But, if you want to enter into a philsophical debate about the problem of evil, logical argument and whatnot, please do.

JimiTime · 16-01-2009 5:34pm

Jakkass wrote: »

JammyDodger, God loved you so much that He gave His only begotten Son to atone for your sins.

Is this true? Does he love those who reject him? Honest question. I'm wondering if this is just some rhetoric that has creeped into Christian teaching.

Did God love the Pharisee's who rejected him? Who Jesus called 'offspring of vipers'? Or those who he hid meaning from? Does in fact, God love every man woman and child? Or does he hate those who hate him? Does he love the wicked?

I'm not 100% on this tbh. Defo, Christ redeemed us all, but only if we accept his gift. Those who reject it? Actually, it probably deserves a thread of its own.

BrianCalgary · 16-01-2009 5:50pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I do not trust the Holy Bible, as it was written by Man. Perhaps conveyed to Man by God, but, nonetheless, written by Man. It has been translated numerous times and altered countless times; I would never trust what's written in it.
.

Where do you get the information to make such a statement that it has been altered?

16-01-2009 5:59pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Where do you get the information to make such a statement that it has been altered?

Because humans aren't infallible in their translations.

philologos · 16-01-2009 7:52pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because humans aren't infallible in their translations.

So the original Greek and Hebrew (non-translated) are infallible then? Mind you more literal translations such as the New Revised Standard Version prove to be quite accurate.

wolfsbane · 16-01-2009 9:28pm

-JammyDodger- said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, but once you see your freedom is the freedom desired by the thief, rapist, murderer to do as they please, you will find such freedom a lot different from that which is usually meant by the term. Your's is actually freedom from goodness, righteousness, truth.
My point is, which I maintain, if God is already "tampering" with free will by not allowing us "true" free will, why not go that one bit further and eradicate evil altogether?

He is going to eradicate it altogether. And I've said why He does not do so immediately - to give sinners space to repent:
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

So I ask again, have you a problem with His patience and mercy in so doing?

Quote:
Only the one with the gun is the holy God, the one it's being pointed at is a sinful man deserving to be shot, and God is giving him time to repent. If he repents, he will not be shot, but brought into God's family.
So I deserve to be shot for not obeying him?

You deserve to be in hell.

Even so when I'm "sinful" without choice?

You freely choose to commit each of those sinful acts. But I take it you meant you had no choice about being born with a sinful nature. That's true. We inherit that from Adam. But it doesn't mean we are not evil or responsible for our own evil actions. God calls us to repent of them.

A slave driver points a gun at his slave, he says "If you stay my slave, I will not kill you; But, if you no longer work for me, I'll shoot you right now". Now, what's the slave to do? Continue to do something which he doesn't want to (the analogy being worshipping a god that you see unfit for worship) do? Or stand up for what he believes in (i.e. stand up for freedom, for not being forced into doing something he doesn't believe in doing. The analogy being not wishing to worship god; to be free), stand up for being free; even if it costs him his life? I know which one I'd pick.

Your analogy fails to paint the true picture. Not the freedom-loving slave vs the tyrant Boss, but the hardened criminal vs the Judge who offers a pardon if he turns from his criminal ways.

There is nothing good or admirable in the criminal sacrificing his life rather than submit to society's just demands.

Quote:
Yes, we don't have all the answers to the origin and purpose of everything in the spiritual and material world. You think we should?

Well I'd like if he had. I'm not saying that we should know, I'm just saying it's an easy answer to give to get out of a debate.

Yes, there is so much I'm looking forward to finding out when I meet God. I'm content to wait till then.

Quote:
That's only because you have a fallen nature, and can't appreciate holy things. 70 virgins at one's beck and call is something both atheists and false religionists might think one of the best things, but it is a wicked desire, contrary to God's standard of faithful monogamy in this life and total fellowship in the next.
So you're saying 70 virgins await us all in heaven?

Hardly, since I called it a wicked desire.

I always thought that was just a Muslim belief. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in that paragraph.

I'm saying your ideas of the 'best things' are not shared by all, especially God.

BrianCalgary · 16-01-2009 10:22pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because humans aren't infallible in their translations.

That's no answer. Where is you proof? Where are the versions where the translation has changed?

17-01-2009 2:00am

Jakkass wrote: »

So the original Greek and Hebrew (non-translated) are infallible then? Mind you more literal translations such as the New Revised Standard Version prove to be quite accurate.

No, I don't think that older, untouched editions are anymore accurate.

The fallibility of human translation was only one reason.

I personally wouldn't consider any book that's circa two mellenia old to be accurate.

Anyway, how do you know it isn't accurate? How could you know if humans embedded mistakes into various editions that became propagated throughout future editions? What standard have you to compare it to?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That's no answer. Where is you proof? Where are the versions where the translation has changed?

That was meerly only one reason to not believe in it's accuracy. It was written by humans, humans make mistakes, therefore it isn't immune to error. I certianly wouldn't trust any two mellenia old book.

philologos · 17-01-2009 2:03am

-JammyDodger- so you think that antiquity necitates truth. Surely truth if it is indeed truth is true irrespective of it's age?

As for mistakes or disputed passages, you can see this in the footnotes of your Bible. There are minor differences in newer codexes from the very first Biblical codexes. That's why the Biblical translations we have use the very oldest ones. These differences are usually in the way of rendering terms or sentences. Again theologians study this extensively.

That's why you see footnotes like "Other ancient authorities...." underneath the text in the footnotes, it's allowing you to see the range or renderings for a different verse between the oldest and the newest Biblical manuscripts.

17-01-2009 2:13am

wolfsbane wrote: »

He is going to eradicate it altogether. And I've said why He does not do so immediately - to give sinners space to repent:

So I ask again, have you a problem with His patience and mercy in so doing?

The very fact that we're sinners in the first place is ridiculous though. Original sin, to me anyway, is ridiculous and fantastic. Science has disproved, by dozens of methods, that the universe is six thousand years; it's proven (I use proven carefully - of course it's not proven, as science doesn't prove anything; but it's as good as. This isn't an argument over semantics after all) that there could not have been only two ancestors to all humanity (unless you're ignorant to science that is). Therefore, why would we be born with sin that we inherited from a fictitious and factitious human being?

You deserve to be in hell.

No, I do not.

You freely choose to commit each of those sinful acts. But I take it you meant you had no choice about being born with a sinful nature. That's true. We inherit that from Adam. But it doesn't mean we are not evil or responsible for our own evil actions. God calls us to repent of them.

Never mind the ones that I choose to commit: Every single person on earth commits them. And as for original sin, see my above comment.

Your analogy fails to paint the true picture. Not the freedom-loving slave vs the tyrant Boss, but the hardened criminal vs the Judge who offers a pardon if he turns from his criminal ways.

No, with all honesty, that's just stupid. Maybe if the criminal inherited his crimes from his father; then you're analogy would be valid. The criminal himself is guilty of very little, perhaps calling the judge fictitious, and stealing a few sweets; definitely not deserving of death.

Yes, there is so much I'm looking forward to finding out when I meet God. I'm content to wait till then.

You could find a large number of things out right now with science. That way you don't have to gamble with the idea of an afterlife. What if there's none?

philologos · 17-01-2009 2:16am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I am not accusing you of trying to destry Christianity. I am trying to point out that you premise of removal of persons of faith from using their beliefs in the public arena is an impossibility as everyone has a set of beliefs.

Bravo Brian. My sentiments exactly. Although I don't oppose secularism, I don't think anyone has any right to tell me what I should effectively vote on or how I should vote, how I should employ my religious conscience, and any other form of denying religious expression. I'm not opposed to secularism but it's not something to be held on a pedestal, and I won't pander to it if it involves taking it too far. If it is taken too far I will personally tell people that I am not interested. We need to rethink secularism I think in a way that brings more people of faith to the table rather than promoting a suppression of faith in public life.

17-01-2009 2:33am

Jakkass wrote: »

Bravo Brian. My sentiments exactly. Although I don't oppose secularism, I don't think anyone has any right to tell me what I should effectively vote on or how I should vote, how I should employ my religious conscience, and any other form of denying religious expression. I'm not opposed to secularism but it's not something to be held on a pedestal, and I won't pander to it if it involves taking it too far. If it is taken too far I will personally tell people that I am not interested. We need to rethink secularism I think in a way that brings more people of faith to the table rather than promoting a suppression of faith in public life.

My point, though, which Brian missed repeatedly, is this:

Somebody in a position of power, in a position that controls what a vast number of the population do, shouldn't base any decisions they make on their religion or their beliefs.

They're in a position that can affect a large number of people, people of many different beliefs. Is it fair on them to have decisions made for them that go against what they believe in? I don't think so. I don't see how anyone could say that it is.

I didn't once say that people with beliefs shouldn't be allowed in such positions, not once. Why not? Because every single person has their own belief system. What I said was that people in a position of power (i.e. the government) shouldn't be allowed to base decisions that affect the populace on their own personal belief system. That's what I defined secularism to mean when I used it.

Tell me Jakkass: Is that not a fair thing to ask?

philologos · 17-01-2009 1:30pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My point, though, which Brian missed repeatedly, is this:

Somebody in a position of power, in a position that controls what a vast number of the population do, shouldn't base any decisions they make on their religion or their beliefs.

They're in a position that can affect a large number of people, people of many different beliefs. Is it fair on them to have decisions made for them that go against what they believe in? I don't think so. I don't see how anyone could say that it is.

I didn't once say that people with beliefs shouldn't be allowed in such positions, not once. Why not? Because every single person has their own belief system. What I said was that people in a position of power (i.e. the government) shouldn't be allowed to base decisions that affect the populace on their own personal belief system. That's what I defined secularism to mean when I used it.

Tell me Jakkass: Is that not a fair thing to ask?

Do you believe in democracy JammyDodger? If so you do realise that not allowing people to run on a religious mandate is restricting democratic virtues and free speech essentially. Why not just let them run and let the people decide? See we would also have to determine what is a religious agenda, would you ban all people who hold pro-life views, those who hold reasonably conservative views on the family unit?

I think let the people decide. If they want views like these, they will vote for them, if they don't they won't. If they are voted in, then yes they are what the people want.

Separation of church and state simply means, that church institutions cannot be directly involved in politics. It's impossible to stop individuals from being moved in their faith to do certain things.

So not only isn't it fair, it's anti-democratic by definition surely? If secularism is going to be a viable option in the future, the Government would need to consult with those representing people of faith as well as those representing those of no beliefs.

chozometroid · 17-01-2009 5:22pm

I can understand that, but, I've fundamental a few fundamental problems with it. I'm sure you know what many of them are from many other posters, so, I won't bore you by posting them again. But, they're along the lines of an omni-potent god shouldn't need to us to repent etc.

God doesn't need us to repent. We need to repent. We must acknowledge our sin: disobeying God and usurping His authority. Only then can He bring us into a relationship with Him. Acknowledge that you are sinful and that you accept God as your Lord and Savior (creator/ruler, and redeemer). God knows we are sinful by nature. That is just what we are. Sin is a side effect of having free will. There is only one sin, and that is saying to God, "but I think...." God is the creator of the universe, and he knows what is best. We may have an inclination to do that which is contrary to God, but that does not make it unfair to be punished for it.
We all could just not exist, or live pointless lives as beings forced to worship God through no choice of our own. Or we could see what He has done, accept His gift (the ability to be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to Him) through faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is believing in Him and what He has done. "In Christ" is how we are saved. He died in our place. When you have faith in Christ, you have died in Christ, and your debt is paid.
But you must accept Christ not only as your Savior, but as your Lord. This means you must obey His command. These commands are for our own good.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And, it actually makes sense. But, I've one flaw with it. If there was a place void of God's presence, would that not mean that He lacks omnipresence? Again, this is a problem of theodicy, and should, I suppose, be left to the theodicy thread.

Eternal separation from God is death. He is omnipresent, but if you die, you are no longer in His presence. I do not believe in eternal suffering. The result of going to hell(Death) is eternal.
It is simple. We are all dying, and are all doomed to meet this fate. Even if you are atheist, you must accept that death is coming, and life will end.
Death is the result of our sin. It's what we have coming.
But God made a way for us to escape death. By believing in Him, accepting Him as our Lord and Savior, we can gain the atonement He has provided for us by His sacrifice in our place.
Then we will have the promise of eternal life.
You can choose to serve God and have eternal life, or you will die like everyone else, which is what should be expected anyways.
The question to Christians is: do you want to spend eternity with your creator God? We do have the opportunity.
This life is very short. If you are 30 years old, you have somewhere around 0-45 more years of life. That is very short in comparison with eternity.

I do not trust the Holy Bible, as it was written by Man. Perhaps conveyed to Man by God, but, nonetheless, written by Man. It has been translated numerous times and altered countless times; I would never trust what's written in it.

It has been miraculously preserved over the ages. The message is there, and proven to be very intact. No other book can compare.
The question is not whether you trust the Bible, it is whether you trust God, or even want to hear what He has to say. God was in the very presence of the Jews back in the Old Testament, but a lot of them still rebelled. They just didn't love Him.

I doubt that it is. If it were, why would there be so many people of different religions on Earth? Why would there be atheists? His existance is far from evident. Very far indeed.

Most religions other than true Christianity have the same things in common, actually.

(please correct any of these if wrong)

-New age is about enlightenment and eventually becoming a God. (btw, this is exactly what Satan did, and got Eve to do: become your own God by making your own rules and seeking your own way) New agers are all about meditation and illumination. There are many gods.
-Scientology is about science, technology and ascension to a god-like state....and they like a lot of money from members.
-Christian Science says this life, and sin, is an illusion and we are all perfect. We just have to experience gradual awakening. We are essentially all God.
-Buddhism is about selflessness and doing good deeds until you reach Nirvana. Sounds nice, but it's about you making your own way, and a complete lack of God.
-Hinduism is where you find reincarnation and karma. Life's goal is to realize your spirit is basically the same as the supreme spirit. Everything is one.
-Islam describes Allah(God) who revealed His message, but not Himself. You cannot have a relationship with God. They do not believe Jesus Christ was God's son.
-Atheism promotes science as the ultimate source of knowledge. All things are viewed through the anti-God filter, because God is never considered to be an option. Science discovers things and comes up with answers that are based on man's limited knowledge and exclusion of God from any equation.

That only leaves Christianity and Judaism. These both describe a God who has revealed Himself to humanity and provided a means of having a relationship with Him.
Christianity teaches Jesus Christ fulfilled God's promise and the final revelation of God to the world. He was "God with us."

So what are all these other religions about? It's hard to say, but we can't accept that there are many different paths to the same God. The other religions either have no God, many gods, or say we are gods. A lot of them are about ascending to the level of a god.
There is only one God who claims to be the One and only, the creator of the universe, and who has redeemed mankind. All the others are, I believe, an intelligent ploy by Satan to offer, many, many alternatives to the one true way to worship the one true God. Satan hates God and does not want His children to obey Him. He wants us all to pay for our sins ourselves.

It’s very simple. You can choose to pay for your sins by yourself, which will result in death. Satan is going to pay, and he wants us too as well.

18-01-2009 10:05pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you believe in democracy JammyDodger? If so you do realise that not allowing people to run on a religious mandate is restricting democratic virtues and free speech essentially.

Ok, so a Christian taoiseach is appointed, and he bases some of his decisions in favour of Christianity. How is that fair on all of the people in the country who have completely different belief systems? It isn't. The only way to accomplish a fair society is to seperate religion from political decisions. This doesn't destroy the concept of democracy. I've absolutely no issues with religious people being elected to positions of power; just as long as they don't base any of their decisions on their own personal belief system.

Why not just let them run and let the people decide?

What about minorities?

See we would also have to determine what is a religious agenda, would you ban all people who hold pro-life views, those who hold reasonably conservative views on the family unit?

As long as they aren't basing any of their decisions with regards abortions etc. on their faith.

I think let the people decide.

Again that's neglecting the minorities. If an openly Christian taoiseach was elected, and he based his decisions around Christianity, that just wouldn't be fair.

If they want views like these, they will vote for them, if they don't they won't. If they are voted in, then yes they are what the people want.

What the majority want. If somebody is voted in to a position of power, they should be voted for because of their political beliefs; not because of their religious convictions.

Separation of church and state simply means, that church institutions cannot be directly involved in politics. It's impossible to stop individuals from being moved in their faith to do certain things.

I know that. But, what I'm saying is that people in a position of power shouldn't be allowed, or have the oppertunity, to base decisions they make in favour of their particular belief system.

So not only isn't it fair, it's anti-democratic by definition surely?

I don't believe so. The people are still voting for their leaders.

If secularism is going to be a viable option in the future, the Government would need to consult with those representing people of faith as well as those representing those of no beliefs.

I believe that any decision that the Government, or somebody in a position of power in the Government, make should be kept seperate from their religious convictions. It's a fairer society that way.

philologos · 18-01-2009 10:22pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ok, so a Christian taoiseach is appointed, and he bases some of his decisions in favour of Christianity. How is that fair on all of the people in the country who have completely different belief systems? It isn't. The only way to accomplish a fair society is to seperate religion from political decisions. This doesn't destroy the concept of democracy. I've absolutely no issues with religious people being elected to positions of power; just as long as they don't base any of their decisions on their own personal belief system.

JammyDodger, you still aren't understanding this though. You cannot separate ones religion from a person. It's impossible. If a Christian comes forward and makes legislation that might be favourable to Christianity, it's up to the parliament and the president to be as checks and balances in the political system. If a bill goes through it goes through. If one can argue for something like the traditional family unit, or for pro-life without invoking religious references in the legislation and in the discussion in parliament yet having religious beliefs I don't see how that could be taken as violating any boundary between church and state. What you are suggesting however, is to place limitations on ordinary democratic practice.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What about minorities?

Rights to religious freedom and conscience are secured in the Irish Constitution and have been since it's original in 1937 I think.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

As long as they aren't basing any of their decisions with regards abortions etc. on their faith.

You can't stop them basing decisions on faith, just as much as you can't stop voters. It is up to the parliament to deem if a bill is valid or not, that's why legislation must be voted on before it is passed through.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Again that's neglecting the minorities. If an openly Christian taoiseach was elected, and he based his decisions around Christianity, that just wouldn't be fair.

Again, refer to what I said about the Irish constitution. It isn't neglecting minorities, infact in a PRSTV system like we have in Ireland it's actually very well suited to minorities being represented in politics.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What the majority want. If somebody is voted in to a position of power, they should be voted for because of their political beliefs; not because of their religious convictions.

The people vote in who they like, for whatever reason they like surely. That's what democratic freedom is. We decide who we want to represent us. I would personally think a more grassroots political system would be better than representative democracy, but the more grassroots you go the longer it takes to make decisions. I don't see why we should impose restrictions on democracy. The point of democracy is to support the type of country that the people want to live in, and if the people want to live in a country where pro-life rights are vindicated, and where the traditional family is upheld that's entirely fair.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know that. But, what I'm saying is that people in a position of power shouldn't be allowed, or have the oppertunity, to base decisions they make in favour of their particular belief system.

They have just as much a right as anyone else because of freedom of conscience. Let the people decide, that's what democracy is.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't believe so. The people are still voting for their leaders.

It's anti-democratic as you are restricting the mandate under which people can run for general election. It's adding restrictions to how people decide their candidate, and that freedom should be entirely theirs to make, and it should be the freedom of the candidate to represent themselves in whatever way they want and let the people decide. These are only freedoms.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I believe that any decision that the Government, or somebody in a position of power in the Government, make should be kept seperate from their religious convictions. It's a fairer society that way.

If you are going to impose restrictions upon religious people like in France and Turkey in relation to wearing religious symbols in schools, and government institutions it's only fair that some form of dialogue be made to discuss these moves if they are to affect these people. This would be more of an issue for Muslims and Sikhs rather than Christians although I do occasionally wear a crucifix.

wolfsbane · 21-01-2009 8:30pm

-JammyDodger- said:

The very fact that we're sinners in the first place is ridiculous though. Original sin, to me anyway, is ridiculous and fantastic. Science has disproved, by dozens of methods, that the universe is six thousand years; it's proven (I use proven carefully - of course it's not proven, as science doesn't prove anything; but it's as good as. This isn't an argument over semantics after all) that there could not have been only two ancestors to all humanity (unless you're ignorant to science that is). Therefore, why would we be born with sin that we inherited from a fictitious and factitious human being?

An excellent point. I'll leave that to the Theistic Evolutionists to explain.

We Creationists believe in a literal Adam & Eve and in their fall into sin. Their offspring - us - inherit their fallen natures. So we sin, because we are by nature sinners.

Quote:
You deserve to be in hell.
No, I do not.

God says you do; you say you do not. I wonder who trumps. :rolleyes:

Quote:
You freely choose to commit each of those sinful acts. But I take it you meant you had no choice about being born with a sinful nature. That's true. We inherit that from Adam. But it doesn't mean we are not evil or responsible for our own evil actions. God calls us to repent of them.
Never mind the ones that I choose to commit: Every single person on earth commits them. And as for original sin, see my above comment.

Quite so. All are guilty.

Quote:
Your analogy fails to paint the true picture. Not the freedom-loving slave vs the tyrant Boss, but the hardened criminal vs the Judge who offers a pardon if he turns from his criminal ways.

No, with all honesty, that's just stupid. Maybe if the criminal inherited his crimes from his father; then you're analogy would be valid. The criminal himself is guilty of very little, perhaps calling the judge fictitious, and stealing a few sweets; definitely not deserving of death.

That's your problem - classifying your sins as very little, sweet-stealing: but God sees them as a black-hearted rebellion against Him. The more one sees man's conduct in life, the more one sees the overt and covert evil .

Quote:
Yes, there is so much I'm looking forward to finding out when I meet God. I'm content to wait till then.
You could find a large number of things out right now with science.

Really? You know of a scientific experiment that touches the spirit world?

That way you don't have to gamble with the idea of an afterlife. What if there's none?

If there is none, I will only have lost some years of sexual excess, drunkeness, luxury and power. And I won't remember, so I won't regret.

If there is one, I will enjoy eternity forever with the One who loved me and gave Himself for me. You, however, will remember all the opportunities of forgiveness you rejected, and experience an eternity in the outer darkness.

That's why I try to persuade you to think soberly about God and His word to you.

23-01-2009 4:08pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

An excellent point. I'll leave that to the Theistic Evolutionists to explain.

So, you personally don't personally believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Just curious.

We Creationists believe in a literal Adam & Eve and in their fall into sin. Their offspring - us - inherit their fallen natures. So we sin, because we are by nature sinners.

But I can't accept that as truth. It's just, in my opinion, nonsense.

God says you do; you say you do not. I wonder who trumps. :rolleyes:

Well, personally, I think I do. As I'm real; and I don't believe that god is.

Quite so. All are guilty.

Well I don't believe we're guilty from original sin. So, we're all guilty of breaking some of the ten commandments? Even you are guilty, and you constantly repent, but, at the same time you continually break them. Isn't that a bit pointless? Like saying to a judge that you're sorry over commiting a crime, then just doing it again.

That's your problem - classifying your sins as very little, sweet-stealing: but God sees them as a black-hearted rebellion against Him. The more one sees man's conduct in life, the more one sees the overt and covert evil.

Well God has quite low standards for what he considers a sin so. According to one of the ten commandments, drawing a picture is a sin - "Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images". That isn't really that bad, is it?

Really? You know of a scientific experiment that touches the spirit world?

No, but I know of many that touch things of far greater beauty than the "spirit world".

If there is none, I will only have lost some years of sexual excess, drunkeness, luxury and power. And I won't remember, so I won't regret.

If there is one, I will enjoy eternity forever with the One who loved me and gave Himself for me. You, however, will remember all the opportunities of forgiveness you rejected, and experience an eternity in the outer darkness.

That's certainly a twist on Pascal's Wager.

That's why I try to persuade you to think soberly about God and His word to you.

I've thought about it many, many times. But I've never seen his word to me, where can I find that? The Bible? - No, because that was written by man.

BrianCalgary · 23-01-2009 4:21pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, you personally don't personally believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Just curious..

Oh it's gone up again.:rolleyes:

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But I can't accept that as truth. It's just, in my opinion, nonsense..

Why?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, personally, I think I do. As I'm real; and I don't believe that god is...

Why?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well I don't believe we're guilty from original sin. So, we're all guilty of breaking some of the ten commandments? Even you are guilty, and you constantly repent, but, at the same time you continually break them. Isn't that a bit pointless? Like saying to a judge that you're sorry over commiting a crime, then just doing it again...

Why, don't you believe?
Not pointless, a method whereby one is always striving to do better in ones interpersonal realtionships with God and fellow man. One strives to not repeat th eoffense.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well God has quite low standards for what he considers a sin so. According to one of the ten commandments, drawing a picture is a sin - "Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images". That isn't really that bad, is it?...

This statement shows your complete and utter ignorance JD.
Do not make a graven image for the purpose of worship.

Get educated man.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, but I know of many that touch things of far greater beauty than the "spirit world"...

So you have seen the spirit world?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've thought about it many, many times. But I've never seen his word to me, where can I find that? The Bible? - No, because that was written by man.

So you think man could have made up all the prophecies that have come true?

You are quickly losing credibility here JD. You can't even get one of the basic ten commandments straight, which means that your biblical knowledge is sorely lacking and then you say that it was just written by man. You earlier claimed that it had changed over th ecenturioes, with no proof.

I guess th equestion is: are you teachable?

philologos · 23-01-2009 4:28pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well God has quite low standards for what he considers a sin so. According to one of the ten commandments, drawing a picture is a sin - "Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images". That isn't really that bad, is it?

No, making idols is forbidden that's radically different.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've thought about it many, many times. But I've never seen his word to me, where can I find that? The Bible? - No, because that was written by man.

Men who happen to be consistent with eachother ranging for roughly 3,000 years in time, I wonder how man could be so accurate in prophesying what would be recorded in later Gospel texts concerning Jesus. There are over 300 fulfilled prophesies of Jesus in the Jewish Old Testament. I personally find it incredible that man could have done this without an external force being involved.

As for your question of original sin, I'm not sure if this is the correct standing on it, but I want to start a thread for the Christians to clarify this for you and for me.

robindch · 23-01-2009 4:30pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

This statement shows your complete and utter ignorance JD. [...] Get educated man.

A bit of politeness, Brian, would probably make the debate run more smoothly.

23-01-2009 4:37pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Oh it's gone up again.:rolleyes:

What do you mean it's gone up again?

Why?

Because all of humanity couldn't have came from two ancestors that lived 6000 years ago. It's been proven scientifically that the human species is far older than that.

Why?

Because there is nothing that indicates, to me, that He is.

Why, don't you believe?

I've explained that. Humans could not of originated from two ancestors 6000 years ago.

Not pointless, a method whereby one is always striving to do better in ones interpersonal realtionships with God and fellow man. One strives to not repeat th eoffense.

But some of the offenses are impossible not to re-commit.

This statement shows your complete and utter ignorance JD.
Do not make a graven image for the purpose of worship.

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Where does it say "for the purpose of worship"? Unless it clarifys in the Bible - I don't know. If it does, then I apologise. But, if that's all there is to go on, then, I can't see where you get for the purpose of worhip from.

Get educated man.

Why, thank you kindly. I've actually never thought of doing that - how foolish of me.

So you have seen the spirit world?

No. Have you? And personal experience without tangible proof certainly doesn't count.

So you think man could have made up all the prophecies that have come true?

The prophecies from the OT? Well, I'm sure you're aware, the NT was written after the OT: So it wouldn't of been very hard to make them fit.

If prophecies from the NT have been fulfilled, what are they?

You are quickly losing credibility here JD. You can't even get one of the basic ten commandments straight, which means that your biblical knowledge is sorely lacking and then you say that it was just written by man.

I've quoted what I've always known the second commandment to be. If it's something different, or the Bible elaborates on it, do let me know.

Yes, it was written by man. If it wasn't, who was it written by?

You earlier claimed that it had changed over th ecenturioes, with no proof.

Any book that's that old, that has been translated numerous times, that has been copied and re-copied, is bound of have mistakes. Of course I don't have any proof of this; but, humans aren't infallible.

I guess th equestion is: are you teachable?

Yes, I am. What is this remark supposed to mean?

BrianCalgary · 23-01-2009 5:30pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What do you mean it's gone up again??

It used to 4.5 Billion, then 6 then 10 and now 13.7.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because all of humanity couldn't have came from two ancestors that lived 6000 years ago. It's been proven scientifically that the human species is far older than that.??

I've explained that. Humans could not of originated from two ancestors 6000 years ago.

I know of only one person who would buy into the 6,000 year old Earth. The creationist thinking is 10 -12,000 years which gives plenty of time for the population to be what it is.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But some of the offenses are impossible not to re-commit..

Such as?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Where does it say "for the purpose of worship"? Unless it clarifys in the Bible - I don't know. If it does, then I apologise. But, if that's all there is to go on, then, I can't see where you get for the purpose of worhip from...

I've quoted what I've always known the second commandment to be. If it's something different, or the Bible elaborates on it, do let me know.

Exodus 20:4 (The Second Commandment)
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No. Have you? And personal experience without tangible proof certainly doesn't count....

No I haven't. But you said that this world is more beautiful than the spirit world. So in order to make such a statement, I figure you have been there.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The prophecies from the OT? Well, I'm sure you're aware, the NT was written after the OT: So it wouldn't of been very hard to make them fit.....

Not really. Examine th eprophecies in the Ot regarding the Messiah. They all came true in the life of Christ. If He were merelt man, He could have no control over the circumstances of His birth, nor His death, ie His legs not being broken.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If prophecies from the NT have been fulfilled, what are they?.....

Th eonly prophecies that I am aware of in the NT are Christ prediciting His own death and the circumstances, which all happened. Also He predicted Peters denial three times before the cock crowed, that happened. He predicted teh coming of the Holy Spirit, the donkey tied up in Bethesda. And yet to come is His second coming.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Any book that's that old, that has been translated numerous times, that has been copied and re-copied, is bound of have mistakes. Of course I don't have any proof of this; but, humans aren't infallible.?

You are making an assumption here by saying that it is 'bound to have mistakes'. I don't think that you have really looked into the subject. Throughout the 25,000 manuscripts that have been collected and catalogued of teh NT dating back to the 2nd century AD, they are 98% identical. The only 2% differences are in spelling (I add the letter 'u' into color and odor, for xample) and also texts that are included in wome manuscripts and not others. These texts are clearly indicated in every Bible.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, I am. What is this remark supposed to mean?

You attitude indicates that you know it all without really checking. Your initial comments and assumptions regarding the second commandment a san example. Now that it has been quoted in full I hope that you have learned that art is allowed as long as worship of said art is not occuring.

I also hope that you have learned that the Bible has not changed and that your assumption on that point was ill-informed.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, it was written by man. If it wasn't, who was it written by?.?

In closing, the Bible was written by man under the inspiration of God.

23-01-2009 9:12pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It used to 4.5 Billion, then 6 then 10 and now 13.7.

I think you're getting slightly confused. The current estimate for the age of the universe, the one that has been prominent for as long as I can recall, is 13.7 billion years. The age of Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years.

I know of only one person who would buy into the 6,000 year old Earth. The creationist thinking is 10 -12,000 years which gives plenty of time for the population to be what it is.

It doesn't really matter if it's 6,000 years or 20,000 years: that's just a detail. There is evidence for our ancestors, those of the Homo genus, living in Africa 2 million years ago. Plenty of other ancestors, each getting closer and closer to our current form, have been found, ranging from 2 million years ago to relatively recently. There's just no possible way we originated from two humans anytime in the last 50,000 years.

Such as?

Any one of the seven deadly sins. Or are they not considered sins any more? Genuine question.

Exodus 20:4 (The Second Commandment)
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Thanks for clearing that up. The form I quoted it in was the form that it was always thought to me. But, I stand corrected.

No I haven't. But you said that this world is more beautiful than the spirit world. So in order to make such a statement, I figure you have been there.

Because there is no evidence to suggest the spirit world is in any way real! So from that, anything real is more beautiful than it.

Not really. Examine th eprophecies in the Ot regarding the Messiah. They all came true in the life of Christ. If He were merelt man, He could have no control over the circumstances of His birth, nor His death, ie His legs not being broken.

No, they didn't come true during the life of Christ. They were said to have came true during His life. In that case, since the only evidence of their validity is through the inconsistent word of others, I'm not sure if they were actually fulfilled. The authors of the books of the NT had a lot to gain in seeing that the prophecies of the OT appeared to be fulfilled during the life of Christ. There isn't actually and evidence to suggest that any were genuinely fulfilled.

Th eonly prophecies that I am aware of in the NT are Christ prediciting His own death and the circumstances, which all happened. Also He predicted Peters denial three times before the cock crowed, that happened. He predicted teh coming of the Holy Spirit, the donkey tied up in Bethesda. And yet to come is His second coming.

But again, I, nor anybody else, is sure of their validity. It takes faith to believe they're true, and that doesn't cut it. Jesus mightn't have actually done any of that; He is said to have done it. Like I said before, the authors of the NT had a lot to gain in making it appear that Jesus could fulfill prophecies.

You are making an assumption here by saying that it is 'bound to have mistakes'. I don't think that you have really looked into the subject. Throughout the 25,000 manuscripts that have been collected and catalogued of teh NT dating back to the 2nd century AD, they are 98% identical. The only 2% differences are in spelling (I add the letter 'u' into color and odor, for xample) and also texts that are included in wome manuscripts and not others. These texts are clearly indicated in every Bible.

I'm saying it's bound to have mistakes because humans aren't infallible. You're right, I haven't looked deeply into the subject so it wouldn't be correct of me to draw any conclusions; so, I won't until I know a bit more about it.

You attitude indicates that you know it all without really checking. Your initial comments and assumptions regarding the second commandment a san example. Now that it has been quoted in full I hope that you have learned that art is allowed as long as worship of said art is not occuring.

I also hope that you have learned that the Bible has not changed and that your assumption on that point was ill-informed.

Yes, I have to admit it was ill-informed. I quoted it as it was always thought to me. But now I see how it actually is, I was wrong.

In closing, the Bible was written by man under the inspiration of God.

See, I my personal belief is that it wasn't written under the direct influence of God. Perhaps under inspiration, but I don't believe it was genuine. Of course I don't have any evidence to indicate this; and you don't have any evidence to indicate that this isn't the case. I guess this is where the root of my atheism is, and the root of your theism is: faith.

wolfsbane · 23-01-2009 11:50pm

-JammyDodger- said:

So, you personally don't personally believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Just curious.

Correct.

Quote:
We Creationists believe in a literal Adam & Eve and in their fall into sin. Their offspring - us - inherit their fallen natures. So we sin, because we are by nature sinners.
But I can't accept that as truth. It's just, in my opinion, nonsense.

That's your opinion, and I understand why.

Quote:
God says you do; you say you do not. I wonder who trumps.

Well, personally, I think I do. As I'm real; and I don't believe that god is.

Again, that is your belief, but it doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Quite so. All are guilty.
Well I don't believe we're guilty from original sin. So, we're all guilty of breaking some of the ten commandments? Even you are guilty, and you constantly repent, but, at the same time you continually break them. Isn't that a bit pointless? Like saying to a judge that you're sorry over commiting a crime, then just doing it again.

The difference is in the nature of the true believer as opposed to the unbeliever. The true believer has been set free from the power of sin - it no longer has dominion over him. He falls into sin as an exception to his new nature, but his life is characterised by holiness. The unbeliever, however moral, is still a captive of Satan, and lives a life opposed to God and His way. Only God's restraint keeps him from being monstrously wicked. And even his efforts at morality lead him to pride and self-righteousness.

That's were the believer once was, but God delivered him from that pointless and immoral life. God gave him repentance and faith, and imparted a new nature that seeks to grow in the grace and knowledge of God.

Quote:
That's your problem - classifying your sins as very little, sweet-stealing: but God sees them as a black-hearted rebellion against Him. The more one sees man's conduct in life, the more one sees the overt and covert evil.
Well God has quite low standards for what he considers a sin so. According to one of the ten commandments, drawing a picture is a sin - "Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images". That isn't really that bad, is it?

As my other brethren have pointed out, you completely misread the commandment. It is making images for the purpose of worshiping them that is forbidden.

Quote:
Really? You know of a scientific experiment that touches the spirit world? No, but I know of many that touch things of far greater beauty than the "spirit world".

Since you believe the spirit world does not exist, it would not be hard to find something of far greater beauty than the spirit world. And of course science cannot test the spirit world - in your opinion because it doesn't exist, in mine because it is non-material.

Quote:
If there is none, I will only have lost some years of sexual excess, drunkeness, luxury and power. And I won't remember, so I won't regret.

If there is one, I will enjoy eternity forever with the One who loved me and gave Himself for me. You, however, will remember all the opportunities of forgiveness you rejected, and experience an eternity in the outer darkness.
That's certainly a twist on Pascal's Wager.

Quote:
That's why I try to persuade you to think soberly about God and His word to you.
I've thought about it many, many times. But I've never seen his word to me, where can I find that? The Bible? - No, because that was written by man.

It is indeed written by man. You want God to appear and speak to you in person? It is not enough that He send His servants the prophets and apostles to bring His word to you?

Don'y you think you might have overestimated your status in relation to God?

24-01-2009 2:24pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct.

How do you reconcile modern scientific views with your position? Real question, I'm actually curious.

That's your opinion, and I understand why.

That's fair enough.

Again, that is your belief, but it doesn't make it so.

Again, that's fair.

The difference is in the nature of the true believer as opposed to the unbeliever. The true believer has been set free from the power of sin - it no longer has dominion over him. He falls into sin as an exception to his new nature, but his life is characterised by holiness. The unbeliever, however moral, is still a captive of Satan, and lives a life opposed to God and His way. Only God's restraint keeps him from being monstrously wicked. And even his efforts at morality lead him to pride and self-righteousness.

That's were the believer once was, but God delivered him from that pointless and immoral life. God gave him repentance and faith, and imparted a new nature that seeks to grow in the grace and knowledge of God.

That's an interesting view. But, in my opinion, it's impossible for a non-believer to become a believer, at their whim.

As my other brethren have pointed out, you completely misread the commandment. It is making images for the purpose of worshiping them that is forbidden.

Yes. I won't make that mistake again.:)

Since you believe the spirit world does not exist, it would not be hard to find something of far greater beauty than the spirit world. And of course science cannot test the spirit world - in your opinion because it doesn't exist, in mine because it is non-material.

That doesn't make sense. If I believe it doesn't exist, then, anything real is more beautiful than it. Because anything real is exactly that, real. It's an interesting topic to persue, but, knowing the history of religious debates, I can't see either side getting anywhere.

It is indeed written by man. You want God to appear and speak to you in person? It is not enough that He send His servants the prophets and apostles to bring His word to you?

But, you see, I don't trust man. Humans are very dishonest, biased creatures. It is said that he has sent his prophets and servants, but, this is said by humans; and, as I've said, humans aren't a very trustworthy creature.

Don'y you think you might have overestimated your status in relation to God?

Not exactly, no.

wolfsbane · 25-01-2009 5:20pm

-JammyDodger- said:

How do you reconcile modern scientific views with your position? Real question, I'm actually curious.

See The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread. But be warned!!!

Quote:
The difference is in the nature of the true believer as opposed to the unbeliever. The true believer has been set free from the power of sin - it no longer has dominion over him. He falls into sin as an exception to his new nature, but his life is characterised by holiness. The unbeliever, however moral, is still a captive of Satan, and lives a life opposed to God and His way. Only God's restraint keeps him from being monstrously wicked. And even his efforts at morality lead him to pride and self-righteousness.

That's were the believer once was, but God delivered him from that pointless and immoral life. God gave him repentance and faith, and imparted a new nature that seeks to grow in the grace and knowledge of God.
That's an interesting view. But, in my opinion, it's impossible for a non-believer to become a believer, at their whim.

I agree. I takes an act of God to remove the inbuilt hostility of the human heart.

But that is not our business - our business is to repent and believe when we hear His gospel call. He guarantees to accept all who do so. Only when we do will we be able to look back and know that it was God first changing our hearts that enabled us to turn to Him in love and obedience.

Quote:
Since you believe the spirit world does not exist, it would not be hard to find something of far greater beauty than the spirit world. And of course science cannot test the spirit world - in your opinion because it doesn't exist, in mine because it is non-material.
That doesn't make sense. If I believe it doesn't exist, then, anything real is more beautiful than it.

Yes, that's what I said.

Quote:
It is indeed written by man. You want God to appear and speak to you in person? It is not enough that He send His servants the prophets and apostles to bring His word to you?
But, you see, I don't trust man.

That is very wise of you. A good starting point on the search for God.

Humans are very dishonest, biased creatures. It is said that he has sent his prophets and servants, but, this is said by humans; and, as I've said, humans aren't a very trustworthy creature.

Quite right. So you need to ask God, if He is there, to give you discernment about this book - is it from Him or not. Is it His word given by His faithful servants, under His inspiration? You need to have that confirmed in your heart if you are to embrace it. That's what God does for those whom He is going to save:
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

Tomk1 · 25-01-2009 11:27pm

PDN wrote: »

I don't think God forced him to do it.

This speaks a thousand words

Húrin · 26-01-2009 12:19am

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The very fact that we're sinners in the first place is ridiculous though. Original sin, to me anyway, is ridiculous and fantastic.

The fact that we are all sinners is surely obvious? Whether there was a recorded original sin or not, it is clear that all of us do wrong.

You could find a large number of things out right now with science. That way you don't have to gamble with the idea of an afterlife. What if there's none?

Does science provide an answer to the question of an afterlife?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No. Have you? And personal experience without tangible proof certainly doesn't count.

ARe you asking for scientific proof of the spirit world?

PDN · 26-01-2009 2:12am

Tomk1 wrote: »

This speaks a thousand words

It would probably add more to the discussion if you actually shared what you think some of those words might be.

BrianCalgary · 26-01-2009 5:32pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Any one of the seven deadly sins. Or are they not considered sins any more? Genuine question.
.

I dont know what the seven deadly sins are? Honest.

27-01-2009 7:17pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I dont know what the seven deadly sins are? Honest.

I've always thought the Seven Deadly Sins were still considered to be, well, sins. Maybe they're not - I really don't know. Could somebody clarify for me, please?

27-01-2009 7:19pm

Húrin wrote: »

The fact that we are all sinners is surely obvious? Whether there was a recorded original sin or not, it is clear that all of us do wrong.

Yes, we do. I acknowledge that we all may sin - but, my trouble lies with some of this sin being attributed to original sin.

Does science provide an answer to the question of an afterlife?

No, of course not. That isn't what I was implying with what I said.

ARe you asking for scientific proof of the spirit world?

No, again, I'm not.

27-01-2009 7:22pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

See The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread. But be warned!!!

I've wanted to look through it for a while now, but, it's just far too large!

Fanny Cradock · 27-01-2009 7:27pm

I would advise you to stop worrying about it and get on with your life!

27-01-2009 7:38pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would advise you to stop worrying about it and get on with your life!

To stop worrying about what?

PDN · 27-01-2009 7:40pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've always thought the Seven Deadly Sins were still considered to be, well, sins. Maybe they're not - I really don't know. Could somebody clarify for me, please?

They are sins, but the Bible does not mark them out specifically as being worse than other sins. That is more a bit of Roman Catholic tradition. So non-Catholics, such as Brian (and myself) wouldn't even be able to name the Seven Deadly Sins by memory.

Fanny Cradock · 27-01-2009 7:40pm

The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.

(it was a joke)

philologos · 27-01-2009 7:41pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would advise you to stop worrying about it and get on with your life!

Nice paraphrasing of the atheist bus campaign Fanny Craddock, I wonder how many actually do believe that though if they are so concerned about us believers

27-01-2009 7:44pm

PDN wrote: »

They are sins, but the Bible does not mark them out specifically as being worse than other sins. That is more a bit of Roman Catholic tradition. So non-Catholics, such as Brian (and myself) wouldn't even be able to name the Seven Deadly Sins by memory.

Oh right, ok. Thanks for the clarification; I just wasn't too sure about that one.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.

(it was a joke)

Oh right right, I thought you meant to stop worring about the seven deadly sins.:pac:

BrianCalgary · 29-01-2009 3:59pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've always thought the Seven Deadly Sins were still considered to be, well, sins. Maybe they're not - I really don't know. Could somebody clarify for me, please?

Thanks for the link.

lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride

I think I've got most of them taken care of, by the grace of God.

Interesting how most can be interpreted differently. If I were to make a comment on the attractiveness of a woman soemone could easily shout - lust.
I make a little extra money by working overtime and a jealous colleague shouts - greed.

The power.:cool:

Mr Judas

Comments